Final public charge rule

[Villanelle 4,122]

16 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Exactly. When you go to apply for food stamps, they may ask "Do you share food with others in the household?" and I think the amount of food stamp funds will be determined on how many people in the household are using said food stamps, but still. There's no way that people living together wouldn't be sharing food bought with food stamps, especially if they were married. It's a super grey area with food stamps, moreso than the other means tested benefits. 

 

They ask how many people are in the household to determine if you meet the income guidelines. All income counts and all people count in this. 

 

So a family of LPR mom, USC dad and 2 USC kids is a family of 4 and mom and dad income counts. If they are at or under the poverty guidelines they will get food stamp benefits for 3.

 

Yes, logic tells us that the actual food purchased will be eaten by dad as well. It's to be expected. But the USC family members are the actual recipients of the benefits. The blended household would end up having less money put towards food expenses since food for 3 is being provided.

 

It's almost like going to a restaurant where kids eat free except it's USCs that eat free. A family of four like described above would only be paying for moms share of the meal.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Villanelle
Wrong wording

[millefleur 5,046]

1 minute ago, Villanelle said:

Yes, logic tells us that the actual food purchased will be eaten by dad as well. It's to be expected. But the USC family members are the actual recipients of the benefits. The blended household would end up having less money put towards food expenses since food for 3 is being provided.

This is the part that people are upset about because under current law, LPR's can't receive means tested benefits until they meet the 40 quarters of work requirement, but it's a loophole where they could indirectly benefit from food stamps before that via a spouse/family member who purchases household food with food stamps. I'm not sure there's an easy solution to this as it is hard to track, but I can understand why US taxpayers are upset about the idea of the benefits being misused/abused. I would say that people have a right to be upset about loopholes, but that doesn't mean there's always an easy solution to patching them up.

[saj102965 1]

I've read that the new public charge that becomes effective October 15, 2019 also includes significantly increasing the Household Poverty Guidelines.  If this is true, does anyone know the percentage increase?

[Letspaintcookies 2,310]

3 minutes ago, saj102965 said:

I've read that the new public charge that becomes effective October 15, 2019 also includes significantly increasing the Household Poverty Guidelines.  If this is true, does anyone know the percentage increase?

No. It will still be 100% for a K1 and 125% for the AOS.

[geowrian 22,337]

No change to the poverty guidelines.

There is a "heavily weighted positive factor" for being 250% or higher than the FPL, though.

[portorusa 431]

18 minutes ago, geowrian said:

There is a "heavily weighted positive factor" for being 250% or higher than the FPL, though.

Oh yeah? Do you have a link?

[geowrian 22,337]

5 minutes ago, portorusa said:

Oh yeah? Do you have a link?

The actual rule change document states:

Quote

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

Note this applies for AOS as well...it's an 800+ page document so finding the exact spot for AOS is tedious.   If you need the exact spot for AOS as well, I can pull it.

 

Edit: Also:

Quote

DHS disagrees that the rule provides a wealth test. The 250 percent FPG standard is a heavily weighted positive factor and not a requirement that aliens need to meet in order to overcome a public charge inadmissibility finding. As previously stated, income is one factor in the totality of the circumstances, and any income above
125 percent of the FPG is a positive factor.

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by geowrian

[portorusa 431]

I understand that it's a long document. But is it a USCIS official document?

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, portorusa said:

I understand that it's a long document. But is it a USCIS official document?

Yes.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/14/2019-17142/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds

[saj102965 1]

21 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The actual rule change document states:

Note this applies for AOS as well...it's an 800+ page document so finding the exact spot for AOS is tedious.   If you need the exact spot for AOS as well, I can pull it.

 

Edit: Also:

 

Thank yo u so much for the information.  That cleared up a lot.

 

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

There is also an easy link on the uscis pages that summarizes it 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/final-rule-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility

 

these are the 2 crucial sections  I guess

 

LIKELY to become a public charge

A. The following factors will generally weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge: 

• The alien is not a full-time student and is authorized to work but cannot show current employment, recent employment history, or a reasonable prospect of future employment. 

• The alien has received, or has been certified or approved to receive, one or more public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period, beginning no earlier than 36 months before the alien applied for admission or adjustment of status on or after Oct. 15, 2019. 

• The alien has been diagnosed with a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization or that will interfere with his or her ability to provide for him or herself, attend school, or work and he or she is uninsured and has neither the prospect of obtaining private health insurance nor the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to a medical condition. 

• The alien has previously been found by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals to be inadmissible or deportable based on public charge grounds.  

 

UNLIKELY to become a public charge 

A. The following factors would weigh heavily against a finding that an alien is likely to become a public charge: 

• The alien has household income, assets, resources, and support from a sponsor, excluding any income from illegal activities or from public benefits, of at least 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size. 

• The alien is authorized to work and is currently employed in a legal industry with an annual income of at least 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a household of his or her household size. 

• The alien has private health insurance appropriate for the expected period of admission, so long as the alien does not receive subsidies in the form of premium tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to pay for such health insurance. 

 

[Hemutian 68]

Some news, at least pertaining to filers in California, Maine, Oregon, and Pennsylvania:

 

Quote

 

Judge is likely to block new rule on immigrants
By Bob Egelko

The Trump administration’s plan to deny legal status and work permits to noncitizens who accept public benefits, like food stamps and Medicaid, got a chilly reception Wednesday from a federal judge in Oakland, who indicated she was likely to stop it from taking effect in California and several other states.

 

At issue is the meaning of a federal law that bars some immigrants from acquiring legal residency, or from entering the country with visas for students, employees or tourists, if they are likely to become a “public charge.” That term, under current law, refers to the relatively small number of migrants who receive a certain percentage of their income from government sources, such as welfare or Social Security, or who are getting longterm care at government expense.

 

Under the new regulation, announced Sept. 21 and scheduled to take effect Oct. 15, anyone who has received food stamps, Medicaid or a low-income housing voucher for a year would be considered a public charge, and those receiving aid for lesser periods could also be put in that category by immigration officials. Low incomes, large families and old age would also be considered negative factors. And noncitizens seeking to enter on visas would be excluded if federal officials decided they were likely to use public benefits.

 

The change is consistent with long-standing government policy that “public benefits not constitute an incentive to immigration,” Justice Department attorney Ethan Davis said at Wednesday’s nearly three hour hearing.

 

But U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said presidential administrations have interpreted the law in the opposite way “for at least 20 years,” under federal immigration guidelines that defined a public charge as someone “primarily” dependent on government benefits. She cited the 1996 federal immigration law, in which congressional Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to include provisions like those the Trump administration is now proposing.

Hamilton also said the administration had failed to respond properly to the many thousands of critical public comments on the proposed regulation, or to justify its claim that the change would strengthen public health and safety. And she said it would be “no hardship on the government ... to continue to do what it has been doing” under current rules while the court case proceeds.

 

If she issues an injunction next week, Hamilton said, she will probably limit it to California and the states that joined its lawsuit, Maine, Oregon and Pennsylvania, along with the District of Columbia. She said the plaintiffs in the case — which also include San Francisco, Santa Clara County and a number of immigrant-support groups — had not yet shown why they were entitled to a nationwide injunction. Similar suits are pending in at least four other states.

 

Plaintiffs’ lawyers said the proposed rules are already harming public health by making immigrants fearful of the consequences of seeking government-funded medical care.

 

There is “fear and confusion in the communities” and “declines in enrollment” in programs such as Medi-Cal, said San Francisco’s lawyer, Deputy City Attorney Matthew Goldberg. Under the Trump administration’s estimate that 2.5% of households with noncitizens would drop out of benefit programs, Goldberg said, local and state governments would lose many millions of dollars in federal funds and would have to expand their own health care and nutrition programs to fill the gap.

 

via the San Francisco Chronicle

[flacka 32]

I have read through as much of this as I can to try and find an answer to my question but to be honest not very thoroughly. There were times I was just skimming when things were being repeated or talking about visas/situations that didn't apply to us as it was confusing me. Saying this as a precaution since I very may well have skipped over my answer! Sorry if this is redundant. 

 

Anyway - I'm not asking if you think we will be approved, I guess I'd just like to know if I'm understanding correctly!

Our info:

We will not be able to send our application to adjust status through marriage before 10/15/19 therefore the I-944 will apply to us.

My husband arrived on VWP/ESTA and his overstay is currently around 4.5 years.

He does not have a SSN.

He has no credit score.

He has never received public assistance.

He does not have health insurance (adding him without a SSN has been an issue). 

He is working but obviously that is unauthorized so soon he will have to stop working. 

My income  (USC) is almost at the 250%.

I did receive food stamps for over a year while I was in college, before I started working (but this will not play any role?)

My credit score is also not a factor, if I understand correctly?

 

So the I-944 is a form HE (the beneficiary) fills out where he needs to prove he can support himself? 

Will he just be filling out that form the best he can and  hope he doesn't seem like a public charge based off of my income and other positive factors (ie: age, health, ability to work- although not legally able to work at the moment - but will hopefully have in writing that he has a position waiting for him)?

[Villanelle 4,122]

1 hour ago, flacka said:

I have read through as much of this as I can to try and find an answer to my question but to be honest not very thoroughly. There were times I was just skimming when things were being repeated or talking about visas/situations that didn't apply to us as it was confusing me. Saying this as a precaution since I very may well have skipped over my answer! Sorry if this is redundant. 

 

Anyway - I'm not asking if you think we will be approved, I guess I'd just like to know if I'm understanding correctly!

Our info:

We will not be able to send our application to adjust status through marriage before 10/15/19 therefore the I-944 will apply to us.

My husband arrived on VWP/ESTA and his overstay is currently around 4.5 years.

He does not have a SSN.

He has no credit score.

He has never received public assistance.

He does not have health insurance (adding him without a SSN has been an issue). 

He is working but obviously that is unauthorized so soon he will have to stop working. 

My income  (USC) is almost at the 250%.

I did receive food stamps for over a year while I was in college, before I started working (but this will not play any role?)

My credit score is also not a factor, if I understand correctly?

 

So the I-944 is a form HE (the beneficiary) fills out where he needs to prove he can support himself? 

Will he just be filling out that form the best he can and  hope he doesn't seem like a public charge based off of my income and other positive factors (ie: age, health, ability to work- although not legally able to work at the moment - but will hopefully have in writing that he has a position waiting for him)?

When you apply you should send in the 485+765+131. He will get a work permit 3-6 months after filing. Any income he makes working legally with his EAD can be used for 864 purposes. So you will fill it out now w/o any income from him and if you get an RFE he should be working at that point and you can include his income in the RFE response. 

[sashsash 208]

Since the rule is effective in a week we want to be completely sure that our insurance won't cause us any problems.

Is it correct that using premium assistance (advanced premium tax credit) for Covered California (under ACA) won't affect ROC and applying for Citizenship? Or better to change it?