GC Rule change - "Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility"

[guest1978]

I am trying to apply for my parents GC (am a Citizen myself now after going through H1, GC etc.) but it's unclear what the middle of October rule change would mean in terms of timing. If they receive the I-130 by middle of October, does that mean the application will be processed under the old guidelines?

https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resourc...ge,themselves without becoming public charges.

 

[newacct]

If your parents are doing Adjustment of Status in the US, then as long as the I-485 is postmarked before October 15 (actually, more like by October 12 since October 14 is a post office holiday and October 13 is a Sunday), it will be processed under the old rules. But if they are doing Consular Processing abroad, I believe that they would have to enter the US on their immigrant visa before October 15 to be processed under the old rules (which is impossible if you are submitting the I-130 now).

 

[1AurCitizen]

Unlikely for an immigrant visa to be issued in under 2 months as the IR5 process appears to not have been initiated. Mumbai isn't exactly known for being expedient.

 

[tinaina]

I think the public charge rule is applied only to AOS.
Am I wrong? If you apply out of USA you shouldn't be affected by it.

 

[1AurCitizen]

If you apply out of USA you shouldn't be affected by it.

Why not?

AOS/CP lead to the same.. LPR status, ie green card.

 

[SusieQQQ]

I think the public charge rule is applied only to AOS.
Am I wrong? If you apply out of USA you shouldn't be affected by it.

You can expect the government to support you just because you come in with a visa rather than adjust? Lol. No, public charge applies to all immigrants, which is why for all family based visas an affidavit of support is needed, and diversity visa as you should know seeing as you applied and presumably read the instructions, also warns about meeting public charge issues.
All they are doing now is changing how they implement certain of the criteria. There are already many stories of visas being denied under stricter interpretations of the rule even before the official change.

 

[tinaina]

Why not?

AOS/CP lead to the same.. LPR status, ie green card.

In public charge rule that has been updated they will ask your credit score, whether someone has used public benefits, Medicaid and food stamp.
Not a lot if people lived in USA and then get out and did CP.
Although, I read in an article that in a CP process an officer asked a guy to prove he has 1 million asset in order to give his parents green card.
I am not sure how accurate that was and if that was about public charge rule that came out recently.

 

[Sm1smom]

The rule will apply to those coming into the US on an IV too - they are seeking admission at the POE, the determination can be made at the POE:

“The rule applies to applicants for admission, aliens seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents from within the United States, and aliens within the United States who hold a nonimmigrant visa and seek to extend their stay in the same nonimmigrant classification or to change their status to a different nonimmigrant classification.

It is also applicable to existing LPRs too by the way - that is a LPR who travelled out of the US and is returning to the country:

“While most lawful permanent residents are not subject to inadmissibility determinations, including public charge inadmissibility, upon their return from a trip abroad, some lawful permanent residents can be subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility because specific circumstances dictate that they be considered applicants for admission.“

Final Rule of Public Charge Inadmissibility

 

[SusieQQQ]

In public charge rule that has been updated they will ask your credit score, whether someone has used public benefits, Medicaid and food stamp.
Not a lot if people lived in USA and then get out and did CP.
Although, I read in an article that in a CP process an officer asked a guy to prove he has 1 million asset in order to give his parents green card.
I am not sure how accurate that was and if that was about public charge.

Horses mouth, from the official link in the first article, relevant bit bolded for you so you can see it’s both


This final rule provides guidance on how to determine if someone applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge.

 

[tinaina]

You can expect the government to support you just because you come in with a visa rather than adjust? Lol. No, public charge applies to all immigrants, which is why for all family based visas an affidavit of support is needed, and diversity visa as you should know seeing as you applied and presumably read the instructions, also warns about meeting public charge issues.
All they are doing now is changing how they implement certain of the criteria. There are already many stories of visas being denied under stricter interpretations of the rule even before the official change.

I am not sure how you get that conclusion from what I said. I personally have salary way beyond poverty line to be worried ever been a public charge in USA.
However, my question was about the recent rule that has changed and if the changes only applies when you are already living in USA?

 

[SusieQQQ]

I am not sure how you get that conclusion from what I said. I personally have salary way beyond poverty line to be worried ever been a public charge in USA.
However, my question was about the recent rule that has changed and if the changes only applies when you are already living in USA?

I was speaking colloquially, sorry you misunderstood that it was not aimed at you specifically (kind of obvious as I know you are asylum to DV and not coming in on an immigrant visa)... so perhaps if you re-read what I said you will hopefully understand that it was in answer to your question and not a comment on you specifically . If you still don’t get what I said, please read the actual link to official page in first post which explains perfectly well the answer.

 

[guest1978]

You can expect the government to support you just because you come in with a visa rather than adjust? Lol. No, public charge applies to all immigrants, which is why for all family based visas an affidavit of support is needed, and diversity visa as you should know seeing as you applied and presumably read the instructions, also warns about meeting public charge issues.
All they are doing now is changing how they implement certain of the criteria. There are already many stories of visas being denied under stricter interpretations of the rule even before the official change.

Curious if someone can point me to the previous stories of denial on such grounds? Sounds like a stricter interpretation, which was strict already? Wonder if someone has/heard any anecdotes on assets/salaries of the sponsor which make/break the case. Presumably, most folks who want to sponsor parents will not be able to show a x multiple of below poverty income because parents typically won't have the skillset/desire etc. to work - therefore no way to show any potential income..

 

[SusieQQQ]

Curious if someone can point me to the previous stories of denial on such grounds? Sounds like a stricter interpretation, which was strict already? Wonder if someone has/heard any anecdotes on assets/salaries of the sponsor which make/break the case. Presumably, most folks who want to sponsor parents will not be able to show a x multiple of below poverty income because parents typically won't have the skillset/desire etc. to work - therefore no way to show any potential income..

Until recently it seemed pretty formulaic that if the sponsor met the required 1.25x the poverty guideline it got granted. This is changing. Some stories below,mostly but not only about Mexican applications (there may be some overlap between the stories). There have also been a couple of posts on another forum, this time with applicants from Asia, where the sponsors posted that they were required to show they could cover estimated health insurance and medical expenses for IR5 parents being petitioned.
I don't think there is a particular level that makes or breaks the case, I think the point is each case is examined on its merits. Bringing a 50-year old skilled parent with 15 years of work left in them is not the same as bringing a 75-year retired parent with chronic health issues.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-04...ket-under-back-door-public-charge-rule-change
https://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-denied-visas-mexican-nationals-poor-2019-8
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/06/visa-denials-poor-mexicans-trump-1637094

 

[1AurCitizen]

Curious if someone can point me to the previous stories of denial on such grounds? Sounds like a stricter interpretation, which was strict already? Wonder if someone has/heard any anecdotes on assets/salaries of the sponsor which make/break the case. Presumably, most folks who want to sponsor parents will not be able to show a x multiple of below poverty income because parents typically won't have the skillset/desire etc. to work - therefore no way to show any potential income..

This more rigid application of the law is fairly recent. As noted above, a number of other forums have posts stating COs in Asia, and in one case specifically Mumbai, requiring more and more applicants provide evidence the intending immigrant would not become a public charge.

There is no specific level of a multiple of assets or income below a threshold that is make or break. It tends to be case by case, a file reviewed by a CO prior to an IV interview.

 

[guest1978]

But if they are doing Consular Processing abroad, I believe that they would have to enter the US on their immigrant visa before October 15 to be processed under the old rules (which is impossible if you are submitting the I-130 now).

I am somewhat confused, maybe I am missing something. If they are entering by Oct 15, they would need to have the GC in their hand if they use CP. Maybe what you are saying is that they need to be interviewed prior to Oct 15 to qualify for old rule? That obviously would also be stretch given it takes a few months for them to go from I-130 to the interview stage?

 

[newacct]

I am somewhat confused, maybe I am missing something. If they are entering by Oct 15, they would need to have the GC in their hand if they use CP. Maybe what you are saying is that they need to be interviewed prior to Oct 15 to qualify for old rule? That obviously would also be stretch given it takes a few months for them to go from I-130 to the interview stage?

One cannot get a green card until one is a permanent resident, and someone doing Consular Processing does not become a permanent resident until they enter the US with their immigrant visa.

 

[GC_BMBOO]

Unlikely for an immigrant visa to be issued in under 2 months as the IR5 process appears to not have been initiated. Mumbai isn't exactly known for being expedient.

I can vouch for Mumbai not being expedient. I thought this last stage of getting an interview was usually a 30 day, at most 60 day affair for IR5 based on text on NVC website (which has since been updated to “several months”). It’s has been over 3 months now and not a peep on interview. Is this normal?
I’m just speculating that IR5 (and likely other categories) have been put on hold till Oct 15 to perhaps apply this new public charge rules.

 

[guest1978]

I can vouch for Mumbai not being expedient. I thought this last stage of getting an interview was usually a 30 day, at most 60 day affair for IR5 based on text on NVC website (which has since been updated to “several months”). It’s has been over 3 months now and not a peep on interview. Is this normal?
I’m just speculating that IR5 (and likely other categories) have been put on hold till Oct 15 to perhaps apply this new public charge rules.

This goes back to my original question which is : is Oct 15 the cut off for submitting your application under the old rule? Reading the rule it explicitly stated application postmarked by Oct 15 will under the old methodology. It would make sense what you are describing but it doesn't seem to line up with the rule language. Also, so many states have filed against this rule, maybe it gets pulled at the last moment.