Public Charge Rule Final Rule (Good news for filers on or after July 29)

[chiquitabanana 0]

The lawyer is ready to submit our file tomorrow for my husban's AOS, and she called us an hour ago to let us know about the i-944 injunction.  The lawyer says that if we don't want to submit the i-944 and supporting documents, it will take more days to arrange again the file.

 

In our case, my husband was employed in H1B1 but was laid off, and has never applied or received public benefits.  I have a good income (hopefully will not get lay off in the next months, because the institution I work for has a budget issue  ).

 

I don't see that including the i-944 form or his financial info will hurt his case.  Do you think we can just leave it there and it will be ignored anyway?

 

I have the impression that the injunction was placed for petitioners that needed to use medicaid or go into stamps because the covid emergency,  and that it will negatively affect their case.

 

 

[chiquitabanana 0]

So based on this article I found that USCIS was rejecting cases postmarked before Feb 24, 2020, for not having i-944, even though their guidelines said it didn't apply to cases before that date, we will better keep the i-944 form and support documents the lawyer has ready to submit in our case.

 

https://www.boundless.com/blog/uscis-rejects-green-cards-public-charge-rule/

[HRQX 4,145]

7 hours ago, chiquitabanana said:

Do you think we can just leave it there and it will be ignored anyway?

"In the interim, USCIS will not reject any Form I-485 on the basis of the inclusion or exclusion of Form I-944" https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge/injunction-of-the-inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds-final-rule

[PackersGn 2]

8 hours ago, chiquitabanana said:

So based on this article I found that USCIS was rejecting cases postmarked before Feb 24, 2020, for not having i-944, even though their guidelines said it didn't apply to cases before that date, we will better keep the i-944 form and support documents the lawyer has ready to submit in our case.

 

https://www.boundless.com/blog/uscis-rejects-green-cards-public-charge-rule/

I was one of them I got an rfe even though I Filed on February 22nd

[LaraAndEric 32]

I filed my I-944 together with AOS June 30, does that mean it’s just gonna be ignored? Or does it only apply to people that filed on or after June 29? 

[juancarlos 126]

22 minutes ago, LaraAndEric said:

I filed my I-944 together with AOS June 30, does that mean it’s just gonna be ignored? Or does it only apply to people that filed on or after June 29? 

It is July, not June

[LaraAndEric 32]

Just now, juancarlos said:

It is July, not June

Oops I meant to write July, my phone‘s autocorrect changed it to June 

[LaraAndEric 32]

2 minutes ago, juancarlos said:

It is July, not June

So I sent my application a month ago and got my NOA last week 

[cbro20 53]

4 hours ago, PackersGn said:

I was one of them I got an rfe even though I Filed on February 22nd

The same thing happened to me. 

We postmarked (i.e. filed) on February 22nd without the I-944, as stated by the USCIS rule. 

We received an RFE in June for the I-944 and an updated I-485. 

The RFE was sent because USCIS didn't mark the package as "received" until February 28th. Super annoying. 

We spent a month preparing the I-944 documents and sent it a few weeks ago. 

Now this confusing injunction comes down. 

I don't know whether I-944's that have already been filed with applications are still being considered, or whether the injunction applies only to applications made on/after July 29th. In other words, if you already filed for AOS with I-944, is USCIS discarding your I-944 in adjudicating your case?

 

It would be weird to have to respond to an RFE for the I-944 if it's not being considered.

 

USCIS/USPS/the US government in general is moronic. We followed the rules and filed before I-944 was required, got an RFE anyway, and spent a month replying to that RFE only for the form requested to be tossed out by the courts. Could be worse, I guess.

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by cbro20

[E_pluribus_unum 73]

Hey guys,

People keep questioning whether or not USCIS will still consider an already submitted I-944 and if an I-944 needs to be submitted. The following is text from the injunction announcement:

 

Quote

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.

This means that if a decision has yet to be made on your application and you have already submitted an I-944, USCIS will ignore the I-944 when making the decision for as long as the injunction is in effect. If the injunction is overturned down the road and a decision has yet to be made on your application, USCIS will resume normal review and include the I-944 in its final decision.

 

 

Quote

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.

This means you do not need to send the I-944. Honestly, if I were filing around this time and just found out about this, I would choose not to do the I-944 as it took me a lot of time and money. 

 

With regard to USCIS rejecting applications postmarked before the original Final Rule came into effect, the article uses the term "Erroneous". Meaning they did not reject on purpose but had overlooked postmarked dates. I am sure this may happen with a few of these as well. Remember, USCIS uses contractors for their intake and they are not always accurate in their intake process. 

 

I guess it comes down to preference. You can choose to take this injunction as a helping hand and not have to go through the trouble of the I-944 or still go through all of the trouble

[Almostthere08 16]

22 minutes ago, cbro20 said:

The same thing happened to me. 

We postmarked (i.e. filed) on February 22nd without the I-944, as stated by the USCIS rule. 

We received an RFE in June for the I-944 and an updated I-485. 

The RFE was sent because USCIS didn't mark the package as "received" until February 28th. Super annoying. 

We spent a month preparing the I-944 documents and sent it a few weeks ago. 

Now this confusing injunction comes down. 

I don't know whether I-944's that have already been filed with applications are still being considered, or whether the injunction applies only to applications made on/after July 29th. In other words, if you already filed for AOS with I-944, is USCIS discarding your I-944 in adjudicating your case?

 

It would be weird to have to respond to an RFE for the I-944 if it's not being considered.

 

USCIS/USPS/the US government in general is moronic. We followed the rules and filed before I-944 was required, got an RFE anyway, and spent a month replying to that RFE only for the form requested to be tossed out by the courts. Could be worse, I guess.

 

I saw somewhere that USCIS made errors in regards to this situation and were supposed to be sending letters out with instructions if this happened to you and the file was indeed sent before the February deadline. Unfortunately most people have already corrected the Rejections etc and refiled with the new form and I944.. I would be upset if I fell into this category. Wasted time and effort😔

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, LaraAndEric said:

does that mean it’s just gonna be ignored?

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

35 minutes ago, cbro20 said:

In other words, if you already filed for AOS with I-944, is USCIS discarding your I-944 in adjudicating your case?

Assuming the injunction is still in effect when they adjudicate the I-485, then they won't consider the I-944.

[Pmta1 39]

The injunction will remain in effect as long as COVID-19 is considered a "national health emergency". The injunction may be overturned later.

[PackersGn 2]

21 hours ago, cbro20 said:

The same thing happened to me. 

We postmarked (i.e. filed) on February 22nd without the I-944, as stated by the USCIS rule. 

We received an RFE in June for the I-944 and an updated I-485. 

The RFE was sent because USCIS didn't mark the package as "received" until February 28th. Super annoying. 

We spent a month preparing the I-944 documents and sent it a few weeks ago. 

Now this confusing injunction comes down. 

I don't know whether I-944's that have already been filed with applications are still being considered, or whether the injunction applies only to applications made on/after July 29th. In other words, if you already filed for AOS with I-944, is USCIS discarding your I-944 in adjudicating your case?

 

It would be weird to have to respond to an RFE for the I-944 if it's not being considered.

 

USCIS/USPS/the US government in general is moronic. We followed the rules and filed before I-944 was required, got an RFE anyway, and spent a month replying to that RFE only for the form requested to be tossed out by the courts. Could be worse, I guess.

 

Exactly I don’t know how they can come up with rules and don’t even follow them it’s so annoying and frustrating. We had file before the rule goes into effect just to get an RFE . My lawyer responded to the RFE last month by sending receipt showing it was postmarked on February 22nd and the updated I-485. 

[madala 32]

On 7/31/2020 at 4:11 PM, laylalex said:

Fantastic! I had started pulling our stuff together for the I-944 for when we file later this year, and it was a complete headache in terms of financials. 

 

I know this sucks for everyone who fell in the window where it was necessary though.  

 

Aha, I am among those...I even received an RFE for it, EVEN THOUGH I was not subject to it (Application submitted before effective date of the law)...Go figure!