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

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

2 hours ago, Tjg312 said:

Hey guys,

My fiance and I will shortly be getting married and filing for an AOS. I've been reading a lot on this public charge rule, but not sure if I completely understand it.

From my understanding, this is just an additional factor the officer can consider, and pretty much just uses factors if my soon-to-be wife is using any public benefits right now?

She doesn't even have a SSN, and definitely isn't receiving any benefits from the US, and I've never received any myself-- so I'm guessing this won't be applicable to us?

 

Sorry if this is a dumb question, just kind of confused even after reading some articles about it.

public charge applies to situations where you might become a public charge in the future - its a holistic view of the current and future situation.

[Mintosman 11]

Yesterday I met with my newly acquired Immigration attorney. I wanted them to go over my application and had some specific questions regarding the NVC stage and the I-864. The poverty limits are not even close so I am ok there. My questions were: does being on disability for months and having a tax return (for 1 year) that is about $50-60k less than normal going to be an issue? I was still receiving income from a private LTC policy. They assured me that shouldn't be an issue since I can provide bank statements showing that source of income. However, my next question didn't get as clean an answer. Due to the disability, I incurred huge medical bills. Unfortunately because of a very large sum of child support that is automatically pulled from each paycheck, none of my creditors nor judgments can be acted upon because I am already at the maximum allowable garnishment limit. My personal attorney suggested I could and maybe should, file for bankruptcy to get relief. However when I presented this scenario to my immigration lawyer, they said that due to the new Public Charge rule, they can't advise one way or another because, at this time, there is no precedence to allow them to offer me sound advice. They said we should watch for the next few months and see how cases are being adjudicated. Is anyone else seeing this issue or being told to hold off because this Public Charge rule is too new?    

[HDia 105]

Ever since the new public charge rule came out, it got me and my wife really worried, I'm wondering if anyone can advice us improve our situation to avoid being denied base on public charge.

 

Both my wife and I are in our early 20's. About our financial situation, I (the petitioner) never received any government assistant before, I graduated college a couple years ago working as a software engineer making close to 6 figures. I'm the sole sponsor for the AOS I-864. My wife only has a high school diploma and do not have any work experience since. She also do not have any asset to report on form DS-5540 since she is living with her parents and all the assets are under her parents. After graduating high school my wife has been training to work as a nail technician part time and study English part time. I'm worried because she lacks the work experience and any skill. We recently decided that my wife will start working as a technician but in my home country the job is mostly paid in cash so a bit hard to prove during interview if asked about.

 

Is there anything that my wife and I can do right now to improve our situation about the public charge rule? We're currently in the NVC stage.

 

Thank you!

[Cndn 98]

I just had a look at the new declaration of self sufficiency form. My husband and I are thinking of moving to my home country for a few years instead of our plan to live in the US. We would likely want to come back in the future so I’m looking at the new rules/forms before abandoning my current petition which is postmarked way before feb 24th. 
 

I know the new public charge rule was revised from the original draft to not include things like emergency and pregnancy Medicaid, as well as a few other things that were to be considered originally. Why then do they ask on this new form if you have ever used things like that? Did they just say they weren’t going to consider those things because of the public’s reaction to it when they really are going to consider them as negative factors? I’m confused as to why they’re even asking if an immigrant has used benefits that are apparently not going to be used in determining a public charge risk? Why do they even need to know? Seems a little odd. 

[NancyNguyen 1,657]

If you sent your AOS before Feb, 24, 2020 you don't have to worry about it. It is a supplement form so you have to include it unless you are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility ("Who Is Exempt from Filing Form I-944?" in I-944 instructions)

[Cndn 98]

4 minutes ago, NancyNguyen said:

If you sent your AOS before Feb, 24, 2020 you don't have to worry about it. It is a supplement form so you have to include it unless you are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility ("Who Is Exempt from Filing Form I-944?" in I-944 instructions)

Hi, in my OP I said we are thinking of abandoning my current petition so a future spouse petition would have to be in accordance with the new rules. 

[NancyNguyen 1,657]

1 minute ago, Cndn said:

Hi, in my OP I said we are thinking of abandoning my current petition so a future spouse petition would have to be in accordance with the new rules. 

Then you don't have to worry about it right now. We don't know what will happen in the future, they might cancel that public charge rule by the time you want to move to the US. Good luck with your choice.

[Cndn 98]

15 minutes ago, NancyNguyen said:

Then you don't have to worry about it right now. We don't know what will happen in the future, they might cancel that public charge rule by the time you want to move to the US. Good luck with your choice.

They might and they might not. I operate in terms of what is. Of course you can’t predict the future. My question is not whether to worry about it or not it’s a specific question about why this question is even on there. 

[Mintosman 11]

I don't have a specific answer but my attorney said yesterday that NVC is speaking to a conference in Portland, OR. on April 17th. I am sure many lawyers will be asking this and other questions. I wish you well and will follow your progress! 

[HDia 105]

3 minutes ago, Mintosman said:

I don't have a specific answer but my attorney said yesterday that NVC is speaking to a conference in Portland, OR. on April 17th. I am sure many lawyers will be asking this and other questions. I wish you well and will follow your progress! 

Thank you for your wishes! We're just too worried about this rule and hoping for the best!

[Lil bear 4,201]

1 hour ago, HDia said:

Ever since the new public charge rule came out, it got me and my wife really worried, I'm wondering if anyone can advice us improve our situation to avoid being denied base on public charge.

 

Both my wife and I are in our early 20's. About our financial situation, I (the petitioner) never received any government assistant before, I graduated college a couple years ago working as a software engineer making close to 6 figures. I'm the sole sponsor for the AOS I-864. My wife only has a high school diploma and do not have any work experience since. She also do not have any asset to report on form DS-5540 since she is living with her parents and all the assets are under her parents. After graduating high school my wife has been training to work as a nail technician part time and study English part time. I'm worried because she lacks the work experience and any skill. We recently decided that my wife will start working as a technician but in my home country the job is mostly paid in cash so a bit hard to prove during interview if asked about.

 

Is there anything that my wife and I can do right now to improve our situation about the public charge rule? We're currently in the NVC stage.

 

Thank you!

I cannot give you specific assurance but looking at your age, income and I assume good health, I would not think that you would be considered a public charge risk. My opinion only ... 

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

1 hour ago, HDia said:

Ever since the new public charge rule came out, it got me and my wife really worried, I'm wondering if anyone can advice us improve our situation to avoid being denied base on public charge.

 

Both my wife and I are in our early 20's. About our financial situation, I (the petitioner) never received any government assistant before, I graduated college a couple years ago working as a software engineer making close to 6 figures. I'm the sole sponsor for the AOS I-864. My wife only has a high school diploma and do not have any work experience since. She also do not have any asset to report on form DS-5540 since she is living with her parents and all the assets are under her parents. After graduating high school my wife has been training to work as a nail technician part time and study English part time. I'm worried because she lacks the work experience and any skill. We recently decided that my wife will start working as a technician but in my home country the job is mostly paid in cash so a bit hard to prove during interview if asked about.

 

Is there anything that my wife and I can do right now to improve our situation about the public charge rule? We're currently in the NVC stage.

 

Thank you!

From what you posted, I don't think you have to worry about the public charge issue.......Believe me when I say that there are many, many people sponsoring spouses and fiances who are far less prepared than you.  You are both young, you seem to be financially stable in a good and expanding career field, and your wife has potential for employment anywhere in the US........I honestly don't think the public charge rule was aimed at new immigrants like your wife.

Edited March 5, 2020 by missileman

[Mintosman 11]

My lawyer mentioned a worse case scenario for me was either a joint sponsor or a Surety Bond. 

[K1visaHopeful 2,814]

3 hours ago, Cndn said:

 

I know the new public charge rule was revised from the original draft to not include things like emergency and pregnancy Medicaid, as well as a few other things that were to be considered originally. Why then do they ask on this new form if you have ever used things like that? Did they just say they weren’t going to consider those things because of the public’s reaction to it when they really are going to consider them as negative factors? I’m confused as to why they’re even asking if an immigrant has used benefits that are apparently not going to be used in determining a public charge risk? Why do they even need to know? Seems a little odd. 

Because pregnancy Medicaid is not the same as Medicaid. The original draft said that.

 

[Lemonslice 4,841]

1 hour ago, Mintosman said:

My lawyer mentioned a worse case scenario for me was either a joint sponsor or a Surety Bond. 

Is a surety bond a new option? Did he explain if the bond was paid to him? To USCIS?