Relative was issued a notice to a appear, but at the same time is also receiving ACA subsidies via USC spouse

[dave312 0]

Long story short, my relative's I-751 filed on the basis of her marriage with her ex-spouse was denied and she was issued a notice to appear.

 

It's been several years since and she's remarried to another USC spouse. The USC spouse submitted a marketplace application in his name, but with my relative as the beneficiary. 

 

They were also eligible for ACA subsidies, which they are currently receiving every month.

 

When the marketplace couldn't verify her status and asked for more evidence, they submitted only their I-130 receipt from USCIS, but not the notice to appear. 

 

This was apparently enough for the marketplace and they sent a notice stating that her status was verified.

 

After some research it looks like she is not eligible for ACA coverage due to her not having any actual status.

 

Their lawyer told them that her only avenue of relief from deportation at this point was to try for a cancellation of removal via her USC spouse.

 

However, we are worried that her having received entitlement from the government might hurt her cancellation of removal chances and she might receive a "public charge" on top of what she has already.

 

What should she do at this point to mitigate that risk?

 

Should her spouse pay back the subsidies and withdraw the application?

 

Do nothing and decline to receive them in the future?

 

Would the immigration authorities be able to find out that she's receiving subsidies? The application is under her spouse's name.

 

From my point of view, her cancellation of removal chances are not exactly superb (maybe 20-50%) and, with the recent case backlog, she might not see a merits hearing in 3-6 years or maybe even longer. That is a very long time to live without insurance.

Edited February 12, 2018 by dave312
added separator

[Boiler 45,564]

Seriously not a good idea to impose yourself on such a situation especially where you relative has a legal team involved.

 

Obvious way to mitigate the risk is to buy Insurance without claiming any credit.

 

Most CoR's I have seen seem to be a delaying action.

[dave312 0]

Thanks for your response.

 

Their attorney cannot give them a definite answer on how they should proceed. I don't think most immigration attorneys know much about the ACA. It's a relatively new development and I imagine that the subset of their clients who are in removal proceedings, is married to a USC spouse, and have ACA coverage is probably minuscule or non-existent. 

 

They can drop their current coverage and refrain from applying for future coverage, but that still leaves the question of what to do about their previous subsidies. 

 

51 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Most CoR's I have seen seem to be a delaying action.

Can you please elaborate? Are you saying that the typical COR has a low chance of success, but will allow for the deportee to remain in the country a little longer?

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by dave312

[Boiler 45,564]

ACA has been around a long time and I would not expect an immigration lawyer to have any more knowledge about it than the average Joe, the rules are on line but the issue sounds more the subsidy, anybody can buy Insurance.

 

To put it the other way around would she be subject to the penalty if she did not have it, I assume not.

 

CoR seems often to be the last hurrah, how many have extreme and unusual hardships?, does depend on where you file but no doubt the Lawyer has discussed all that.

[dave312 0]

20 minutes ago, Boiler said:

ACA has been around a long time and I would not expect an immigration lawyer to have any more knowledge about it than the average Joe, the rules are on line but the issue sounds more the subsidy, anybody can buy Insurance.

 

To put it the other way around would she be subject to the penalty if she did not have it, I assume not.

 

CoR seems often to be the last hurrah, how many have extreme and unusual hardships?, does depend on where you file but no doubt the Lawyer has discussed all that.

We live in a pretty conservative state, so that's why I'm not exactly optimistic about her chances. In addition, USCIS found that she had committed fraud in the process, so that is another nail in the coffin. 

 

Given that context and her minuscule chance of obtaining COR, I don't think it's even worth it to try and pay back the subsidies. 

 

First of all, she would be putting herself back in the spot light.

Second, the healthcare.gov application states that they will not share information with DHS, except to verify one's status, and the DHS states that they won't use it against the immigrant. That means that there is a good chance it might not even be brought up in removals.

Third, only my relative is currently working, so their income is legitimately low enough to receive subsidies. They do not have the means to purchase private insurance.

Fourth, it's been several years since her NTA was issued, and it could another couple of years (hopefully) before the hearing is scheduled. That would be a long time without insurance.

Edited February 12, 2018 by dave312

[Boiler 45,564]

2 second Google

 

People with the following statuses and who have employment authorization qualify for the Marketplace:

Registry Applicants

Order of Supervision

Applicant for Cancellation of Removal or Suspension of Deportation

Applicant for Legalization under Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

Legalization under the LIFE Act

[dave312 0]

19 minutes ago, Boiler said:

2 second Google

 

People with the following statuses and who have employment authorization qualify for the Marketplace:

Registry Applicants

Order of Supervision

Applicant for Cancellation of Removal or Suspension of Deportation

Applicant for Legalization under Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)

Legalization under the LIFE Act

Yes, I read everything on the website already. 

 

She's not in removal yet, so they obviously haven't filed for cancellation. 

 

I'm positive that what you copy/pasted only applies to people who apply for healthcare after applying for COR.