Public Charge Rule is BLOCKED

[Just Paul 4,595]

13 minutes ago, Justxxxx said:

 

You might want to learn about consular nonreviewability aka consular absolutism. There are plenty of cases here in the archives prior to the EO about issues surrounding Public Charge.  So if the NVC doesn't ask for a DS-5540 don't expect the CO not to ask questions or review documents about public charge. 

 

If you think there maybe an issue at the interview then make sure to have a joint sponsor as a backup.

 

And I'm the USC. I've traveled the world working for an NGO.  Logged over 2 million air miles. Been to Nigeria many times. Semi-retired and I volunteer at an immigration clinic so I get to see these issues firsthand. I even have permanent residency in another country. And yes got my wife here in a 103 days.

[HRQX 4,145]

45 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

Consulates were already applying a more stringent Public Charge interpretation prior to the EO.

Are you referring to the January 2018 public charge changes to the FAM? If so, the injunction on DOS has temporarily blocked that too: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MTRNY-v-Pompeo-PI-Order-2020-07-29.pdf "Defendants are enjoined from enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective the 2018 FAM Revisions, DOS Rule, and Proclamation until further order of this Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court."

[geowrian 22,337]

First thing first: The public charge rule absolutely still exists. The recent fairly significant changes to the rule are suspended pending further decisions on the merits of the case or appeals.

I don't want people to think they they cannot be denied based on a public charge grounds anymore. The public charge inadmissibility has been around for a long time, and is not going away.

 

51 minutes ago, Justxxxx said:

Were did such statements or you are just making your personal opinion. The rule covers both uscis and consulate it’s a single EO so as the court halt it it will apply every both sides 

"The rule" was 2 separate rules, codified into separate regulations. They were similar, but different rules depending on if going through USCIS or DOS.

The judge issued 2 separate injunctions, one for each rule. It was absolutely a possibility that only 1 or the other rule could have been suspended.

 

The only EO referenced was the healthcare mandate, which has been suspended via injunction for well over a year now I believe.

 

6 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

They have been

Called here "totality of circumstances"  often

When the embassy regards the income as "too low"   they give a 221 g asking for a joint sponsor

they don't call it public charge but cpvers all expenses that could be incured in the US

"Totality of the circumstances" was successfully argued, and the judge referred to such a assessment being required under INA 212(a)(4) (the public charge inadmissibility, which is still in effect). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It is still called "public charge". Failure to provide a requested, suited joint sponsor in that case would be refused under 212(a)(4). The 221(g) is just to get the additional documents.

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

1 hour ago, pablo2752 said:

I am confused. Does this mean anything to people who already submitted AOS packet with i-944? 

I wouldn't be too excited now . 

they cannot deny immigration privileges based on willy wonka charlie rule from white house now that it is blocked. Considering the whole economy is a mess, it makes sense that the willy wonka rule is blocked. 

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

47 minutes ago, geowrian said:

First thing first: The public charge rule absolutely still exists. The recent fairly significant changes to the rule are suspended pending further decisions on the merits of the case or appeals.

I don't want people to think they they cannot be denied based on a public charge grounds anymore. The public charge inadmissibility has been around for a long time, and is not going away.

 

"The rule" was 2 separate rules, codified into separate regulations. They were similar, but different rules depending on if going through USCIS or DOS.

The judge issued 2 separate injunctions, one for each rule. It was absolutely a possibility that only 1 or the other rule could have been suspended.

 

The only EO referenced was the healthcare mandate, which has been suspended via injunction for well over a year now I believe.

 

"Totality of the circumstances" was successfully argued, and the judge referred to such a assessment being required under INA 212(a)(4) (the public charge inadmissibility, which is still in effect). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It is still called "public charge". Failure to provide a requested, suited joint sponsor in that case would be refused under 212(a)(4). The 221(g) is just to get the additional documents.

Well the rule has been there but it was never abused like the current administration.   Thankfully the judicial system is doing its job to stop the abuse

[Just Paul 4,595]

1 minute ago, James120383 said:

Well the rule has been there but it was never abused like the current administration.   Thankfully the judicial system is doing its job to stop the abuse

This was an issue even with the previous administration.

 

It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle especially at the consulate. Untraining / retraining career foreign service officers is hard.  I fear that obtaining this judicial relief, instead of codifying US Law via congress, will cause unintended consequences at the consulates is a few countries that have seen cases of "Public Charge" arise. Consular nonreviewability has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  This is very bad news for K1 petitions.

 

 

[retheem 564]

2 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

Consulates were already applying a more stringent Public Charge interpretation prior to the EO.

If you don't mind educate me here a bit; what has actually changed from pre-public charge rule and now when it comes to consulate apart from the use of DS 5540?

[retheem 564]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

First thing first: The public charge rule absolutely still exists. The recent fairly significant changes to the rule are suspended pending further decisions on the merits of the case or appeals.

I don't want people to think they they cannot be denied based on a public charge grounds anymore. The public charge inadmissibility has been around for a long time, and is not going away.

 

"The rule" was 2 separate rules, codified into separate regulations. They were similar, but different rules depending on if going through USCIS or DOS.

The judge issued 2 separate injunctions, one for each rule. It was absolutely a possibility that only 1 or the other rule could have been suspended.

 

The only EO referenced was the healthcare mandate, which has been suspended via injunction for well over a year now I believe.

 

"Totality of the circumstances" was successfully argued, and the judge referred to such a assessment being required under INA 212(a)(4) (the public charge inadmissibility, which is still in effect). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

It is still called "public charge". Failure to provide a requested, suited joint sponsor in that case would be refused under 212(a)(4). The 221(g) is just to get the additional documents.

That's why I asked someone to explain to me what has actually changed from pre-public charge rule and now, coz even before, if income was too low you had to provide a sponsor.

[retheem 564]

21 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

This was an issue even with the previous administration.

 

It is hard to put the genie back in the bottle especially at the consulate. Untraining / retraining career foreign service officers is hard.  I fear that obtaining this judicial relief, instead of codifying US Law via congress, will cause unintended consequences at the consulates is a few countries that have seen cases of "Public Charge" arise. Consular nonreviewability has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  This is very bad news for K1 petitions.

 

 

Question for you; How strict or there lack of, are consulates and embassies when it comes to the public charge rule? Should people be on the lookout for particular aspects?

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

14 minutes ago, retheem said:

That's why I asked someone to explain to me what has actually changed from pre-public charge rule and now, coz even before, if income was too low you had to provide a sponsor.

well if we have learnt anything you can use fake bone spurs to not enter the Military draft but  you cannot use public benefits to treat bone spurs if you are an immigrant.  If only all immigrants were self sufficient from America was discovered no one would ever qualify to be here 

 

 

[Justxxxx 56]

3 hours ago, Justxxxx said:

I

 

[Justxxxx 56]

3 hours ago, Justxxxx said:

 

 

[geowrian 22,337]

53 minutes ago, retheem said:

If you don't mind educate me here a bit; what has actually changed from pre-public charge rule and now when it comes to consulate apart from the use of DS 5540?

48 minutes ago, retheem said:

That's why I asked someone to explain to me what has actually changed from pre-public charge rule and now, coz even before, if income was too low you had to provide a sponsor.

It's hard to summarize all the changes in those rules, but the key points are what public benefits are considered as being a public charge, the definition of what a public charge is (it was changed to mean using a public benefit for at least 12 of the last 36 months, with multiple benefits in a month being added concurrently), and various "heavily weighted positive factor" and "heavily weighted negative factor" criteria.

 

They still looked at age, health, family status, assets/resources/financial status, education, and skills in the totality of the circumstances prior to the rule. The DS-5540 (and I-944 for AOS) basically helped understand those factors better (at least that was the claim...I can't speak to it's accuracy or not).

[Justxxxx 56]

4 hours ago, Justxxxx said:

Public charge rule is public charge rule it dose not matter wether for uscis or consulate. The best altmate is one to prove he will not become liability 

 

[jasonlzak 173]

Basically the judge orders DOS to re-follow the old "1999 field guidance public charge" in which a sufficient I-864 will generally overcome public charge ground instead of the 2018 FAM revision. This is a major win for applicants but I won't be surprise if Trump takes this case to the SCOTUS, and whether or not DOS will obey the order comprehensively.

Edited July 30, 2020 by jasonlzak