Final public charge rule

[DelilahBrz 48]

On 8/12/2019 at 5:47 PM, Cilllah said:

I woke up this morning feeling sick when somebody showed me this and I’m wondering if it’ll impact me moving to be with my fiancé.

 

We we’re going to apply in September this year but would it make sense to do it this month? We were just trying to balance it with us wanting to move next September.

 

We are both currently students who are about to graduate but I haven’t worked for the past two years due to having a baby and studying full time. However I still receive money in Australia and have a house deposit ready to go.

 

His father is going to sponsor us for K1. I’m just wondering are we screwed? Is there anything I can do to make sure we are ok? Is all hope lost?

I-485 applications must be sent and accepted by uscis by october 15 to avoid the new policy

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

4 minutes ago, DelilahBrz said:

I-485 applications must be sent and accepted by uscis by october 15 to avoid the new policy

I don't he/she has applied for the K-1 yet......

[ujones 148]

If the sponsor is self employed or retired can they still show assets to qualify the income requirements? If so have they changed the minimum on that ? No where could I find anything about how they would count assets based on new rules

[ujones 148]

6 minutes ago, DelilahBrz said:

I-485 applications must be sent and accepted by uscis by october 15 to avoid the new policy

@DelilahBrz, so once we get NOA1 after filing 1-485 the new changes aren’t  applicable to our  case ... is that right ? 

[Unlockable 7,315]

1 hour ago, azblk said:

1. I dont know if you are just being facetious or obtuse but with these new rule changes will make it much more harder for people who come from certain places to immigrate.

2. This is not about unwashed masses of africans/asians or latin americans getting on boats and coming over without any controls whatsoever, There has already been very controls on who can come over and now they have even been made more stricter. This is telling American citizens that they can not sponsor thier spouses, parents and family if they come from certain places unless you make so much money blah blah.

3. There is NO law that prohibits an immigrant that using welfare benefits that they QUALIFY for. There is already prohibitions of using welfare in the first 5 years of LPR status or until you become a citizen and they were working well.  I don't know how many things this administration has to do for you see that their goal on immigration is to severely curtail it or at least change where people are coming from. If you don't believe me believe Trump, he said it himself - " why don't we have more immigrants from Norway instead of from hole countries?". Everything they have done since taking power has been to make things tougher for immigrants.

This new rule does not target a specific group or country. Each case will still be reviewed individually. If a person wants to sponsor his or her spouse to come to the US and make 6 figures and owns a home, the visa will be issued whether the spouse is from a rich country or a poor country.

 

The new rule is not telling Americans they can't petition spouses. There are many cases where people got denied previously because they were not making enough. They eventually either found a cosponsor or got more financially stable. And there always been a rule where the petitioner must make a certain amount of money. It is called the poverty guideline. I don't see how this is any different.

 

And yes there is no law that prevents immigrants to use benefits they qualify for. We can agree on that. But there are many benefits that immigrant don't qualify for. And how does it change where people come from? The people will still get petitioned by their family members in the US.

 

Listen, if a person is an LPR or US citizen that meets the requirements and wants to sponsor family, they still can, even with the new rule. There is nothing in the rule that says, "People from these countries will be able to immigrate easy. People from those countries will be subject to Public Charge". A person can be denied because of public charge even if they are coming from a rich country.

 

This back and forth is due to the fact that you are making this more than what it is. It is quite simple, a person can petition a family if they meet the requirements no matter what country the immigrant is from.

[Diriangén 12]

30 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Thank you it was very informative and straight forward except for pages 18-20, 42-43 and then it just goes in to fear mongering. 

You're welcome.

Obviously there are some disagreements on the meaning of the new rule, but hopefully we can use this forum to point people to information that clarifies what has and hasn't changed and those who might be affected and how.

[beloved_dingo 1,979]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

Yes, it was. See your link above. More precisely, it was part of the totality of circumstances. Just because it didn't explicitly say that not having a good education was a negative factor, it's basic reason that not having one is negative and having one is positive.

 

To what degree the education will impact the results is yet to be seen. Maybe it will play a stronger role. Maybe it won't.

I don't really see how education has been factored in? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't recall any question ever being asked regarding my husband's education when we were going through the K1 Visa process, and there aren't any questions about education in the Adjustment of Status paperwork either. He did have to provide info on past employment, but that's it. The "burden" so to speak, was put on me as the Petitioner to show that I could support him regardless of his education, work history, or skills. 

 

[DelilahBrz 48]

2 minutes ago, ujones said:

@DelilahBrz, so once we get NOA1 after filing 1-485 the new changes aren’t  applicable to our  case ... is that right ? 

That is what I understand.  I'm not sure if the word "accept" means NOA1. But an NOA1 certainly would deem acceptance.

[DelilahBrz 48]

2 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

I don't really see how education has been factored in? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't recall any question ever being asked regarding my husband's education when we were going through the K1 Visa process, and there aren't any questions about education in the Adjustment of Status paperwork either. He did have to provide info on past employment, but that's it. The "burden" so to speak, was put on me as the Petitioner to show that I could support him regardless of his education, work history, or skills. 

 

It is a new form (I-944) that must be supplemented to your package when Adjusting status. (I-485)  From what I understand you still need the I-864

[yuna628 9,689]

2 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

I don't really see how education has been factored in? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't recall any question ever being asked regarding my husband's education when we were going through the K1 Visa process, and there aren't any questions about education in the Adjustment of Status paperwork either. He did have to provide info on past employment, but that's it. The "burden" so to speak, was put on me as the Petitioner to show that I could support him regardless of his education, work history, or skills. 

 

DS160 iirc had questions regarding education and work history. It's been such a long time ago now.. but I feel like it was in there. Nothing too extremely in depth though.

[lonesurvivor 48]

16 minutes ago, Unlockable said:

This new rule does not target a specific group or country. Each case will still be reviewed individually. If a person wants to sponsor his or her spouse to come to the US and make 6 figures and owns a home, the visa will be issued whether the spouse is from a rich country or a poor country.

 

The new rule is not telling Americans they can't petition spouses. There are many cases where people got denied previously because they were not making enough. They eventually either found a cosponsor or got more financially stable. And there always been a rule where the petitioner must make a certain amount of money. It is called the poverty guideline. I don't see how this is any different.

 

And yes there is no law that prevents immigrants to use benefits they qualify for. We can agree on that. But there are many benefits that immigrant don't qualify for. And how does it change where people come from? The people will still get petitioned by their family members in the US.

 

Listen, if a person is an LPR or US citizen that meets the requirements and wants to sponsor family, they still can, even with the new rule. There is nothing in the rule that says, "People from these countries will be able to immigrate easy. People from those countries will be subject to Public Charge". A person can be denied because of public charge even if they are coming from a rich country.

 

This back and forth is due to the fact that you are making this more than what it is. It is quite simple, a person can petition a family if they meet the requirements no matter what country the immigrant is from.

If this is really the case, I am all for it. I am up for the burden to be on the petitioner, even if the guidelines on specifically money are a bit more strict because 125% really is too low in some states specifically. Where all of us on here are worried and fear mongering is because again, people are posting inaccurate info (or potentially inaccurate info?)

 

You say that we'll all be fine if the petitioner makes a good amount of money and can sponsor their spouse. Well, some people on here and articles are stating that might not be enough and the immigrant must also bring in good money from their home country + education. That is the worry and why people are starting to freak out. If that is warranted or not, well probably not and we'll have to see. But I get why people would be worried if that really would somehow end up being the case. People are back and forth on if that is true or not/the guidelines are a bit murky still on who fills out the supplemental form, etc. Which is why I agree its getting out of hand.

 

A few people came on here and stating their whole week was ruined because they now heard there are no cosponsors, when that is not true it was just a suggestion made by  vj user.

Edited August 14, 2019 by lonesurvivor

[Ontarkie 14,324]

~~Inappropriate post removed. Careful with Generalizing as that is a TOS violation.~~

[DelilahBrz 48]

24 minutes ago, missileman said:

I don't he/she has applied for the K-1 yet......

From what I understand, only I-129 is effected, not I-129F.  However, this is something to consider since the new rule applies to I-485 when they are in the states together.

[xavier2014 21]

Public charge was always there, and people denied all the time, nothing new, there should be reason why you rejected, it could be medical or financial, you always have the lawyer to appeal if it goes against the rule.

Lets enlighten us

 

What is Public Charge?

 

Congress didn’t define “public charge” beyond such general categories as age, health, family and financial status, assets, education and skills. In 1999 the Clinton Administration issued guidance defining a “public charge” as an individual likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Trump administration applied this rule heavily I guess which could increased denial rates.

Excluded were noncash benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, which consume a growing share of government welfare spending. The Trump Administration now wants to incorporate noncash benefits into “public charge” determinations to prevent immigrants from coming to the U.S. to live on the dole.

 

Regarding who will face the new rules-

 

 

This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance.   

 

More details here

 

https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-announces-final-rule-enforcing-long-standing-public-charge-inadmissibility-law

 

I would suggest you to share official websites for information not some speculative #######

 

[Ontarkie 14,324]

I wanted to post this for a bit but kept getting distracted. 

 

I think the new rule will be a good thing. Look at how many K1's have been issued in the last few years in the PI where they have almost completely ignore the AOS and that was only at 100% of the poverty line. Then go read on the Effects forum. Where some of these poor women just found out they have no money to adjust and their spouse is nothing but a bum. They are stuck and can't adjust cannot work and their spouse won't get off his butt and get a job.  Enforcing the AOS would have saved many the heartache. 

 

 

BTW 11 yrs ago, my now husband had to prove he could support us at 125% of the poverty line not 100% like the K1 was being looked at. It was definitely due to the fact that he was getting me plus 4 kids from the get go. Montreal is very well known for looking for 125% for K1's and that is far form new. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Ontarkie