Public Charge Rule is BLOCKED

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

42 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

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.

Hopefully the election will take care of that. lets hope 

[Boiler 45,464]

Pre Obama there was a public charge rule, all this seems to do is put the variability back. Different Consulates will do their own thing.

[SalishSea 17,819]

4 hours ago, jasonlzak said:

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.

What do you mean?  Why would SCOTUS entreat this as a case?

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

Updated on USCIS website

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge/injunction-of-the-inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds-final-rule?fbclid=IwAR2wdt9SSIff14JPUZP15GOGnm3aVJZkcfgO9sFtnvlLhdgwvuHD5srS6ik

 

On July 29, 2020,  the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in State of New York, et al. v. DHS, et al. and Make the Road NY et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al. enjoined the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. (84 FR 41292, Aug. 14, 2019, final rule; as amended by 84 FR 52357, Oct. 2, 2019, final rule correction)

On Jan. 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency, effective Jan. 27, 2020, under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in response to COVID-19. On Feb. 24, 2020, DHS implemented the Public Charge Rule to be applied prospectively to any application or petition postmarked, or if applicable, submitted electronically on or after that date. On March 13, 2020, the President issued Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. On the same day, USCIS issued an alert addressing COVID-19 and public charge determinations under the Public Charge Rule.

As long as the July 29, 2020, SDNY decision is in effect, USCIS will apply the 1999 public charge guidance that was in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented on Feb. 24, 2020 to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status on or after July 29, 2020. In addition, USCIS will adjudicate any application or petition for extension of nonimmigrant stay or change of nonimmigrant status on or after July 29, 2020, consistent with regulations in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented; in other words, we will not apply the public benefit condition.

For applications and petitions that USCIS adjudicates on or after July 29, 2020, pursuant to the SDNY injunction, USCIS will not consider any information provided by an applicant or petitioner that relates to the Public Charge Rule, including information provided on the Form I-944, or information on the receipt of public benefits in Part 5 on Form I-539, Part 3 on Form I-539A or Part 6 on Form I-129. Applicants and petitioners whose applications or petitions are postmarked on or after July 29, 2020, should not include the Form I-944 or provide information about the receipt of public benefits on Form I-485, Form I-129, or Form I-539/I-539A.

USCIS will issue guidance regarding the use of affected forms. In the interim, USCIS will not reject any Form I-485 on the basis of the inclusion or exclusion of Form I-944, nor Forms I-129 and I-539 based on whether Part 6, or Part 5, respectively, has been completed or left blank.

In any public charge inadmissibility determination, USCIS will consider the receipt of public benefits consistently with prior public charge guidance – the 1999 Interim Field Guidance (PDF) and AFM Ch. 61.1. (PDF, 77.92 KB) 
 

 

[DeleteMePlease123 91]

Excuse my crappy understanding but those that sent their applications aka I-485 packets prior to July 29, 2020 will not be judged by the public charge rule either as per the USCIS news release?

Edited July 31, 2020 by Spookie

[HRQX 4,145]

6 minutes ago, Spookie said:

Excuse my crappy understanding but those that sent their applications prior to July 29, 2020 will not be judged by the public charge rule either as per the USCIS news release?

"As long as the July 29, 2020, SDNY decision is in effect, USCIS will apply the 1999 public charge guidance"

[DeleteMePlease123 91]

4 minutes ago, HRQX said:

"As long as the July 29, 2020, SDNY decision is in effect, USCIS will apply the 1999 public charge guidance"

Gotcha, appreciate it. That's why I shouldn't speed through what I'm reading lol.

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

25 minutes ago, Spookie said:

Gotcha, appreciate it. That's why I shouldn't speed through what I'm reading lol.

you got the weekend to read through

[DeleteMePlease123 91]

3 minutes ago, James120383 said:

you got the weekend to read through

Doesn't take me /that/ long haha.

[Toby_HB 39]

This is great news, as I was waiting for some transcripts in the mail, which means I can send my AOS packet on Monday sans the I-944.. Great news, for now! 

 

 

[Cilllah 476]

Guess I don’t need to apply for those transcripts now! Seems like it’ll make my two AOS applications slightly easier due to less paperwork. 

[DeleteMePlease123 91]

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upholds public charge rule injunction but limits its scope to NY, Connecticut and Vermont.

 

 

Conflicting information, however:

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Spookie

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

immigration has become a  giant circus now. 

[pablo2752 106]

I wish the public charge rule only applied to people who fall into mix of the following categories:

 

1. do not have at least 4 year old bachelor degree or higher that US recognizes. 

OR

2. Do not have years of work experience 

OR

3. do not speak English. 

OR

4. do not have sponsor that speaks English, has a job, has at least bachelor degree OR earn well above federal poverty guidelines. 

 

Some countries have resources for English classes that new immigrants can take. Is US not doing the similar thing because it doen'st want to be called "racist" by declaring english as its national langauge? 

Edited August 4, 2020 by pablo2752

[Boiler 45,464]

Sadly those do not always work

 

1 Had a guy washing dishes who had a masters, not sure he was otherwise employable outside the Government sector.

 

2 Once you reach you later years and I know they are not supposed to ask your age but if you graduated in 1970 they can probably work it out, become much more difficult. Think WalMart were getting rid of their greeters.

 

3. Now that is an interesting concept, I am going to assume you mean American, there is a difference. And yet again correlation is arguable.

 

4. And is in good health?