Quais são as duas maneiras para peticionar por asilo humanitário?
April Perez • February 24, 2023
Click here to read this article in English
O asilo é um pedido que permite um indivíduo permanecer nos Estados Unidos ao invés de ser removido ou precisar retornar para o seu país natal, onde ela ou ele tema perseguição ou outros perigos. A aplicação para o asilo pode ser preenchida de duas maneiras.
Asilo Afirmativo
Uma aplicação afirmativa para asilo pode ser preenchida por alguém que não está em processo de remoção (corte de imigração). A pessoa poderá preencher a aplicação e evidência com o departamento de asilo que corresponda com a área que a pessoa esteja morando. Uma vez que a pessoa consiga o agendamento para a entrevista, essa entrevista será conduzida no escritório de asilo com um oficial da USCIS. Caso a pessoa possua um advogado(a), ele ou ela também poderá estar presente na entrevista junto com um tradutor, caso seja necessário. O aplicante precisará fazer um juramento e o oficial irá fazer perguntas sobre a aplicação para confirmar e atualizar as informações do processo. O oficial também perguntará sobre as perseguições que a pessoa sofreu em seu país natal. A decisão normalmente é enviada por correspondência, ou também poderá ser recolhida pessoalmente pelo aplicante no escritório de asilo em uma data e hora determinada pelo oficial. Se o caso for negado e o aplicante não possuir um status, ele ou ela será designado para a corte de imigração e terá uma oportunidade de apresentar o seu caso para o juiz. Se o aplicante possuir um status, ele poderá permanecer nesse mesmo status.
Asilo Defensivo
Uma aplicação defensiva para asilo é requisitada por um indivíduo que já está em um processo de remoção ou está sendo processado pela corte de imigração. A pessoa foi encaminhada para o tribunal quando recebeu uma intimação para comparecer ou a pessoa se entregou na fronteira e pediu por asilo. A aplicação e evidência são submetidas para o tribunal, e uma vez que ocorreu a oitiva, ou o depoimento pessoal é agendado, o aplicante terá a oportunidade de explicar as perseguições sofridas em seu país natal. O juiz irá sentenciar no final da oitiva ou escrever sua decisão, que será recebida por correios em uma data futura. Em uma situação que o caso é negado, o aplicante pode recorrer para a o Órgão de Recurso Imigratório (Board of Immigration Appeals – BIA). Caso contrário, o aplicante deverá seguir as instruções da sentença do juiz em relação a remoção.
Caso você queira verificar se você qualifica para o processo de asilo, sinta-se à vontade para entrar em contato com nosso escritório.
Este blog não se destina a ser um aconselhamento jurídico e nada aqui deve ser interpretado como estabelecimento de uma relação cliente-advogado. Por favor, agende uma consulta com um advogado de imigração, antes de agir baseado em qualquer informação lida neste blog.
This Facebook widget is no longer supported.
Similar Posts
Under the new regulation, if a person filed or files Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal after October 1, 2024, and the application remains pending with USCIS for 365 days, the applicant must pay an Annual Asylum Fee (AAF) on the one-year anniversary of his or her filing date.
As of April 1, 2024, USCIS has instituted an inflation adjustment to immigration application filing fees . These fee increases apply to a majority of the different application types, including family-based, non-immigrant, and immigrant petitions. As a part of these fee increases, USCIS has also instituted a new program designed to provide funding to the United States’ Asylum Program, in order to better address the massive backlog of pending asylum claims currently waiting to be adjudicated. Unfortunately, these changes have led to confusion among petitioners for when they are required to pay the Asylum Program Fee, and when they may qualify for a 50% or complete exemption from the fee. The Asylum Program Fee is required to be submitted by employers in all I-129 and I-140 petitions filed on or after April 1, 2024. The Asylum Program Fee is $600, however, certain exemptions apply . Small employers , defined as having 25 or fewer total employees, qualify for a reduction of the Asylum Program Fee, but are still required to submit a reduced fee of $300. Individual petitioners, or self-petitions, such as in the case of an EB-2 National Interest Waiver, are considered small employers for the purpose of the Asylum Program Fee and are also required to submit the reduced $300 fee. Non-profit organizations are exempted from the Asylum Program fee and are not required to submit any additional funds with the ordinary I-129 or I-140 filing fee. In addition, non-profits qualify for a 50% reduction of the ordinary filing fee in certain types of applications, bringing the overall filing fee burden down substantially for non-profit organizations. With these changes to USCIS’ filing fee schedule, USCIS is hoping for significant improvements to efficiency and processing for pending asylum applicants. If you or your petitioning organization need any assistance in preparing an application for an immigration benefit, including ensuring proper compliance with the new fee requirements, our office is ready and waiting to help!
On January 14, 2026, the Trump administration announced a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries . The administration states that this “visa freeze” is intended to review security protocols, “reduce risks,” and control immigration flows. However, the immediate reality is that this change in policy has temporarily suspended visa processing and restricted travel for applicants from numerous countries across the globe. While the legal landscape surrounding these suspensions is highly fluid and subject to change, it is important to consider how this “visa freeze” might impact your current status or immigration plans. The scope of the restrictions varies drastically depending on your country of origin and specific visa category. Most notably, a nationality-based travel ban restricts visa issuance for 19 countries : Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Beyond this targeted ban, a broader freeze affects applicants from a designated list of up to 75 countries, leading to indefinite delays for many visa petitions. However, it is important to note that immigrant visa applications first need to be processed through USCIS, which has not paused processing applications from the 75 countries. Thus, it is important to contact an attorney to understand at what point in the process this visa freeze may affect your case. While Brazil is included in the list of 75 countries, at the time of this publication, the freeze does not include non-immigrant visas for Brazil . Non-immigrant visas are granted to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for specific purposes, such as tourism, studying, or temporary work. This means that Brazilian applicants can still safely pursue non-immigrant employment options, such as O visas for individuals with extraordinary ability or P visas for internationally recognized athletes, without being subjected to the current travel bans or suspensions. This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are many changes and uncertainties, so please consult with a qualified attorney at Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. to understand how these evolving policies might affect your specific case
Recent data in 2026 shows a sharp increase in Requests for Evidence across employment-based visa categories such as EB-1, EB-2 NIW, O, and H-1B. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) are no longer reserved for borderline cases; even robust petitions for high-level talent are facing unprecedented scrutiny. The expansion of the USCIS Vetting Center means automated tools are cross-referencing every petition, triggering RFEs for even the smallest inconsistencies. For EB-2 NIW petitions, adjudicators are increasingly questioning the "National Importance" of a candidate’s endeavor. Even for those with impressive credentials, USCIS now demands evidence of how their work specifically benefits the U.S. on a prospective basis. For O-1A and O-1B visas, officers are applying narrower interpretations of "distinction" and "extraordinary ability," often mischaracterizing evidence already present in the record. Additionally, a troubling 2026 trend is the correlation between Premium Processing and RFEs . For discretionary categories like EB-1A and EB-2 NIW, Premium Processing has increasingly become a "fast track" to a poorly reasoned RFE. Reports indicate that adjudicators, pressured by 15-business-day timelines, may be relying on AI-assisted vetting tools that trigger automated RFEs with general and boilerplate language, rather than a thorough review and analysis of supporting documents and evidence filed. With USCIS employing more rigorous AI-driven vetting and a narrower interpretation of visa criteria, the margin for error has disappeared . As such, ensure you consult with an experienced immigration attorney before filing a petition. ' If you have any questions, please schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, and we will be more than happy to assist you.
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for multiple countries, sparking a wave of last-minute litigation and creating significant uncertainty for beneficiaries. This shift is having a profound impact on those who rely on TPS for lawful presence and work authorization in the United States. Across the country, federal courts have intervened to pause or block scheduled TPS terminations for several countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Syria. In response to these court orders, USCIS has updated its webpages to indicate that TPS status and related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are extended for these populations. However, USCIS is intentionally not providing specific new end dates for EAD validity while the litigation remains in flux. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prominently noted that it "vehemently disagrees" with these court orders and is actively working with the Department of Justice on next steps. This legal landscape remains highly unpredictable and varies drastically depending on the country of origin. For example, on February 9, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay allowing the government to proceed with the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal while the underlying legal challenges continue. Because of this ruling, the automatic extension of work authorization for these individuals has ended, and employers are now required to reverify the work authorization of affected employees, who must present alternative valid documentation to continue their employment. These rapid changes and the lack of clear end dates are causing complications beyond the workplace. Because driver's licenses often track the length of an individual's authorized stay, many DMVs are currently declining to issue or renew driver's licenses for impacted TPS populations. For employers, managing internal communications, avoiding onboarding errors, and navigating Form I-9 compliance has become increasingly complex. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared and proactive in monitoring these rapid changes. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, and supported. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
