USCIS introduces First Ever Fee Waiver Form

[Tick Tock 3]

Makes sense now, I knew they would find a way for the public to pay the immigration fees!

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=50d3965468f0d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=50d3965468f0d210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

I checked the link you provided, but read the following:

A filing fee of $985.00 for each applicant per Form I-485 instructions.

* Since the Help HAITI Act does exempt applicants from public charge inadmissibility, USCIS cannot waive the filing fee.

Biometrics fee and I-693 (which tends to require payment set by individual Civil Surgeons) are also listed.

I am not sure how the public is paying for immigration fees in this specific case (Help Haiti Act).

Not sure if I'm understanding things wrong but it does read to me like people will have to pay filing fees.

[Robby999 1,024]

I checked the link you provided, but read the following:

Biometrics fee and I-693 (which tends to require payment set by individual Civil Surgeons) are also listed.

I am not sure how the public is paying for immigration fees in this specific case (Help Haiti Act).

Not sure if I'm understanding things wrong but it does read to me like people will have to pay filing fees.

Since they are exempt , they can receive medicaid, food stamps, and other means tested services or funds! If they receive means tested funds the waivers are usually granted!

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Outreach/Interim%20Guidance%20for%20Comment/fee-waiver-11-22-10.pdf

[aguilayserpiente 2]

Ridiculous. If you can't afford the fee, you have no business sponsoring an immigrant.

I have to agree. We've all had to provide proof that we can support our spouse (or whomever) fully. If you can't afford the fees, how can you be able to support your spouse?

This waiver is specifically designed [...] The alien then goes on Soc sec disability.

I wonder if people take the time to consider that there may principled reasons why one thing like a fee or requirement may be appropriate for some persons but not for others. For example, a fee waiver may be entirely appropriate for a veteran of the armed forces, who lost her eyesight in combat leaving her disfigured, has her modest veteran's benefits of $900 per month, and the veteran's Section 8 housing voucher valued at about $1200 per month, purchased a $200,000 home with the voucher, and happened to find someone abroad, who cared for her irrespective of her disfigurement and her modest life. For that person, who, through no fault of her own, is disabled, has a fixed income, for whom $1000 in potential visa/documents fees approximates 10% of her annual income, and has the non-income asset of the voucher, a fee waiver is appropriate.

The mind set behind "We've all had to" comply with some requirement lacks a principled reason in its entirety and is irrelevant. We are all prohibited from walking into a Federal Building and Courthouse with our pet dog. We all had to leave our dog at home. However, disabled persons may take their service animal with them into any building open to the public because our values codified in the American's with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act guarantee that no disabled person may be excluded from the services and facilities of government.

I think we can do better than think in sound bites.

Edited May 24, 2011 by aguilayserpiente

[patient2010 93]

thanks for sharing

[Alexmat1 9]

On 5/23/2011 at 6:44 PM, aguilayserpiente said:

I wonder if people take the time to consider that there may principled reasons why one thing like a fee or requirement may be appropriate for some persons but not for others. For example, a fee waiver may be entirely appropriate for a veteran of the armed forces, who lost her eyesight in combat leaving her disfigured, has her modest veteran's benefits of $900 per month, and the veteran's Section 8 housing voucher valued at about $1200 per month, purchased a $200,000 home with the voucher, and happened to find someone abroad, who cared for her irrespective of her disfigurement and her modest life. For that person, who, through no fault of her own, is disabled, has a fixed income, for whom $1000 in potential visa/documents fees approximates 10% of her annual income, and has the non-income asset of the voucher, a fee waiver is appropriate.

The mind set behind "We've all had to" comply with some requirement lacks a principled reason in its entirety and is irrelevant. We are all prohibited from walking into a Federal Building and Courthouse with our pet dog. We all had to leave our dog at home. However, disabled persons may take their service animal with them into any building open to the public because our values codified in the American's with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act guarantee that no disabled person may be excluded from the services and facilities of government.

I think we can do better than think in sound bites.

The fee waiver is rightly designed so that no one who is not eligible will get it. So USCIS will take care of it.

[Divided States 33]

1 hour ago, Alexmat1 said:

The fee waiver is rightly designed so that no one who is not eligible will get it. So USCIS will take care of it.

You responded to a 9 years old comment, just saying.

[Alexmat1 9]

34 minutes ago, Divided States said:

You responded to a 9 years old comment, just saying.

I know I am 9 years late, but that comment did deserve attention ! It was more bias than any information . 

[TBoneTX 45,652]

Ancient thread is now closed to further comment.