Parents on Green Card not traveling back amid coronavirus concerns

[Just Paul 4,595]

20 minutes ago, AnnaLee24 said:

Wouldn’t the public charge rule apply to them if they are out of the country longer than 180 days? 

They are already LPRs.  There is no "Public Charge" determination on entry or renewal.

[Crazy Cat 42,033]

57 minutes ago, AnnaLee24 said:

Wouldn’t the public charge rule apply to them if they are out of the country longer than 180 days? Would they be comfortable with that line of questioning? 

I'm not sure how CBP would apply the public charge rule at POE......   I have seen nothing requiring the I944, DS-5540 or any other special form at POE.

[AnnaLee24 16]

2 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

They are already LPRs.  There is no "Public Charge" determination on entry or renewal.

Then what does pg  41327 public charge rule imply?

 

”Congress specified when lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad will be treated as applicants for admission, and also specified who bears the burden of proof in removal proceedings when such an alien is placed in proceedings. In general, the grounds of inadmissibility set forth in section 212(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), including public charge inadmissibility, do not apply to lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad.163 Congress set forth the circumstances under which lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad are considered applicants for admission, and therefore, are subject to admissibility determinations, including an assessment of whether the alien is inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge.164 If CBP determines that the returning lawful permanent resident is an applicant for admission based on one of the criteria set forth in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), including that the alien has been absent for more than 180 days, and that the alien is inadmissible under one of the grounds set forth in section 212(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a),....”

 

It goes on but that is a lot to quote. From what I gather that after 180 days the LPR is treated as seeking admission, which falls under public charge.

[geowrian 22,338]

Public charge remains an inadmissibility and LPRs are subject to inadmissabilities. That said, I have never seen or heard of anybody having any issue at POE for this, except where they had already been a public charge prior to exit.

Being abroad alone is not a reason to worry about being denied under the public charge rule.

Edited March 7, 2020 by geowrian

[igoyougoduke 1,674]

2 hours ago, geowrian said:

Public charge remains an inadmissibility and LPRs are subject to inadmissabilities. That said, I have never seen or heard of anybody having any issue at POE for this, except where they had already been a public charge prior to exit.

Being abroad alone is not a reason to worry about being denied under the public charge rule.

LPR's cannot be denied entry based alone on a public charge based on circumstances that did not exist before they obtained their green cards. so yeah public charge does not apply for green cards and only a judge can revoke green card status. POE has no authority unless it is based on some other reason 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Donald120383

[geowrian 22,338]

From a practical standpoint, an LPR would be paroled while their inadmissability is adjudicated by a court.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

6 hours ago, geowrian said:

Public charge remains an inadmissibility and LPRs are subject to inadmissabilities. That said, I have never seen or heard of anybody having any issue at POE for this, except where they had already been a public charge prior to exit.

 

This. While technically you reapply for admission after 180 days (as @AnnaLee24correctly highlights), I’ve never in practice heard of any difference in the way CBP treats returning LPRs before or after the 180 day mark, as long as the absence is less than a year.

Edited March 8, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[AnnaLee24 16]

16 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

This. While technically you reapply for admission after 180 days (as @AnnaLee24correctly highlights), I’ve never in practice heard of any difference in the way CBP treats returning LPRs before or after the 180 day mark, as long as the absence is less than a year.

I’m guessing time will tell since the new public charge regulations are still rolling in. To me it seems the public charge guidance was written to give consequences for staying out of the country past the 180 day mark. 

 

On the next page the public charge rule addresses naturalization.

 

”The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply in naturalization proceedings. DHS notes, however, that USCIS assesses as part of the naturalization whether the applicant was properly admitted as a lawful permanent resident and therefore was eligible for adjustment based upon the public charge ground of inadmissibility at the time of the adjustment of status.176”

What I gather is when a LPR is admitted after being absent 180 days > LPR is treated as applicant for admission (per INA section 101(a)(13)(C)) > admissions fall under the public charge rule. Reading the rule it seems like this will come up at the POE but the option was left open to assess the lawfulness of the re-admission under public charge during naturalization.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

34 minutes ago, AnnaLee24 said:

the public charge guidance was written to give consequences for staying out of the country past the 180 day mark. 

Again, this has always been the case and I’ve never seen it reported as an issue. I’ve been and been with LPRs entering before and after 180 days absence and there is no difference in treatment or factors looked at. 

[AnnaLee24 16]

5 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

 I’ve been and been with LPRs entering before and after 180 days absence and there is no difference in treatment or factors looked at. 

If you have been with LPRs after being out of the US +6 months since public charge has went into effect that is good news.

Kinda hard to believe that USCIS took the time to defend that LPRs would need to be tested as an applicant for admission in the public charge rule and CBP took the time to update their procedures. 

“LPRs who are out of the U.S. for more than 180 days are subject to new immigrant inspection procedures as per 8 USC 1101.”

 

 

https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1191?language=en_US

but stranger things have happened.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

51 minutes ago, AnnaLee24 said:

If you have been with LPRs after being out of the US +6 months since public charge has went into effect that is good news.

Kinda hard to believe that USCIS took the time to defend that LPRs would need to be tested as an applicant for admission in the public charge rule and CBP took the time to update their procedures. 

“LPRs who are out of the U.S. for more than 180 days are subject to new immigrant inspection procedures as per 8 USC 1101.”

 

 

https://help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1191?language=en_US

but stranger things have happened.

Are you purposely missing the point of my post? The “new immigrant inspection procedure” after 180 days has been in place for years. So has the burden of proof of overcoming public charge. Changing the way public charge is determined is just a tweak to background legislation. Even for brand new immigrants, definitely subject to “new immigrant inspection procedures”, when has a CBP officer ever second guessed public charge?  
 

 

Edit... oh wait ..maybe the wording confused you ...are you thinking it’s the “immigrant inspection procedure” that is “new”, rather than that the “inspection procedure” is conducted as thought it is a “new immigrant”? It’s the latter, the wording has been in place for years. The CBP page you linked above was last updated on 27 Sept 2019 by the way, long before the new public charge rule came into effect.
 

Edited March 9, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[AnnaLee24 16]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

Are you purposely missing the point of my post? The “new immigrant inspection procedure” after 180 days has been in place for years. So has the burden of proof of overcoming public charge. Changing the way public charge is determined is just a tweak to background legislation. Even for brand new immigrants, definitely subject to “new immigrant inspection procedures”, when has a CBP officer ever second guessed public charge?  
 

 

Edit... oh wait ..maybe the wording confused you ...are you thinking it’s the “immigrant inspection procedure” that is “new”, rather than that the “inspection procedure” is conducted as thought it is a “new immigrant”? It’s the latter, the wording has been in place for years. The CBP page you linked above was last updated on 27 Sept 2019 by the way, long before the new public charge rule came into effect.
 

Prior to the recent public charge guidelines “the way public charge is determined” did not require public charge to adjudicated when seeking admission. I’m sure you are aware LPR can not be considered as “seeking admission” unless one of six exceptions apply, one of which is when an LPR is gone longer more than 180 days. Before the new guidelines went into effect there was no protocol in determining public charge for LPR’s seeking admission at the POE, now there is, I-944.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

20 minutes ago, AnnaLee24 said:

Prior to the recent public charge guidelines “the way public charge is determined” did not require public charge to adjudicated when seeking admission. I’m sure you are aware LPR can not be considered as “seeking admission” unless one of six exceptions apply, one of which is when an LPR is gone longer more than 180 days. Before the new guidelines went into effect there was no protocol in determining public charge for LPR’s seeking admission at the POE, now there is, I-944.

I’m not wasting my time repeating stuff you willfully ignore anymore, please feel free to come back and update the thread when all these reports of existing green card holders being denied entry start rolling in as you expect.