Question about new Public charge rule on I-485

[Family 3,988]

56 minutes ago, powerpuff said:

Immediate relatives are subject to it IF they have indeed used public benefits (immediate relatives are not exempt from this just because they’re relatives of US citizens - that’s what the USCIS chart you posted is about).

Well said @powerpuffI admit on first look , I was foxed and it took me scouring the policy manual

, federal register and more just to get clarity. 
 

Would have preferred the simple old Trump era question , have you ever used public benefits  ..followed by what type and then details on skills/resources…

 

I think there will be a wave of filings with Yes and we will soon hear if they will issue RFE s or just deal with it at final adjudication. 
 

OP if you decide to change your response later on , after you get the Receipt Notice for I-485 , you can fiel an e-request for Typographical error.

[joaovily 10]

7 minutes ago, Family said:

Well said @powerpuffI admit on first look , I was foxed and it took me scouring the policy manual

, federal register and more just to get clarity. 
 

Would have preferred the simple old Trump era question , have you ever used public benefits  ..followed by what type and then details on skills/resources…

 

I think there will be a wave of filings with Yes and we will soon hear if they will issue RFE s or just deal with it at final adjudication. 
 

OP if you decide to change your response later on , after you get the Receipt Notice for I-485 , you can fiel an e-request for Typographical error.

I guess what matters at the end is if you have used any benefits, thanks for the tip though. To be honest i think this question is ridiculuos taking into consideration most people cant even use benefits.

[WaterLeaf 200]

Yeah some people can't but some may lie and get the benefits. Usually that are found as fraud of some type.

 

https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/government-benefits-fraud

 

This doesn't say if the applicant was USC or not. I'd assume most are USC. I've seen some of insurance fraud in my state at least.

 

Edit: I over looked. 83.0% were United States citizens.

Edited December 23, 2022 by WaterLeaf
Ahhhhhhh there it is!

[mytruelove18 608]

I answered no, on my friend application so i will see what happen.

Edited December 24, 2022 by mytruelove18

[joaovily 10]

1 minute ago, mytruelove18 said:

I answered no, on my friend application so i will see what happen.

Should be fine unless the person has actually used benefits, and doesnt have a sponsor. Only people i have seen having problems with this in the past is the ones applying for K1 visas in embassys outside the USA. They are a lot more careful about who to let into to the United States.

[joaovily 10]

I’ve read a official statement linked in the USCIS page. It says that any non-citizen is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, unless they have some exempt status or have been exempted by the Congress. I think that what people on this topic have got confused is that being subject to this public charge act does not come from using benefits, but in reality that wording only means DHS reserves the right to determine if you are a Public charge or not. That would be based on your education level, age, health, if you used benefits etc..

 

Answering yes just demonstrates that you fall into one of the categories of people who USCIS are not exempting from the Public charge act.

 

This is also validated by the fact that theres a question asking if you have used benefits inside that part of the form, so saying yes or no to the question in the pic doesnt mean you are answering that you never used benefits.

 

Again i’m not trying to butt heads with anyone, since i made my decision on what to say on mine way before posting here. 

 

Quote from the federalregister.gov link:

”Noncitizens who are applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility.”

Edited December 24, 2022 by joaovily
adding quote

[OldUser 6,608]

@joaovily did you go through I-485 instructions?

[joaovily 10]

4 minutes ago, OldUser said:

@joaovily did you go through I-485 instructions?

Yes, if i remember correctly on this question it tells you to read about the public charge

Heres a Q&A from the USCIS page about Public charge ground of inadmissibility

Q: Who is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility?

A: The following noncitizens are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility when applying for visas, admission, or adjustment of status:

• Asylees and refugees;
• Amerasian immigrants at admission;
• Afghan and Iraqi interpreters or Afghan or Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government;
• Cuban and Haitian entrants at adjustment of status;
• Applicants seeking adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act;
• Nicaraguans and other Central Americans who are adjusting status to LPR;
• Haitians who are adjusting status to LPR;
• Lautenberg parolees;
• Special immigrant juveniles;
• Applicants for registry;
• Applicants seeking Temporary Protected Status (TPS);
• Certain nonimmigrant ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, and other foreign government officials, and their families;
• Human trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants);
• Victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants);
• Self-petitioners under the Violence against Women Act (VAWA);
• Certain battered noncitizens who are “qualified aliens” under PRWORA;
• Applicants adjusting status who qualify for a benefit as surviving spouses, children, or parents of military members;
• Noncitizen American Indians born in Canada;
• Noncitizen members of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma;
• Nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos applying under the Indochinese Act;
• Polish and Hungarian Parolees;
• Certain Syrian nationals;
• Applicants adjusting under the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) law; and
• Any other categories of noncitizens exempt under any other law from the public charge ground of inadmissibility provisions under INA 212(a)(4).

If you do not fall into one of the categories in the list, my personal opinion is that you should answer YES and describe your education level, income etc. 

[Family 3,988]

1 hour ago, joaovily said:

If you do not fall into one of the categories in the list, my personal opinion is that you should answer YES and describe your education level, income etc. 

Well , OP, I am back to agreeing with you..Yes is the right answer. 

 

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/ground-inadmissibility-and-deportability/public-charge/public-charge-related-questions

 

Question 61 asks whether the applicant is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The adjustment of status applicants who are exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility are listed in 8 CFR § 212.23(a).

Question 62 asks for the size of the applicant’s household. The applicant must include himself or herself and the following persons if they are residing with the applicant:

[joaovily 10]

6 minutes ago, Family said:

Well , OP, I am back to agreeing with you..Yes is the right answer. 

 

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/ground-inadmissibility-and-deportability/public-charge/public-charge-related-questions

 

Question 61 asks whether the applicant is subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The adjustment of status applicants who are exempted from the public charge ground of inadmissibility are listed in 8 CFR § 212.23(a).

Question 62 asks for the size of the applicant’s household. The applicant must include himself or herself and the following persons if they are residing with the applicant:

I don’t blame you, wording is very confusing, specially with the weird name this Public charge thing has, the “inadmissability” part makes you think you would only answer yes if you were inadmissable by using benefits. This had me running back to UPS to ask them if i could open the package and exchange the pages with new ones.

Edited December 25, 2022 by joaovily

[Family 3,988]

4 minutes ago, joaovily said:

don’t blame you, wording is very confusing, specially with the weird name this Public charge thing has, the “inadmissability” part makes you think you would only answer yes if you were inadmissable by using benefits. This had me running back to UPS to ask them if i could open the package and exchange the pages with new ones.

Edited 3 minutes ago by joaovily

You are now the designated VJ er for #61! 

[JER2020 29]

I do not agree with answering no, it's a misinterpretation of the question. All the form is asking is, are you subject to it, and the only way you wouldn't be subject is if you are exempt.

 

B. Applicants for Adjustment of Status

Unless they are specifically exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, the public charge ground of inadmissibility will generally apply to all applicants for adjustment of status, including, but not limited to:

• Family-based applicants;

• Employment-based applicants; and

• Diversity visa applicants.