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

[shiny321 4]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Your circumstances meaning what are your finances? You are the petitioner for your father right? So you are the one that needs to provide the evidence to show that he will not become a public charge. He will need the last 3 years of your taxes at the very least. 

thanks for clarification.

 

i understand it better now. I make enough money to show my evidence of support for him.

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, shiny321 said:

thanks for clarification.

 

i understand it better now. I make enough money to show my evidence of support for him.

The public charge rule that was changed primarily changed what used to be detailed as "cash benefits" in to benefits received like food stamps. 

[databit 328]

28 minutes ago, shiny321 said:

As a sponsor I take responsibility for all expenses.

Unless you are a multi-millionaire, doubt if you could afford a major surgery for him. For example, a hip replacement is $40k a heart bypass is $123k, and that's just the fees for the surgeon.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

Showing that you have investigated health costs for him with estimates of monthly premiums, deductibles etc is probably a good idea. Does he have significant savings/investments to cash in and bring with?

[KTH1010 5]

Public Charge is more than just using benefits. While the public charge was always a thing, they never required an applicant to speak English or have a degree to be approved for a green card. With new Public Charge rule, they will require English proficiency, education skills, employment history, credit history and many more. I would suggest to consult with a lawyer. It has become such a complecated rule that  it will be hard to determine what evidence can be sufficient to provide for your father not to be deemed a public charge. 

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, Lemonslice said:

There's a lot of improvisation.  Don't lose too much energy trying to understand their non sense.  See: The Trump administration’s green card Catch-22 

 

 "Among the “negative factors” it says employees should consider when assessing whether an immigrant could someday become a public charge: whether the immigrant is applying for a green card. You know, the very reason the official is evaluating the immigrant."

Is there a source for that claim? I get that it's an opinion piece, but one would expect them to still provide sources for which they are basing their opinion.

Edited March 6, 2020 by geowrian

[Lemonslice 4,850]

6 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Is there a source for that claim? I get that it's an opinion piece, but one would expect them to still provide sources for which they are basing their opinion.

They do link to their sources (I read it more than once, because it was so cray-cray, made no sense) - right here: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-g-chapter-12

 

 

 

🤪

Edited March 6, 2020 by Lemonslice

[geowrian 22,337]

18 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

They do link to their sources (I read it more than once, because it was so cray-cray, made no sense) - right here: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-g-chapter-12

 

 

 

🤪

Thanks. I had to pull the text from another site due to the WP's paywall, and I guess they dropped the sources. Boo! 😠

 

Okay, that context makes more sense then.

Yes, applying for a green card creates a higher burden to show that you will not become a public charge than applying for most NIVs. Very few people are denied, say, a tourist visa due to INA 212(a)(4). The burden to show that you won't become a public charge is quite small because it's both 1) for a short visit and 2) eligibility for public benefits as a tourist is pretty negligible (the biggest probably being related to health, IMO). Meanwhile an intending immigrant has a higher burden as they will presumably be in the US for long periods of time and become eligible for certain benefits.

 

Edit: I would just note that the article's wording was a bit misleading. Instead of "whether an immigrant could someday become a public charge", it should have said "whether a visa applicant could someday become a public charge".

Edit 2: Actually, instead of "visa applicant", it should actually say "applicant" or "alien", as this section is only for USCIS purposes....presumably EOS and COS applications vs AOS applications.

Edited March 6, 2020 by geowrian

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

31 minutes ago, KTH1010 said:

Public Charge is more than just using benefits. While the public charge was always a thing, they never required an applicant to speak English or have a degree to be approved for a green card. With new Public Charge rule, they will require English proficiency, education skills, employment history, credit history and many more. I would suggest to consult with a lawyer. It has become such a complecated rule that  it will be hard to determine what evidence can be sufficient to provide for your father not to be deemed a public charge. 

You’re confusing what is mandatory with what is useful to show that you won’t be a public charge. You don’t “require” english proficiency, education etc to get an immigrant visa, but all of that strongly helps to overcome public charge concerns.  Getting all of those detailed on a form rather than come out, maybe, kind of informally, during a discussion helps formalize the decision making process on these issues.

Edited March 6, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[Lemonslice 4,850]

19 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Thanks. I had to pull the text from another site due to the WP's paywall, and I guess they dropped the sources. Boo! 😠

 

Okay, that context makes more sense then.

Yes, applying for a green card creates a higher burden to show that you will not become a public charge than applying for most NIVs. Very few people are denied, say, a tourist visa due to INA 212(a)(4). The burden to show that you won't become a public charge is quite small because it's both 1) for a short visit and 2) eligibility for public benefits as a tourist is pretty negligible (the biggest probably being related to health, IMO). Meanwhile an intending immigrant has a higher burden as they will presumably be in the US for long periods of time and become eligible for certain benefits.

True - but... they are also becoming eligible because of their status (duration of their stay, working, paying taxes, etc.). I understand that:

"USCIS considers the immigration status that the alien seeks and the expected period of admission as it relates to the alien’s ability to financially support him or herself during the duration of the alien’s stay."

- however, why is being a LPR a negative factor, if the purpose of their status is to be "permanent residents".   Oh well, I still think it is a circular logic. 

[The other chapters are not as badly written, from what I have seen - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-g]

 

*Note that I am not against increased requirements, however I wish it was better worded. 

 

Also, boo paywalls.  Look with your local libraries, many offer remote access

Edited March 6, 2020 by Lemonslice

[Cndn 98]

54 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Thanks. I had to pull the text from another site due to the WP's paywall, and I guess they dropped the sources. Boo! 😠

 

Okay, that context makes more sense then.

Yes, applying for a green card creates a higher burden to show that you will not become a public charge than applying for most NIVs. Very few people are denied, say, a tourist visa due to INA 212(a)(4). The burden to show that you won't become a public charge is quite small because it's both 1) for a short visit and 2) eligibility for public benefits as a tourist is pretty negligible (the biggest probably being related to health, IMO). Meanwhile an intending immigrant has a higher burden as they will presumably be in the US for long periods of time and become eligible for certain benefits.

 

Edit: I would just note that the article's wording was a bit misleading. Instead of "whether an immigrant could someday become a public charge", it should have said "whether a visa applicant could someday become a public charge".

Edit 2: Actually, instead of "visa applicant", it should actually say "applicant" or "alien", as this section is only for USCIS purposes....presumably EOS and COS applications vs AOS applications.

Do you happen to know why on the new declaration of self sufficiency forms they are asking about whether or not you’ve used benefits like pregnancy or emergency Medicaid? As these are supposed to be benefits excluded from public charge determination I am so curious as to why they are going to be asking visa applicants about this at all? 
 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Cndn

[geowrian 22,337]

13 minutes ago, Cndn said:

Do you happen to know why on the new declaration of self sufficiency forms they are asking about whether or not you’ve used benefits like pregnancy or emergency Medicaid? As these are supposed to be benefits excluded from public charge determination I am so curious as to why they are going to be asking visa applicants about this at all?

I cannot speak as to why they ask a specific question. But my guess would be to determine if the applicant has previously used programs for which they were not permitted.

I didn't see "Emergency Medicaid" mentioned on the form. It only said "federally funded Medicaid". I emphasize the "federally-funded" part as state-funded programs like those in NY and CA would not be an issue.

[Cndn 98]

16 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I cannot speak as to why they ask a specific question. But my guess would be to determine if the applicant has previously used programs for which they were not permitted.

I didn't see "Emergency Medicaid" mentioned on the form. It only said "federally funded Medicaid". I emphasize the "federally-funded" part as state-funded programs like those in NY and CA would not be an issue.

Right I was looking for your best guess. Of course you can’t be expected to know why haha.
 

Scratch the emergency Medicaid! I don’t know why I thought I saw that. Admittedly I’ve just glanced over them as of right now. But I know I saw pregnancy Medicaid, which confuses me. I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain all pregnancy Medicaid in every state that offers it is state funded. I’m pretty sure that’s why you can only get it in certain states. I also know the revised public charge rule said pregnancy Medicaid would not be considered when determining public charge risk. To see it mentioned on the form was a bit jarring, although I realize there could be reasons for it being there that don’t mean they’re going to use it as a negative factor against an applicant. I for one would like to know why it’s there though. 

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

3 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

You’re confusing what is mandatory with what is useful to show that you won’t be a public charge. You don’t “require” english proficiency, education etc to get an immigrant visa, but all of that strongly helps to overcome public charge concerns.  Getting all of those detailed on a form rather than come out, maybe, kind of informally, during a discussion helps formalize the decision making process on these issues.

Agreed, his education and skills will not do him much good if retired.. 

 

retirement fund that that he takes to USA and health insurance will be two BIG factors for him given his age.. details of parents current assets e.g savings, vehicle value, home value and his ability to sell them or rent out providing him with an ongoing income or additional funds for retirement.. Petitioners AOS will need to be strong.

[nick0379 0]

14 hours ago, shiny321 said:

What is the latest news on this?

 

Are they denying based on public charge ruling??

 

My father aged 70 has an upcoming visa interview soon.

 

Can anyone help me??Worried.

I would prepare the DS-5540 and take it with you. From what I learnt not all Consulates have implemented it yet-prepare and take it with you but dont have to show it unless asked. If all is well--your finances, a plan for insurance is discussed and medical clearance, the Public Charge ruling should not be a hurdle. I would take a quote that works best for you and take the insurance quote to the interview. Should a question be raised, you can make a case, in addition to the quote, that you have found something  and have a plan, that covers your needs and have done your ground work and not likely depend on the government for benefits.