Final public charge rule

[Soul Mates 44]

2 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

So immigrants who arrive at AOS via the K1 route don't need to fill out Form I-944? Is this a fact? Is this stated in the 800 page guidelines?

No, they will have to fill out the form, at least according to the draft instructions.

 

https://www.aila.org/File/Related/18092430c.pdf

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

7 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

So immigrants who arrive at AOS via the K1 route don't need to fill out Form I-944? Is this a fact? Is this stated in the 800 page guidelines?

They do need to fill out Form I-944. Not when applying for the visa, but when applying for adjustment of status. 

 

Check this table.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 hours ago, AnonIndia said:

Simple basic English for asking to get around and buying things at the store is not sufficient for being gainfully employed. Were you making 250% above poverty level when you married your  wife? If you weren't your wife should have been denied LPR based on her being from a third world country, poor english fluency and not having proper job opportunities. Not only baby boomers marry Asian wives. There is a certain stereotype to the type of western men who do. Right wing/Libertarian types who are dissatisfied with what feminism has done for their women back at home and shop abroad. Got Coach RedPill, Milo Yiannopoulis, Mike Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux videos on their sub feed on YouTube. 

Actually at the time I was making over 500% of the poverty level working in the MENA region supervising Indians. I then transferred to a job in the USA making about 350% of the poverty level. My then fiance spoke English ok for it being her 4th language. She also has her Bachelor's in Teaching as well. 

 

You can talk ####### all you want but it sounds like you are the insecure one here not me. Since I am fine with Legal Immigrants, Feminism, and people that think differently than I do. 

[Soul Mates 44]

Just a couple of things I found searching the +800 page document for tax returns and looking at the text around it. The instructions for the form were written last year, I don't know if there is a newer one out there.

 

From page 31: Household Income and Evidentiary Considerations. DHS amended the rule to clarify that when assessing the alien’s annual gross household income, DHS considers the most recent federal tax-year transcripts from the United States Internal Revenue Service(IRS)for each household member whose income will be considered. Additionally, DHS also clarified that if the most recent tax-year transcripts from the IRS are unavailable, DHS will consider other credible and probative evidence of the household member’s income, including an explanation why the evidence is not available.

 

From page 32: Education and Skills.To clarify additional types of documentation that establish a steady employment history, DHS has revised the evidentiary considerations for the education and skills factor, to require that applicants submit, with their adjustment of status applications,federal tax return transcripts for the previous three years or, if such transcripts are unavailable, other credible and probative evidence, including an explanation of the unavailability of such transcripts.

[Soul Mates 44]

Wut?

 

Starting at 471: DHS understands that the rule changes the public charge inadmissibility determination as set forth in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. However, Congress mandates that, as part of the public charge inadmissibility assessment, officers consider the applicant’s assets, resources, and financial status, which, as explained in the NPRM, includes consideration of whether the applicant’s household income is at or above 125 percent of the FPG income. DHS chose the 125 percent of FPG threshold (100 percent for an alien on active duty, other than training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) standard because Congress imposed it as part of the affidavit of support, which has long been a touch point for the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Therefore, DHS disagrees that the threshold is arbitrary.DHS also disagrees that if a sponsor is expected to demonstrate an income of 125 percent of the FPG, the alien should not be subject to the same standard. As noted elsewhere in this rule, Congress did not add the affidavit of support requirements as a substitute for a public charge inadmissibility determination or to supplant the mandatory factors set forth in section 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B). Instead, Congress added the affidavit of support as an additional assurance that the alien will not become a public charge at any time in the future. As Congress believed that 125 percent was an appropriate minimum threshold in the affidavit of support context, DHS does not believe the threshold should be lowered. Although Congress believed that 125 percent of the FPG based on the sponsor’s household income was a reasonable minimum threshold in the affidavit of support context to support the sponsored alien and the sponsor’s household, it does not necessarily follow that Congress believed that half that amount (assuming the sponsor used half the amount to support himself or herself), or any amount lower than 125 percent of the FPG, would be sufficient to demonstrate that the alien is not more likely than not to become a public charge. Rather, Congress’ retention of the public charge inadmissibility determination indicates that Congress believed it was necessary to consider the alien’s assets, resources, financial status (including, of course, income), and other relevant factors in addition to requiring the affidavit of support. Further, household income below 125 percent of the FPG would be reviewed along with the other factors in the totality of the circumstances such that on its own, such income would not be a basis for a public charge inadmissibility determination. DHS disagrees that the rule bases entry into this country and adjustment of status solely on wealth. DHS notes that it must consider an applicant’s assets, resources, and financial status in making a public charge inadmissibility determination, which includes consideration of the applicant’s household income. However, DHS does not intend the rule to penalize or negatively affect any particular group, and being a low-income worker would not necessarily in itself render an applicant inadmissible on public charge grounds. The rule abides by the statutory requirement as provided in section 212(a)(4) of the Act,8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), and is consistent with congressional statements relating to self-sufficiency in 8 U.S.C. 1601, when Congress declared it to be the United States’ continued immigration policy that “aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.” Further, the data in the NPRM shows that the percentage of people receiving these public benefits generally goes down as the income percentage increases. Therefore, DHS will maintain the 125 percent of the FPG (100 percent for an alien on active duty, other than training, in the U.S. Armed Forces) standard. After consideration of the comments, DHS also believes it necessary to clarify that when assessing the alien’s annual gross household income, DHS will consider as evidence the most recent tax-year transcripts from the IRS, U.S. Individual Tax Return (Form 1040) from each household member whose income will be considered.636If such a Federal income tax return transcript is unavailable, DHS will consider other credible and probative evidence of the household member’s income, including an explanation why the evidence is not available,637which may include Form W-2, Wages and Tax Statement, Social Security Statements, or Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement.Concerning nonimmigrants seeking extension of stay or change of status, DHS notes that the rule does not require them to demonstrate that they have income over 125 or 250 percent of the FPG. That threshold is a heavily weighted negative factor in the public charge inadmissibility determination, which is not applied to extension of stay and change of status. Further, as previously indicated, DHS is no longer reviewing whether the alien is likely to receive public benefits in the future in extension of stay and change of status determinations, and therefore, none of the factors in the public charge inadmissibility determination will be considered for nonimmigrants.

[jasonlzak 173]

People are not well informed enough, for those who seek visas and get interviews at the consular offices in foreign countries, you are already being subjected under merit based rule F.A.M Public Charge.  This rule applies on petitions filing within the US which are processed by USCIS (Adjustment of status, bla bla bla).

[Soul Mates 44]

3 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

People are not well informed enough, for those who seek visas and get interviews at the consular offices in foreign countries, you are already being subjected under merit based rule F.A.M Public Charge.  This rule applies on petitions filing within the US which are processed by USCIS (Adjustment of status, bla bla bla).

But at the consular office it's about the sponsor(s) (I don't know the recent changes) and if the sponsor(s) made enough or had enough assets to support the immigrant. This change is putting a similar test on the immigrant themselves, though they look at more than just income/assets.

[little immigrant 801]

16 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

People are not well informed enough, for those who seek visas and get interviews at the consular offices in foreign countries, you are already being subjected under merit based rule F.A.M Public Charge.  This rule applies on petitions filing within the US which are processed by USCIS (Adjustment of status, bla bla bla).

I don't understand why this is all over the news for days now. Not becoming a public charge has always been a thing. Some articles talk about asylum seekers etc, people who not yet have a green card. Would those people even qualify for welfare benefits? It's difficult to believe that they do. I'm really baffled by the media and how they make it this big thing now. It doesn't make sense at all because generally, no green card holder would be on benefits they don't qualify for. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by little immigrant

[Hemutian 68]

1 minute ago, little immigrant said:

I don't understand why this is all over the news for days now. Not becoming a public charge has always been a thing. Some articles talk about asylum seekers etc, people who not yet have a green card. Would those people even qualify for welfare benefits? It's difficult to believe that they do. I'm really baffled by the media and how they make it this big thing now. It doesn't make sense at all because generally, no green card holder would be on benefits they don't qualify for. 

I think what is confusing for a lot of us is that, in the past the burden of not becoming a public charge was on the USC sponsor, and now there is confusion over whether this burden has been shifted to the immigrant him or herself. I am the USC and have plenty of income/assets to support my fiancee/future wife and guarantee that she will not become a public charge. Under the old rules, this was all that was required. However, under the new rules it is unclear if my fiancee/future wife needs to show that she has the income/assets ON HER OWN to not become a public charge. It's just not clear at this point. I think that's what all the confusion is about, at least for those of us in the K1 visa category. This is exactly why I wish VJ had allowed this thread to exist individually on their various subs, rather than merging them all together into this one massive thread covering ALL visa types. 

[jasonlzak 173]

8 minutes ago, Soul Mates said:

But at the consular office it's about the sponsor(s) (I don't know the recent changes) and if the sponsor(s) made enough or had enough assets to support the immigrant. This change is putting a similar test on the immigrant themselves, though they look at more than just income/assets.

Nope, it has changed since January 2018, a sufficient sponsor AoS now is just a factor in many factors they listed. They will look at the immigrant's merits, funny they apply 1st world standard merits on an immigrant and determine whether that person is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future.

Edited August 15, 2019 by jasonlzak
typo

[jasonlzak 173]

3 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

I think what is confusing for a lot of us is that, in the past the burden of not becoming a public charge was on the USC sponsor, and now there is confusion over whether this burden has been shifted to the immigrant him or herself. I am the USC and have plenty of income/assets to support my fiancee/future wife and guarantee that she will not become a public charge. Under the old rules, this was all that was required. However, under the new rules it is unclear if my fiancee/future wife needs to show that she has the income/assets ON HER OWN to not become a public charge. It's just not clear at this point. I think that's what all the confusion is about, at least for those of us in the K1 visa category. This is exactly why I wish VJ had allowed this thread to exist individually on their various subs, rather than merging them all together into this one massive thread covering ALL visa types. 

In the fiscal year 2018, there were 13,500 (from 3000 in 2017) visa denied in wake to the change in pubic charge of F.A.M, that was for those who were processed at consular offices. The evidences are clear, the same will happen to the petition filing within US when this new rule goes into effect. They are the same.

[Soul Mates 44]

With the consular changes, they didn't have to make it so public, which is why there wasn't much news on it. Does the consulate require all the same things that this new form requires? My understanding is that the consulate change and this change aren't exactly the same but I haven't seen specific comparisons. They are both in the same spirit at least.

 

Page 401: USCIS’ totality of circumstances assessment will focus on, for instance, the following considerations:

 

Ability to Earn a Living–The ability of the alien to earn sufficient income to pay for basic living needs (i.e., food and nutrition, housing, and healthcare), as evidenced or impacted by, for example, the alien's age, health, work history, current employment status, future employment prospects, education, and skills;

 

Sufficiency of Income, Assets, and Resources–The sufficiency of the alien's household’s income, assets, and resources to meet basic living needs (i.e., food and nutrition, housing and healthcare);

 

Sufficiency and Obligation of Sponsorship–The legal sufficiency of the affidavit of support, if required, and the likelihood that a sponsor would actually provide the statutorily-required amount of financial support to the alien, and other related considerations;

 

Ability to Overcome Receipt of Public Benefits or Certification or Approval to Receive Public Benefits Above the Designated Threshold–The ability of the alien to overcome receipt of, or certification or approval to receive, one or more  public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate in any 36-month period beginning no earlier than 36 monthsbefore the application for admission or adjustment of status.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Soul Mates

[Soul Mates 44]

 

1 hour ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

They do need to fill out Form I-944. Not when applying for the visa, but when applying for adjustment of status. 

 

Check this table.

 

Look at Table 2 page 180, it says there K1 are no/not applicable (is that saying they don't have to fill out the new form?). This is such a rushed mess, are they really contradicting themselves?

Edited August 15, 2019 by Soul Mates

[geowrian 22,337]

One cannot provide what does not exist (e.g. tax returns). It's not an issue - it won't be held as a positive or negative factor for/against the applicant.

 

Yes, a lack of income/work history/education/etc. will be a negative factor. A suitable I-864 sponsor would still overcome that. A negative factor is very far from a denial...it's one of many criteria considered.

COs have approved many housewives/househusbands in the past, knowing many would would not be likely to support themselves on their own if there was a divorce. That's what the I-864 contract addressed. It will likely be looked at more closely, though.

 

And I get that an intending immigrant in one country may not earn anything near US wages...but the CO will consider what equivalent wages are in the US. Just because an RN in PH only makes a few hundred dollars a month doesn't mean it will be negatively viewed since an RN in the US makes a reasonable salary (although having credential validation, NCLEX passed, etc. might not be a bad idea beforehand!). The CO can consider skills as well as education, work experience, etc.

 

Keep in mind that while there has been a considerable uptick in public charge-based visa refusals in the past fiscal year, there were 236,526 CR+IR approvals alone in FY2018 and 5,518 (not-overcome) public charge refusals across all immigrant visas that same fiscal year.

That's an upper limit of 2.3% refusal rate based on the public charge issue, and it's likely a fraction of that as this ignores family-preference based immigrant visas (There were 533,557 total immigrant visas issued in FY 2018, with the overwhelming majority being categories subject to the public charge inadmissibility).

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2018AnnualReport/FY18AnnualReport - TableXX.pdf

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/AnnualReports/FY2018AnnualReport/FY18AnnualReport - TableI.pdf

 

19 minutes ago, Soul Mates said:

Look at Table 2 page 180, it says there K1 are not applicable (is that saying they don't have to fill out the new form?). This is such a rushed mess, are they really contradicting themselves?

Table 2 covers EOS and COS applications. K-1 holders are not eligible for EOS or COS.

Table 3 covers AOS applications. That's where they are listed as being subject to it.

Edit: And as noted below, Table 4 covers NIV categories

Edited August 15, 2019 by geowrian

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

15 minutes ago, Soul Mates said:

Look at Table 2 page 180, it says there K1 are no/not applicable (is that saying they don't have to fill out the new form?). This is such a rushed mess, are they really contradicting themselves?

You might be referring to this one. 

This table refers to admission, not adjustment of status.