Public Charge Rule is BLOCKED

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, Spookie said:

.

 

That Tweet is no longer available.

 

"I’ve deleted my 1st tweet on public charge to reduce confusion. We still have an injunction - two actually. 1 for the states of NY, CT and VT & the recent COVID-related one that’s national. But I’d expect 2nd circuit might narrow the new decision based on what they said today." https://mobile.twitter.com/gsiskind/status/1290743054731812866

[pablo2752 106]

So, those that are outside NY,CY and VT should expect to prep for I-944 regardless. 

Speaking of which, what happened to Illinois? 

[HRQX 4,145]

20 minutes ago, pablo2752 said:

Speaking of which, what happened to Illinois? 

On February 21, 2020, the Supreme Court lifted the preliminary injunction in Illinois, the final state where a preliminary injunction was still in effect. That is why USCIS implemented the rule nationwide on February 24, 2020.

[igoyougoduke 1,662]

soon some one is going to start filing in every state. what a waste of time  & resources for everyone.  only lawyers get rich here 

[pablo2752 106]

1 minute ago, James120383 said:

soon some one is going to start filing in every state. what a waste of time  & resources for everyone.  only lawyers get rich here 

Unrelated, but your timeline says that your EAD/AP were approved while biometric is pending? Congrats! 

[geowrian 22,337]

4 hours ago, pablo2752 said:

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.

My friend has 2 BS degrees, has a work history, and (only) knows fluent English (and a little Japanese - self-taught). He's been on multiple public assistance programs (he's a USC) pretty much since age 25 or so? Sometimes he's on more programs than other times (he's unemployed right now so it's a "more" period).

So I'm not sure those criteria alone really have the intended effect.

The presumed goal of the public charge inadmissibility is prevent the taxpayers from having to bear the financial burden of immigrants who are likely to become a dependent on the government.

 

There was somebody on VJ a couple days ago asking about sponsorship requirements for an F-3 preference (married son/daughter of a USC) that just became current. I think the total household size was around 14 or 15 once their own family and all dependents were calculated.

I'm not sure most jobs would be able to cover that many people financially, and the criteria noted above doesn't seem suited to cover that sort of risk. There are a lot more factors to consider IMO (and in the opinion of USCIS and DOS, and apparently was the intention of legislatures when they wrote the INA provision that required taking into account the totality of the circumstances).

[pablo2752 106]

3 hours ago, geowrian said:

here was somebody on VJ a couple days ago asking about sponsorship requirements for an F-3 preference (married son/daughter of a USC) that just became current. I think the total household size was around 14 or 15 once their own family and all dependents were calculated.

😲😲😲😲15 people???? 

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, pablo2752 said:

😲😲😲😲15 people???? 

Yup.

I forget the record on VJ, but it was in the mid 20s or higher. Although that was via a few separate sibling (F4) petitions.

[Leeman15251 36]

I’m a little confused about the public charge injunction. I keep seeing conflicting articles. The one below for example does it mean they are back to using the I944?https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I9cf68dd0d75411eaa2f1bbb160d441c2/View/FullText.html?transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

[geowrian 22,337]

4 minutes ago, Leeman15251 said:

I’m a little confused about the public charge injunction. I keep seeing conflicting articles. The one below for example does it mean they are back to using the I944?https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I9cf68dd0d75411eaa2f1bbb160d441c2/View/FullText.html?transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

There's a bunch of different rulings by different courts, hence the confusion. That article refers to a 4th circuit court of appeals and an injunction by a trial court within their region.

There have been a couple other rulings as well.

SDNY (2nd circuit) has a nationwide injunction against the current rule. As for right now, that appears to still be in effect. The  I-944 is not available on the USCIS website anymore.

 

Stolen from @HRQX

SDNY ruling on 07/29/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/07/Dkt 221.Judge's Order granting COVID-19 PI and denying most of MTD.7 29 2020 cuccinelli.pdf

4th Circuit ruling (the one noted in your article): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192222.P.pdf

2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/08/465-1.pdf

SDNY ruling on 10/11/19:https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/10/146 Order Granting Injunction.pdf 

[pablo2752 106]

12 minutes ago, geowrian said:

There's a bunch of different rulings by different courts, hence the confusion. That article refers to a 4th circuit court of appeals and an injunction by a trial court within their region.

There have been a couple other rulings as well.

SDNY (2nd circuit) has a nationwide injunction against the current rule. As for right now, that appears to still be in effect. The  I-944 is not available on the USCIS website anymore.

 

Stolen from @HRQX

SDNY ruling on 07/29/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/07/Dkt 221.Judge's Order granting COVID-19 PI and denying most of MTD.7 29 2020 cuccinelli.pdf

4th Circuit ruling (the one noted in your article): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192222.P.pdf

2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/08/465-1.pdf

SDNY ruling on 10/11/19:https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/10/146 Order Granting Injunction.pdf 

Just checked the USCIS website, and you are right! It's gone. 

 

They also updated their websited into much cleaner and organized fashion - about time! USCIS website is super confusing compared to other countries' immigration authority websites. 

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

23 hours ago, geowrian said:

There's a bunch of different rulings by different courts, hence the confusion. That article refers to a 4th circuit court of appeals and an injunction by a trial court within their region.

There have been a couple other rulings as well.

SDNY (2nd circuit) has a nationwide injunction against the current rule. As for right now, that appears to still be in effect. The  I-944 is not available on the USCIS website anymore.

 

Stolen from @HRQX

SDNY ruling on 07/29/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/07/Dkt 221.Judge's Order granting COVID-19 PI and denying most of MTD.7 29 2020 cuccinelli.pdf

4th Circuit ruling (the one noted in your article): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192222.P.pdf

2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/08/465-1.pdf

SDNY ruling on 10/11/19:https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/10/146 Order Granting Injunction.pdf 

I'm confused can someone help me? What's all this mean for the DOS DS-5540?

 

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/block-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court/2020/08/05/68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15968243551732&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Flocal%2Flegal-issues%2Fblock-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court%2F2020%2F08%2F05%2F68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

 

I thought Judge Daniels also issued a nationwide injunction barring the Department of State (DOS) from enforcing its version of the Public Charge Rule and its attendant Health Insurance Proclamation for visa applicants abroad. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-orders-trump-to-halt-immigration-wealth-test-national-coronavirus-emergency/#app

 

But on the DOS website they still have the link to the DS-5540 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-10-prepare-for-the-interview.html

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by OrihimeandIchigo

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

I'm confused can someone help me? What's all this mean for the DOS DS-5540?

 

https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/block-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court/2020/08/05/68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15968243551732&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Flocal%2Flegal-issues%2Fblock-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court%2F2020%2F08%2F05%2F68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html

 

I thought Judge Daniels also issued a nationwide injunction barring the Department of State (DOS) from enforcing its version of the Public Charge Rule and its attendant Health Insurance Proclamation for visa applicants abroad. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-orders-trump-to-halt-immigration-wealth-test-national-coronavirus-emergency/#app

 

But on the DOS website they still have the link to the DS-5540 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-10-prepare-for-the-interview.html

The FAM finally updated today. From the ruling until today, it was just blank, and there was no guidance to COs on how to adjudicate visas with regard to the public charge rule.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html

 

My reading of the current FAM - and the note at the top based on the injunction - is that the DS-5540 should no longer apply.

But I have no idea how long until that gets propagated down to NVC or the DOS website people.

Edited August 7, 2020 by geowrian

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

18 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The FAM finally updated today. From the ruling until today, it was just blank, and there was no guidance to COs on how to adjudicate visas with regard to the public charge rule.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html

 

My reading of the current FAM - and the note at the top based on the injunction - is that the DS-5540 should no longer apply.

But I have no idea how long until that gets propagated down to NVC or the DOS website people.

Thank you so very much for the link and taking the time to help me. If so this eases my anxiety I appreciate it. Your amazing as always 😊 

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

WHOOT they updated their news section about the public charge if those court cases didn't affect it? But considering they updated it today I would think its legit and correct right? 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/update-on-public-charge.html