Public Charge

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

So does that mean that we will have to move out of the Section 8 housing so that I don't benefit from the public assistance once I get there?

This might be a good read for you and pertains to "mixed eligibility families":

http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=hud_resources_russell

[Cody and Daisy 374]

Your advice is wrong and contrary to what all the posters before you have said.

SMA said

As a US citizen, he is entitled to that public assistance. When you eventually enter on a K-1 visa, you will not be, however, which is why you need a co-sponsor. Since you already have a co-sponsor lined up, you have nothing to worry about."

-Need a co-sponsor since the US citizen has public assistance and is entitled to it, someone coming on a K1 is not.

Kay said

The US citizen is entitled to public assistance. The public charge issue is not about the USC. It is about the immigrant. They want to know that the immigrant will not become a public charge. Having a co-sponsor helps, but there is still a chance the CO can deny when the USC has been on public assistance forever and they feel the immigrant will be too. It would be better if he qualified for public assistance but could still meet the income requirement on his own. All you can do is try with the co-sponsor and hope the CO is okay with it.

Same thing- The immigrant is not entitled to public assistance, a change the CO can deny if they feel the Immigrant will also be on public assistance,

Would be better if there was a co-sponsor.

Mimo said

Section 8 is a means tested benefit, meaning public assistance. When you get aid from the government whether it's food stamps. welfare or section 8, the money comes from government assistance

Explaining section 8 is public assistance. Something immigrants cannot have.

I said

I think the problem people are saying is that he is getting public assistance now.

You cannot move there and then get out of PS.

It would have to be done before your interview.

If he is living on benefits and cannot earn enough to support you financially then it's a strong case for denial.

I don't know how they feel about co sponsors there.And you will have trouble getting approved because of it.

(this wouldn't quote)

The problem is the USC getting public assistance now.

Strong chance of denial if the CO thinks the immigrant will also be on public assistance.

You cannot move to the states and live on public assistance if they do not have a co-sponsor at least that covers what they need above the poverty line.

I was not giving advice that I thought was 100% correct, that's why i wrote "I THINK".

Tell me why my "advice" was wrong and contrary to what the others had said.

no one here is going to give 100% accurate advice on something that:

A: hasnt even been started yet

B: does not know how the CO will react

C: cannot foresee the future and if the USC will still be on public assistance or not or if it even will be an issue.

I said pretty much what the others said in a lesser sense because the OP had bumped the thread and obviously wanted someone to say something.

I always try and help people on here the best I can, and If I am wrong, I would appreciate being told why I am wrong so I can help better in the future.

INSTEAD of just coming into a topic telling someone they are wrong and not backing upanything you said because of it.

/rantover

Edited February 15, 2015 by Cody and Daisy

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

If the income requirements are being met for sponsorship, it is not generally a problem if the USC is getting benefits from the government. Lots of people have been approved in similar circumstances. Does someone receiving section 8 have income above 125% of the poverty line for their family size or meet the asset requirements? That is probably unlikely, however, the section 8 is not so much the problem, but the income requirements for support. So, hence the need for a co-sponsor.

Income is the driving factor for the co-sponsor, not government benefits.

P.S. VJ is not a debate forum, your advice was wrong and even summarized the posters above you incorrectly. Don't give advice about things you are not familiar with.

COs have discretion with everything, do we need to state that with every post?

Edited February 15, 2015 by N-o-l-a

[Cody and Daisy 374]

If the income requirements are being met for sponsorship, it is not generally a problem if the USC is getting benefits from the government. Lots of people have been approved in similar circumstances. Does someone receiving section 8 have income above 125% of the poverty line for their family size or meet the asset requirements? That is probably unlikely, however, the section 8 is not so much the problem, but the income requirements for support. So, hence the need for a co-sponsor.

Income is the driving factor for the co-sponsor, not government benefits.

P.S. VJ is not a debate forum, your advice was wrong and even summarized the posters above you incorrectly. Don't give advice about things you are not familiar with.

COs have discretion with everything, do we need to state that with every post?

I do not see what I am wrong about with what the other posters have said.

This isn't about the USC, this is about the immigrant being a public charge.

I am not saying the section 8 is a problem.

The OP gave the impression they would move out of section 8 AFTER arrival. Not fixing it beforehand.

qualified aliens and refugees are permitted to have section 8 housing under the PRWOR Act of 1996.

Once the NUSC has received their greencard then none of this will be an issue,

but the point is, it is unlikely to be approved without a co-sponsor at least!

THIS is what I have been saying and IS what everyone else said.

You are right this is not a debate forum, but you have not indicated what I said was wrong.

I am familiar with public benefits because moving to america on a k1 and not being able to work puts a strain on the house even if your partner earns 50-60k a year!

We know COs have discretion, but poverty lines have to be met and that is the issue.

If the OP has a co-sponsor then they have done everything they can and its completely up to the CO.

you are correct, everyone else is correct and I have been saying the same thing.

So unless you can point out specifically what I am wrong about, I don't see what you're talking about.

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

I do not see what I am wrong about with what the other posters have said.

This isn't about the USC, this is about the immigrant being a public charge.

I am not saying the section 8 is a problem.

The OP gave the impression they would move out of section 8 AFTER arrival. Not fixing it beforehand.

qualified aliens and refugees are permitted to have section 8 housing under the PRWOR Act of 1996.

Once the NUSC has received their greencard then none of this will be an issue,

but the point is, it is unlikely to be approved without a co-sponsor at least!

Yes, they can legally do it, if they inform the issuing authority in their state, regardless of whether they are illegal or legal at the time. Then, they must abide by the issuing authorities determination regarding pro-rated rent or termination of benefits.

The greencard changes nothing, for HUD purposes an illegal immigrant spouse is treated mostly the same as a regular LPR with less than 5 years of residency.

Let's agree to disagree about what your post said.

Edited February 15, 2015 by N-o-l-a

[nanaaalex 49]

This might be a good read for you and pertains to "mixed eligibility families":

http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=hud_resources_russell

Thank you for the link

[KayDeeCee 4,896]

I think the issue was that you were insisting they could not be in section 8 housing and needed to get out of it before their fiancee could interview for the K-1 and come to the US. As the link Nola posted shows, the ineligible person can live with them. They just need to be reported and then the rent amount would be pro-rated to exclude benefits for someone that is not eligible. A green card does not automatically qualify you for public assistance either. You need to have been a LPR for at least 5 years first.

The problem is not that they live in section 8 housing. The problem is meeting the income requirement and convincing the CO that the immigrant will not become a public charge once in the US. The use of the co-sponsor may be enough, but I was making the point that it is possible even having a co-sponsor would not convince the CO. I just wanted the OP to be prepared and not think using a co-sponsor was an automatic approval, even if probable.

[PRC Rabbit 40]

It's a shame so many  people use the phrase "public assistance" so loosely that  it confounds people.  It's a few years since this thread but for all the folks  trying to learn about visa income requirements and Section 8, first learn to differentiate between the terms people use to avoid being misled.  "Public Assistance" or PA or Cash Assistance or Welfare are different names for  cash  assistance programs that pay cash directly to the recipients. PA programs are administered by the States (that's why 50 different names) funded by the federal block grant program "Temporary Aid to Needy Families" (TANF).   Too many people conclude that  all  economic assistance  must  be "Public Assistance" and it's just not true. As an adjective and verb combo yes, but this is not Webster's Dictionary it's the VJ forum.

 

Likewise, there are many  different economic aid programs funded by  federal grant money from HPD that fall under Section 8.  Most Section 8 grants require the recipient to have their own income/be working/employed.  Many people acquire Section 8 without  being poor as when large private landlords with thousands of  rental units  need renovations that their own shoddy business practices  have made impossible to finance.  When large, private Landlords  cannot afford to finance  their own renovations,  the Federal Government will step-in (eg Housing Choice Voucher Program-1 of many Section 8 plans) and the Property Owner gets the financing to invest in their own private business property while the government pays the renovation costs/loans  by way of individual vouchers to the individual tenants to pay the new rents that often triple or quadruple.  So lambasting tenants on Section 8 when they obtained it because their Landlord needed the financing is like blaming sick people for the cost of Health insurance: It's Bullshit. Too many VJ's Post  first &  think later as they  blame  the poor for being poor.

 

Section 8 Money is just one more  deceptive (but helpful)  way government money gets paid to private ruling class/upper class land  owners.  Please stop blaming the poor, love-struck people trying to make a family who merely happen to have Section 8 of one variety or another.  Many Section 8 recipients are but cogs in a giant machine that profits the rich and screws the poor.  The Section 8 recipients never see that money it goes directly to the landlord-property owners. 

 

VJ is for helping people understand the USCIS process.  Please stop grinding  political axes.

Edited May 22, 2017 by PRC Rabbit

[Ontarkie 14,609]

~~Zombie thread locked to further comments. Please do not bring up old threads as these cause more confusion to members when they are resurrected.~~