Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with 'public charge' rule (merged)

[Pmta1 39]

The 125% is still sticking but it sounds like they're "reviving" the issue and reaffirming what officers always had the authority to do -- totality of circumstances to determine eligibility.

[pushbrk 12,882]

40 minutes ago, Pmta1 said:

The 125% is still sticking but it sounds like they're "reviving" the issue and reaffirming what officers always had the authority to do -- totality of circumstances to determine eligibility.

Sort of but no "officer" needed to be "reminded".  I doubt there will be any noticeable change in how they exercise their judgement.  We'll see.

[SalishSea 17,829]

2 hours ago, Jaouad imesmouden said:

I know a lot of people who got the benefits after they enter US

Which their sponsors will be on the hook for paying back to the federal government....

[Youssef1 87]

11 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

ALERT: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will implement the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final rule on Feb. 24, 2020, except in Illinois, where the rule remains enjoined by a federal court as of Jan, 2020. The final rule will apply only to applications and petitions postmarked (or if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after Feb. 24, 2020. For applications and petitions sent by commercial courier (such as UPS, FedEx, and DHL), the postmark date is the date reflected on the courier receipt. When determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future, DHS will not consider an alien’s application for, certification or approval to receive, or receipt of certain non-cash public benefits before Feb. 24, 2020.  Similarly, when determining whether the public benefits condition applies to applications or petitions for extension of stay or change of status, USCIS will only consider public benefits received on or after Feb. 24, 2020.

 

From  https://www.uscis.gov/i-864

Hi

 

 

so basically who ever apply before the 24th of February is exempt from this rule? And who ever is after must be in accordance with this rule.

 

[ykowalski 11]

What is public charge?

[Unlockable 7,314]

32 minutes ago, ykowalski said:

What is public charge?

Start here for the official definition.

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

 

Then you can read the community discussion here.

 

[ykowalski 11]

8 minutes ago, Unlockable said:

Start here for the official definition.

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

 

Then you can read the community discussion here.

 

Thank you, I'll read this later.

But in a quick summary, it does not let a beneficiary to apply for like medicaid or does not let a citizen to sponsor someone if they are on medicaid? 

[Unlockable 7,314]

15 minutes ago, ykowalski said:

Thank you, I'll read this later.

But in a quick summary, it does not let a beneficiary to apply for like medicaid or does not let a citizen to sponsor someone if they are on medicaid? 

Beneficiaries are not suppose to apply for medicaid anyway. It has always been like that before this new change. 

[ykowalski 11]

1 minute ago, Unlockable said:

Beneficiaries are not suppose to apply for medicaid anyway. It has always been like that before this new change. 

Makes sense. So what does it do then? 

[Unlockable 7,314]

Beneficiaries can be outright denied a visa if the officer feels they will use government benefits. It puts more onus on the petitioner and beneficiary to provide substantial evidence that they can be financially supported.

[PotentialApplican 0]

20 hours ago, geowrian said:

No. Neither this rule (for AOS/COS/EOS applicants) nor the similar DOS rule impacts an existing visa.

I'm assuming you mean "June", not "next June". The former implies this year. The latter implies next year...in which the visa would no longer be valid.

 

My understanding from their post + timeline is they were issued an immigrant visa. They have not yet been granted a green card.

But yes, already issued visas are won't be impacted by any of the public charge rules.

 

I suggest reading the thread. If the specific question was not yet answered, then feel free to ask.

I am looking for information everywhere and you sound like you know what you're talking about. But if anyone else knows, please help. 

 

UK citizen, looking to apply for the C1. The DOS rule was supposed to be effective Oct 15 but delayed because the public charge questionnaire wasn't sufficient. Looking online, the rule won't be implemented until March, but it's likely to go ahead. 

 

My question... Will the public charge affect people who made applications after Oct 15? And how sure are you? DOS say the rule is effective from Oct 15. But they need to sort out the form. Legally, federal agencies like DOS need Congress approval to implement rule changes retroactively, but in this case, is the rule already effective and it is just a matter of time before it's implemented? Can they send a public charge questionnaire to everyone who has applied from October? 

 

The DHS rule won't affect applicants retroactively as it kicks in Feb 24 but what about the DOS rule? Maybe the DHS rule isn't retroactive because it was subject to an injunction. The DOS rule is delayed because of the questionnaire.

 

I will not continue if I have to be subject to the public charge and will look into getting my partner here instead. But I need to know this for sure. 

 

Thanks!!

[geowrian 22,337]

41 minutes ago, PotentialApplican said:

I am looking for information everywhere and you sound like you know what you're talking about. But if anyone else knows, please help. 

 

UK citizen, looking to apply for the C1. The DOS rule was supposed to be effective Oct 15 but delayed because the public charge questionnaire wasn't sufficient. Looking online, the rule won't be implemented until March, but it's likely to go ahead. 

 

My question... Will the public charge affect people who made applications after Oct 15? And how sure are you? DOS say the rule is effective from Oct 15. But they need to sort out the form. Legally, federal agencies like DOS need Congress approval to implement rule changes retroactively, but in this case, is the rule already effective and it is just a matter of time before it's implemented? Can they send a public charge questionnaire to everyone who has applied from October? 

 

The DHS rule won't affect applicants retroactively as it kicks in Feb 24 but what about the DOS rule? Maybe the DHS rule isn't retroactive because it was subject to an injunction. The DOS rule is delayed because of the questionnaire.

It's impossible to know how DOS will implement the rule. Once they post how it is implemented, we will know the "cutoff" date or stage in the process.

 

The DOS rule would not be applying retroactively. A filed petition is not a visa application. DOS may or may not decide that petitions already filed as of a particular date will not be subject to the rule. But there is nothing off-hand that suggests they cannot apply the rule to existing petitions.

Rule changes happen all the time. The FAM is regularly updated to reflect these changes.

The impact in this case is more significant (IMO) than most rule changes you see, but it is not materially different than other rule changes either.

 

Whether or not it can apply to existing visa applications is something lawyers can argue. There is certainly a few recent precedents to suggest that it can:

1) The travel ban expansion, set to impact any visa not issued by Feb. 22nd.

2) The currently implemented travel ban, which did impact existing petitions and was upheld by SCOTUS.

3) The healthcare proclamation was set to go into effect (but is under injunction right now) and would have impacted any visa not yet issued.

 

41 minutes ago, PotentialApplican said:

I will not continue if I have to be subject to the public charge and will look into getting my partner here instead. But I need to know this for sure.

Every family-based intending immigrant is subject to the public charge inadmissibility. That has been in place for a long time and is written directly into the INA.

This is a rule change as to how a CO assess if somebody is likely to become a public charge.

The rule is more strict than rules today (by how much is arguable), but it is not something new either.

[PotentialApplican 0]

6 minutes ago, geowrian said:

 

Every family-based intending immigrant is subject to the public charge inadmissibility. That has been in place for a long time and is written directly into the INA.

Oh, yes, of course. But the extra form-filling and evidence will surely add months and months to an already lengthy process, which is my main concern. Imagine asking everyone who's filed a CR1 from October onward to provide evidence, regardless of where they are in the process. I'm not sure how the system would cope. 

 

I guess it's all up in the air. I hope the DOS follow DHS and only execute these changes after implementation and not from the original effective date, but I guess we'll see. Thank you so, so much. You really are insightful. 

[LizaJane 13]

5 hours ago, Unlockable said:

Beneficiaries can be outright denied a visa if the officer feels they will use government benefits. It puts more onus on the petitioner and beneficiary to provide substantial evidence that they can be financially supported.

So in applying for a CR1 as someone who does use state health insurance for myself and my daughter and works but does not currently make any taxable income, (I am currently a caregiver for immediate family which is all non taxable income and another family but do not make enough to be taxed with the other family) how concerned should I be about the new public charge regarding use of medicaid benefits being a strike counted against me/us? I should add that my soon to be husband will be coming from the UK, and has a solid work history in healthcare which is in very high demand here, and we have a cosponsor that is well above the financial requirements. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you.

Edited February 5, 2020 by LizaJane

[SalishSea 17,829]

1 hour ago, LizaJane said:

So in applying for a CR1 as someone who does use state health insurance for myself and my daughter and works but does not currently make any taxable income, (I am currently a caregiver for immediate family which is all non taxable income and another family but do not make enough to be taxed with the other family) how concerned should I be about the new public charge regarding use of medicaid benefits being a strike counted against me/us? I should add that my soon to be husband will be coming from the UK, and has a solid work history in healthcare which is in very high demand here, and we have a cosponsor that is well above the financial requirements. Any insight is appreciated. Thank you.

It could be considered as a negative factor in the totality of financial circumstances.