Graphic depicting the effect of the "Public Charge" executive order on the size of my I-485 packet

[SalishSea 17,839]

I wonder if anyone has been denied AOS due to factors related to education/potential employment, credit, banking history, etc?  In other words, how is USCIS using the info on the I-944?

[JFH 12,190]

Having a husband with a history of bankrupt companies behind him doesn’t mean anything - just ask Melanie Trump. I bet she’s glad this was introduced after she went through AOS. 

[itscarly 114]

My AoS without the I-944 is 293 pages and with it 388. I found out about I-944 when I was finishing all the other forms, I almost go crazy 😂 it was 95 pages more than I was expecting

[juancarlos 126]

1 hour ago, Jorgedig said:

I wonder if anyone has been denied AOS due to factors related to education/potential employment, credit, banking history, etc?  In other words, how is USCIS using the info on the I-944?

I think it is still too early to know about this but hopefully those who file in February, March... can give us some feedback soon.

[Cndn 98]

3 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

I wonder if anyone has been denied AOS due to factors related to education/potential employment, credit, banking history, etc?  In other words, how is USCIS using the info on the I-944?

And why does the I944 ask if someone has used pregnancy medicaid if that’s not supposed to be a factor in determining public charge risk? Does anyone have any insight on that? 
 

Edit: It also really amuses me that USCIS places any importance on a credit score. A credit score usually means someone has incurred debt, and has nothing to do with financial competence. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Cndn

[Ash.1101 1,756]

1 hour ago, Cndn said:

 

Edit: It also really amuses me that USCIS places any importance on a credit score. A credit score usually means someone has incurred debt, and has nothing to do with financial competence. 

Agree'd. In my first marriage, credit cards were my bane. I racked everything up, after 5 years of marriage I was rocking a credit score in the 400s. It was bad.

After the credits aged out, I disputed all of them. They were all taken off my credit report either due to their age or because the creditors couldn't prove they were actually my credit accounts.

Now I'm generally 680+. I can't say I'm more financially competent at all, I just have more self control than I had when I was in my early 20s.

[JFH 12,190]

1 hour ago, Cndn said:

Edit: It also really amuses me that USCIS places any importance on a credit score. A credit score usually means someone has incurred debt, and has nothing to do with financial competence. 

I find the whole concept of credit scores and the status they hold here to be very odd. My husband’s score is higher than mine. By more than 50 points. He doesn’t even work. He has a credit card that I pay off each month. So it’s actually my score. 

[SalishSea 17,839]

2 hours ago, Cndn said:

And why does the I944 ask if someone has used pregnancy medicaid if that’s not supposed to be a factor in determining public charge risk? Does anyone have any insight on that? 
 

Edit: It also really amuses me that USCIS places any importance on a credit score. A credit score usually means someone has incurred debt, and has nothing to do with financial competence. 

Depends on the type of debt as well as repayment history.  There is an algorithm.  Apparently low credit score correlates with higher risk enough to be considered.

[Cndn 98]

13 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Depends on the type of debt as well as repayment history.  There is an algorithm.  Apparently low credit score correlates with higher risk enough to be considered.

It’s just funny though because someone flat broke can have a great score if they spend and pay off a small amount of money each month. Doesn’t in any way mean they have the kind of resources to sponsor someone from another country. I get the logic behind it I just don’t think they should bother with people’s scores. It’s invasive and I don’t think it gives the full scope of someone’s finances at all. My husband for example used to have a poor score. He just isn’t techy so I set all his payments to auto for him. He always had the money but his ADHD makes being organized harder for him. I’ve been in the US for 2 years and I’ve had a credit card/score for about 9 months. My score is already ‘good.’ I’m a stay at home mom right now. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Cndn

[Thrillhouse 193]

5 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

I wonder if anyone has been denied AOS due to factors related to education/potential employment, credit, banking history, etc?  In other words, how is USCIS using the info on the I-944?

I'm really curious about that too. I'm also curious about the process now involving the form itself -- here's a brand new form, with an absurd amount of required information and documentation, handed to USCIS employees that have no precedent for how to handle it. How many reviewers will insist on enforcing it to the letter, and how many will be overwhelmed with the sheer scope of it? Did my English high school transcripts and all my English documentation prove that I speak my own native language of English well enough for you?

[py6 43]

This only helps slow down the processing speed. 

 

 

[Diane and Chris 651]

20 hours ago, geowrian said:

Our AOS packet (pre-new rule) was only about 20-30 pages long. We did AOS from K-1, so the I-130 packet was not needed, though.

 

The only major change with paperwork for the new rule revolves around the I-944. What in the I-944 (and its supporting documentation) added over 300 pages?

I guess it’s still less than some of the filers of ROC in a group for June 2020 that I’m following. One guy said his bank statements alone are over 300 pages!  I tried to tell him all that wasn’t necessary. He insisted that any and ALL evidence should be included. He will probably end up with around 600-700 pages of evidence. Talk about overkill!  🙃

[SalishSea 17,839]

1 hour ago, Cndn said:

It’s just funny though because someone flat broke can have a great score if they spend and pay off a small amount of money each month. Doesn’t in any way mean they have the kind of resources to sponsor someone from another country. I get the logic behind it I just don’t think they should bother with people’s scores. It’s invasive and I don’t think it gives the full scope of someone’s finances at all. My husband for example used to have a poor score. He just isn’t techy so I set all his payments to auto for him. He always had the money but his ADHD makes being organized harder for him. I’ve been in the US for 2 years and I’ve had a credit card/score for about 9 months. My score is already ‘good.’ I’m a stay at home mom right now. 

Have you ever seen a credit report though? It's much more than a simple number.  I am 50, and my credit report goes back to my first credit card from 1988.  It is many pages long.  Someone with a one year credit history with a score of 750 will provide less of a *snapshot* picture of risk than someone with a 30 year history with a score of 700.  Someone with a lower score because of high debt-to-income ratio could be evaluated differently than someone with the same score because of a missed payment.

 

It is a tool for evaluating risk to lenders, employers, insurers etc.  Of course it is not the entire picture of someone's financial health, but it at least provides a glimpse into someone's financial history that a bank account doesn't show.  Kind of like how an infusion of cash into an account in the form of a large deposit will be considered differently than long-term bank records showing a pattern over time.

 

To me, it makes sense to include information about debts and historic financial habits as well as assets, when evaluating the risk of public charge.

[SalishSea 17,839]

1 hour ago, Thrillhouse said:

I'm really curious about that too. I'm also curious about the process now involving the form itself -- here's a brand new form, with an absurd amount of required information and documentation, handed to USCIS employees that have no precedent for how to handle it. How many reviewers will insist on enforcing it to the letter, and how many will be overwhelmed with the sheer scope of it? Did my English high school transcripts and all my English documentation prove that I speak my own native language of English well enough for you?

They may have no precedent, but they definitely have guidelines and training.  US federal govt is into rules and redundancy.

[Cndn 98]

7 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Have you ever seen a credit report though? It's much more than a simple number.  I am 50, and my credit report goes back to my first credit card from 1988.  It is many pages long.  Someone with a one year credit history with a score of 750 will provide less of a *snapshot* picture of risk than someone with a 30 year history with a score of 700.  Someone with a lower score because of high debt-to-income ratio could be evaluated differently than someone with the same score because of a missed payment.

 

It is a tool for evaluating risk to lenders, employers, insurers etc.  Of course it is not the entire picture of someone's financial health, but it at least provides a glimpse into someone's financial history that a bank account doesn't show.  Kind of like how an infusion of cash into an account in the form of a large deposit will be considered differently than long-term bank records showing a pattern over time.

 

To me, it makes sense to include information about debts and historic financial habits as well as assets, when evaluating the risk of public charge.

I have seen them many times, yes. I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression the I944 asked for the score number, not the actual credit report to be submitted? I’d be pretty surprised if they were going to tackle reviewing everyone’s credit report in full. Look at yours for example. All the way back to ‘88.
 

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I completely understand what you’re saying, but I still don’t think that someone’s spotty credit history has any bearing on whether or not they can currently sponsor an immigrant and keep them off public assistance. So many people have bad credit when they’re younger and improve their financial health as they get older. I don’t think it’s the right tool to use to determine an applicant’s ability to be self sufficient. I think if someone can show they currently make enough income then that should suffice. These are family reunification visas. Should immigrant families be self sufficient? Yes, absolutely. But it shouldn’t be such an intense wealth test.