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

[AnnaLee24 16]

9 hours 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’m guessing but I think it is because what will happen is USCIS will run the given SSN’s through the Social Security offices benefits database. The SS office will have a record even though pregnancy is excluded for immigration reasons. The SS office is just going to supply the complete data set for a person. If public benefits show up on someone’s SSN data and the excluded box isn’t checked I’m guessing that application will be highly scrutinized.

[Boiler 45,488]

Pretty sure Pregnancy as being discussed comes under Emergency Medicaid, no idea how it is funded. 

[HDia 105]

20 hours ago, Lil bear said:

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 ... 

 

20 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

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.

Thank you for your thoughts! I hope the CO will think the same in the interview. I guess I'm just overthinking.

[HDia 105]

18 hours ago, pushbrk said:

The only thing one can do to "improve" their standing regarding the public charge issue is to improve their actual financial situation.  However, two years working as a software engineer making several times the minimum income requirement will do quite nicely.  The OP has no worries, unless going through Mumbai where they tend to want to see three years of qualifying tax returns.

Hopefully it will turn out OK, thank you!

 

17 hours ago, AnnaLee24 said:

Here is the USCIS link that describes the weighting scheme a little better.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/policymanual/resources/Appendix-TotalityoftheCircumstancesFramework.pdf

Kinda seems like y’all are in the clear as long as she 1) Is covered under your work health insurance. 2) you make above 250% of the federal poverty guideline.

I tried the worksheet, looks like our positive will outweigh negative!

[geowrian 22,337]

29 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Pretty sure Pregnancy as being discussed comes under Emergency Medicaid, no idea how it is funded. 

Here's how the FAM words it at least:

Quote

b. (U) Defining Public Benefit:  In the "public charge" visa ineligibility context, "public benefit” means any of the following, received on or after February 24, 2020:

(5) (U) Medicaid under 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., except for:

(a)  (U) benefits received for an emergency medical condition as described in section 1903(v) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)(2)-(3), 42 CFR 440.255(c));

And here's that section of the SSA: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1903.htm

Quote

(v)(1) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4), no payment may be made to a State under this section for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.

(2) Payment shall be made under this section for care and services that are furnished to an alien described in paragraph (1) only if—

(A) such care and services are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition of the alien,

(B) such alien otherwise meets the eligibility requirements for medical assistance under the State plan approved under this title (other than the requirement of the receipt of aid or assistance under title IV, supplemental security income benefits under title XVI, or a State supplementary payment), and

(C) such care and services are not related to an organ transplant procedure.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term “emergency medical condition” means a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(A) placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy,

(B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.

(4)(A) A State may elect (in a plan amendment under this title) to provide medical assistance under this title, notwithstanding sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, to children and pregnant women who are lawfully residing in the United States (including battered individuals described in section 431(c) of such Act) and who are otherwise eligible for such assistance, within either or both of the following eligibility categories

(i) Pregnant women.—Women during pregnancy (and during the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy).

(ii) Children.—Individuals under 21 years of age, including optional targeted low-income children described in section 1905(u)(2)(B).

(B) In the case of a State that has elected to provide medical assistance to a category of aliens under subparagraph (A), no debt shall accrue under an affidavit of support against any sponsor of such an alien on the basis of provision of assistance to such category and the cost of such assistance shall not be considered as an unreimbursed cost.

(C) As part of the State’s ongoing eligibility redetermination requirements and procedures for an individual provided medical assistance as a result of an election by the State under subparagraph (A), a State shall verify that the individual continues to lawfully reside in the United States using the documentation presented to the State by the individual on initial enrollment. If the State cannot successfully verify that the individual is lawfully residing in the United States in this manner, it shall require that the individual provide the State with further documentation or other evidence to verify that the individual is lawfully residing in the United States.

My understanding of the above (I could be wrong!) is that it is federally funded but also permissible under the SSA. Which then goes back to the FAM from above, in which case it is not considered a public benefit with regards to the public charge ineligibility.

Edited March 6, 2020 by geowrian

[AnnaLee24 16]

37 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Pretty sure Pregnancy as being discussed comes under Emergency Medicaid, no idea how it is funded. 

I’m just guessing how this is going to work. Since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has data on all federally funded Medicaid and that information is shared with the Social Security office, (here is some of the info the SS office shares, https://www.ssa.gov/hlp/mySSA/df-beve.htm). When USCIS sees any benefits it is going to be a red flag, but when an applicant makes “yes, have received benefits and pregnancy is why, X date - X date” and the time frame matches with what CMS is reporting then no extra investigating needs to be done. When the dates don’t match up or someone uses benefits that are allowed but does not indicate it, then there will be problems.

 

 

edit: I’m more talking about the process not really what is allowed and what isn’t. But if an applicant says they haven’t used benefits but has, doesn’t matter if exempt then there will be a red flag flown.

Edited March 6, 2020 by AnnaLee24

[Boiler 45,488]

The one thing I am reasonably certain about is that the 2 systems are not designed to operate together, hence the mess.

[carmel34 3,626]

I agree that health insurance will be the biggest question regarding public charge in your father's visa interview given his age and not working, and the fact that he will not be eligible for Medicare.  You should get a quote from a private health insurance company or from the ACA exchange showing good coverage, low deductibles, etc. (will be very expensive).  If the I-864 and supporting documents show that you have the financial means to cover the health insurance for your father, his chances for approval will be greater.  Good luck!

[LizaJane 13]

On 2/22/2020 at 2:25 PM, Scandi said:

Note sure how much of this info will prove correct, but it's interesting reading nonetheless. 

 

"What is the impact of the applicant’s family members receiving benefits?

 

Benefits received or likely to be received by the applicant’s spouse, children, or other family members are not considered in determining whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge. But the fact that the household qualifies for a designated public benefit program may indicate that the applicant has a low income, in addition to other possible negative factors.

Similarly, receipt of benefits by the sponsor on an affidavit of support will not be counted against the applicant. However, the sponsor may not count any federal means-tested benefits as income. These include SNAP, SSI, Medicaid, TANF, or CHIP."

 

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/ground-inadmissibility-and-deportability/public-charge/public-charge-final-rule-faqs

If it's not to be counted against the applicant then why do they even ask about it? That seems rather invasive in my opinion, and a waste of everyone's time.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

7 minutes ago, LizaJane said:

If it's not to be counted against the applicant then why do they even ask about it? That seems rather invasive in my opinion, and a waste of everyone's time.

"But the fact that the household qualifies for a designated public benefit program may indicate that the applicant has a low income, in addition to other possible negative factors."

[LizaJane 13]

Just now, Lucky Cat said:

"But the fact that the household qualifies for a designated public benefit program may indicate that the applicant has a low income, in addition to other possible negative 

And by that statement,  the sponsors use of benefits actually is being counted against the applicant, in a round about way, which is contradictory to what the previous part states. I'd be interested to know just how far they're looking into individual situations regarding this as they can all be vastly different.  

[Cndn 98]

1 hour ago, Lucky Cat said:

"But the fact that the household qualifies for a designated public benefit program may indicate that the applicant has a low income, in addition to other possible negative factors."

They’re basically still counting other household member’s use of benefits but wording it differently. 

[LizaJane 13]

28 minutes ago, Cndn said:

They’re basically still counting other household member’s use of benefits but wording it differently. 

Exactly. And if that's the case for gods sake admit it outright instead of having people being confused and/or misled.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

31 minutes ago, Cndn said:

They’re basically still counting other household member’s use of benefits but wording it differently. 

I agree......The immigrant's personal use of pubic benefits just carries a greater impact, imo.

[PatoooskiCL 7]

The I-944 asks for your household members but my question is if you're doing this with a co-sponsor, which household do you include? The petitioner's or the co-sponsor's?