Can an I-130 petition beneficiary with a revoked US immigrant visa apply for K3 of another non-immigrant visa?

[Marin 0]

My wife was approved for an immigrant US visa on August 9, 2022, but her visa was later revoked on September 6, 2022 by the consular office in Cambodia. The reason my daughter failed her immigrant visa interview on August 19, 2022 due to her potential of becoming a public charge once settles in the United States. What is my wife's next step? Can she apply for the K3 or another non-immigrant visa right after this while I am as the petitioner challenging the revocation decision? 

[Family 4,224]

6 minutes ago, Marin said:

My wife was approved for an immigrant US visa on August 9, 2022, but her visa was later revoked on September 6, 2022 by the consular office in Cambodia. The reason my daughter failed her immigrant visa interview on August 19, 2022 due to her potential of becoming a public charge once settles in the United States. What is my wife's next step? Can she apply for the K3 or another non-immigrant visa right after this while I am as the petitioner challenging the revocation decision? 

Are you referring to “ step daughter “ as having public charge issues ? ( so not your biological child w potential USC claim?).

 

I don’t think you meant “ revocation decision “ , just Refusal and an opportunity for you to overcome. …assuming specialized care , health insurance coverage for specific condition and hefty assets to cover unanticipated problems.

 

Is wife willing/ able to leave the child behind and move to US without the child? This is the only way I see wife’s visa grant …and no K-3 will help
 

[milimelo 4,561]

No. She won't be issued any other visa until the underlying petition is either re-affirmed or denied and the new petition approved. 

 

To get this all straight - do a timeline - your wife (USC?) filed for her daughter or you're the petitioner for both?

[JeanneAdil 6,655]

you could not provide proof that they would be added to your health care plan?

or is step daughter to old to add?

doesn't make sense that the wife would be revoked from daughter's interview

there must be more to the story

 

 

[JeanneAdil 6,655]

Embassy will return the packet (petition ) to the US 

the USC will get the NOIR (notice of intent to revoke)  in approximately 6 months with the issues the CO was concerned with

 

u have a limited time as will be stated in the NOIR to dispute the issue(s) with REAL  proof that the issue(s) are wrong

 

 

there is nothing u can do till the NOIR comes and you are able to see what concerned the CO

[BLC 112]

I thought inadmissibility for public charge had been long gone for a couple of years now? Now I’m curious about this myself. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by BLC
Text

[pushbrk 13,116]

2 hours ago, BLC said:

I thought inadmissibility for public charge had been long gone for a couple of years now? Now I’m curious about this myself. 

Never gone.  Delete that thought.

 

There's more to this story, we don't know yet.

[BLC 112]

42 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Never gone.  Delete that thought.

 

There's more to this story, we don't know yet.

You’re  right, there are some important details missing. I’m curious to know the actual reason behind it. 

 

I  just ended up reading up on public charge a bit and I didn’t realize it was really only the fact sheet they did away with, but can still deny based on public charge. Any idea about which types of medical/financial reasons that would generally cause grounds for refusal based on public charge? I was always under the impression that beneficiary employment history didn’t matter, though; and, of course, there are certain medical reasons that cause denial, but thought those  would be based on a medical refusal, instead.
 

 

[Letspaintcookies 2,310]

14 minutes ago, BLC said:

You’re  right, there are some important details missing. I’m curious to know the actual reason behind it. 

 

I  just ended up reading up on public charge a bit and I didn’t realize it was really only the fact sheet they did away with, but can still deny based on public charge. Any idea about which types of medical/financial reasons that would generally cause grounds for refusal based on public charge? I was always under the impression that beneficiary employment history didn’t matter, though; and, of course, there are certain medical reasons that cause denial, but thought those  would be based on a medical refusal, instead.
 

 

The poverty lines are pretty low. So if somebody would like to bring their retired parents for example but is just barely above the limit it could be argued that this person doesn't have the means to support the parents cause their healthcare insurance won't come cheap.

[Boiler 46,116]

55 minutes ago, Letspaintcookies said:

The poverty lines are pretty low. So if somebody would like to bring their retired parents for example but is just barely above the limit it could be argued that this person doesn't have the means to support the parents cause their healthcare insurance won't come cheap.

Could be free depending where they live etc.

[JeanneAdil 6,655]

another VJ member posted a USCIS September 8, 2022 decision on public charge "the final rule " the 1999 field guide will be the one CO will follow

it goes into effect December 23, 2022 for your future reference

 

https://www.uscis.gov/public-charge

 

the final rule is a 455 page publication but here were some important points 

 

USCIS is no longer applying the August 2019 Public Charge Final Rule. As a consequence, among other changes, USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility statute consistent with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. In other words, USCIS is not considering an applicant’s receipt of Medicaid (except for long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense), public housing, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination.

 

A2: The 1999 Interim Field Guidance defines a public charge as a noncitizen “who has become (for deportation purposes) or who is likely to become (for admission/adjustment purposes) ‘primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.’ Institutionalization for short periods of rehabilitation does not constitute such primary dependence.”

 

As to the OP at this point there is nothing to be done

wait for the NOIR to come back and then post in here to get help to possibly overcome

 

[BLC 112]

25 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.’

I wonder for this part if they are talking about receiving public cash assistance in US or if they mean having received public assistance within any country outside US

[JeanneAdil 6,655]

36 minutes ago, BLC said:

I wonder for this part if they are talking about receiving public cash assistance in US or if they mean having received public assistance within any country outside US

inside the US only

and from the read ,  it is all about "long term assistance" with an exclusion for covid related assistance

Edited September 10, 2022 by JeanneAdil

[Rocio0010 5,635]

36 minutes ago, BLC said:

I wonder for this part if they are talking about receiving public cash assistance in US or if they mean having received public assistance within any country 

37 minutes ago, BLC said:

I wonder for this part if they are talking about receiving public cash assistance in US or if they mean having received public assistance within any country outside US

Inside the US.  Nowhere do they ask outside the US. That’s why people need a sponsor to the US

[Family 4,224]

4 hours ago, BLC said:

5 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Never gone.  Delete that thought.

 

There's more to this story, we don't know yet.

You’re  right, there are some important details missing. I’m curious to know the actual reason behind it

Hopefully OP checks back because the biggest detail is for him to clarify if wife / child were Refused under Public Charge ….or there was a “ revocation “ for other reasons.

 

A public charge finding does not involve NOIR/NOIDS of the petitions …just Visa Refusal that turns into denial unless overcome.

 

Even the Petitioner/ Sponsor’s own long term reliance on government assistance can negatively impact….BUT from the little bit of info in original post, it seems child has medical issues 
 

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09fam/09fam030208.html