• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

New Definition of Public Charge Proposed

newacct said:
Notably, it only changes the public charge ground of inadmissibility, not the public charge ground of deportability. See page 56:
So I think people who already have green cards generally don't need to worry about it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links.
You're right, it's written that they're directed at inadmissibility (not deportability).
However I imagine if a person is inadmissible for a reason, the same reason can easily be used to deny extension/renewal of status or PR green cards, at least during the initial 5 years. So, text not withstanding, it is still a cause for green card holders to be worried that they will also be held to new standards.

They say the rule dates back ages, but back then a (relatively expensive) health insurance was not required. New immigrants were not saddled up with the requirements they're now. People would be admitted merely for being able-bodied/skilled with a chance of employability. Now they can be asked for savings/sponsors, background checks, insurances, just for temporary visas. It's sad because people can get cheap foreign insurance with US coverage, but they're not ACA compliant. I know Europeans can take (rather highly evolved & affordable) medical insurances with them, sometimes upto 8 months as they establish US residency that are valid during their initial job-seeker period. They don't really need public aid. However they won't be accepted as ACA standard, so at the end of the year they would get US penalties anyway! It may be good enough for activation trips though.
It's clear DV people these days are likely to face new rules in the making! Oh well, adventurous times I guess.
 
Reg1 said:
Thanks for the links.
You're right, it's written that they're directed at inadmissibility (not deportability).
However I imagine if a person is inadmissible for a reason, the same reason can easily be used to deny extension/renewal of status or PR green cards, at least during the initial 5 years. So, text not withstanding, it is still a cause for green card holders to be worried that they will also be held to new standards.
Click to expand...
Permanent resident status is permanent. It does not need to be extended or renewed. The only ways to lose permanent resident status are to abandon it by being outside the US for too long, or be deported, if you are subject to some ground of deportability or you were ineligible for permanent residency in the first place and got it by error or fraud (or for conditional permanent residents, for failing to remove conditions). The card may need to be renewed, but the card is not necessary for you to be in status, and the card renewal cannot be denied as long as you remain a permanent resident.

Even if permanent residents travel abroad and return, they are not considered to be seeking admission, and thus not subject to grounds of inadmissibility, unless they have been out for 180 days, or have done illegal activity abroad, or have certain criminal convictions from the US or abroad that have not been waived. There are many existing cases of permanent residents who are inadmissible (for other grounds besides public charge) but not deportable, and their status is fine as long as they don't stay out of the US too long and don't commit crimes.

I also don't see anything that says naturalization can be affected by inadmissibility. The only way that maybe it could affect naturalization is if they change the regulations to say it shows lack of "good moral character" for naturalization. But this rule does not change the regulations for "good moral character", and under current regulations, use of benefits is not included in the list of things that can show lack of "good moral character".
 
There was some news regarding a new USCIS policy that starts 1st October with an interesting but confusing statement:
"USCIS will send denial letters for status-impacting applications that ensures benefit seekers are provided adequate notice when an application for a benefit is denied.”
Does this mean:
1. that people will get deportation-notice simply by applying for a benefit (even if they did not know the relevant benefit was considered a public charge)...or
2. does it mean they'll get warning-notice with automatic benefit-denial, so they can refrain from pursuing the application and thus maintain good status (by paying heed to the notice)?
I imagine nobody would wittingly apply a benefit anyway, if they knew it'd make them deportable. It's confusing since there are also non-public-charge benefits, so I hope such letters would only be informative in nature (second scenario listed above). Does anybody understand the quoted statement and what the scenario exactly is?
 
Reg1 said:
There was some news regarding a new USCIS policy that starts 1st October with an interesting but confusing statement:
"USCIS will send denial letters for status-impacting applications that ensures benefit seekers are provided adequate notice when an application for a benefit is denied.”
Does this mean:
1. that people will get deportation-notice simply by applying for a benefit (even if they did not know the relevant benefit was considered a public charge)...or
2. does it mean they'll get warning-notice with automatic benefit-denial, so they can refrain from pursuing the application and thus maintain good status (by paying heed to the notice)?
I imagine nobody would wittingly apply a benefit anyway, if they knew it'd make them deportable. It's confusing since there are also non-public-charge benefits, so I hope such letters would only be informative in nature (second scenario listed above). Does anybody understand the quoted statement and what the scenario exactly is?
Click to expand...
This is completely unrelated. This is about "applying for a benefit" with USCIS, like Extension of Status, Change of Status, or Adjustment of Status. If your application with USCIS is denied, and the only thing allowing you to stay in the US was the pending application (i.e. if you no longer have a valid underlying status), which means after denial you are not allowed to stay in the US anymore, they will start deportation proceedings against you.
 
newacct said:
Permanent resident status is permanent. It does not need to be extended or renewed. .
Click to expand...
I see, it's just that I read on this forum in various place that there's a different set of rules the first 5 years, and for those cards that are already held for longer than 5 yrs. That folk only get an unconditional card after 5 years, that those people can even apply for benefits (if such unfortunate circumstances ever arose). So if I understand now, the PR cards issued to DV immigrant are the same during the first 5 years as future cards after the initial 5 yrs.
 
newacct said:
This is completely unrelated. This is about "applying for a benefit" with USCIS, like Extension of Status, Change of Status, or Adjustment of Status. If your application with USCIS is denied, and the only thing allowing you to stay in the US was the pending application (i.e. if you no longer have a valid underlying status), which means after denial you are not allowed to stay in the US anymore, they will start deportation proceedings against you.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks for clearing that up.
 
Reg1 said:
I see, it's just that I read on this forum in various place that there's a different set of rules the first 5 years, and for those cards that are already held for longer than 5 yrs. That folk only get an unconditional card after 5 years, that those people can even apply for benefits (if such unfortunate circumstances ever arose). So if I understand now, the PR cards issued to DV immigrant are the same during the first 5 years as future cards after the initial 5 yrs.
Click to expand...
Conditional permanent residency only for 2 years, and are only for people who are petitioned in a spouse or stepchild category of a marriage that is less than 2 years old at the time the person becomes a permanent resident, or for EB5 investment immigrants. All others, including DV, become non-conditional permanent residents and get 10-year cards.

5 years is generally not significant except in a few contexts:
1) Most permanent residents become eligible for naturalization after 5 years.
2) Many federal benefits (Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, SNAP, etc.) are not available to new immigrants for the first 5 years. (However, some states have extended their Medicaid-equivalent program using state funds to pregnant women and children who are new immigrants within the first 5 years; a few states have even extended their Medicaid-equivalent program using state funds to all new immigrants within the first 5 years.)
3) Federal law on public charge deportability says an alien is deportable if they become a public charge within 5 years of entry, unless it is affirmatively shown that it was due to causes that arose after entry. However, public charge deportability is not changed by the proposed rule, and under the previous rules, it is virtually impossible to be deported, even if you get benefits, because it requires that there was an I-864 legally enforceable Affidavit of Support from a sponsor (DV don't have this, for example) and the government must have sued the sponsor for use of benefits, and I am not aware of any states that currently do this.
 
newacct said:
Conditional permanent residency only for 2 years, and are only for people who are petitioned in a spouse or stepchild category of a marriage that is less than 2 years old at the time the person becomes a permanent resident, or for EB5 investment immigrants. All others, including DV, become non-conditional permanent residents and get 10-year cards.

5 years is generally not significant except in a few contexts:
1) Most permanent residents become eligible for naturalization after 5 years.
2) Many federal benefits (Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, SNAP, etc.) are not available to new immigrants for the first 5 years. (However, some states have extended their Medicaid-equivalent program using state funds to pregnant women and children who are new immigrants within the first 5 years; a few states have even extended their Medicaid-equivalent program using state funds to all new immigrants within the first 5 years.)
3) Federal law on public charge deportability says an alien is deportable if they become a public charge within 5 years of entry, unless it is affirmatively shown that it was due to causes that arose after entry. However, public charge deportability is not changed by the proposed rule, and under the previous rules, it is virtually impossible to be deported, even if you get benefits, because it requires that there was an I-864 legally enforceable Affidavit of Support from a sponsor (DV don't have this, for example) and the government must have sued the sponsor for use of benefits, and I am not aware of any states that currently do this.
Click to expand...
Allright, good to know. Thanks.
 
SusieQQQ said:
It’s not retroactive. If you’re worried about it then get yourself removed from these programs, or do so if/when the definition gets changed and the effective date is published.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it's not retroactive? I am in the same situation, I already removed myself from the program. Should I still be worry?
 
schlafi1 said:
Are you sure it's not retroactive? I am in the same situation, I already removed myself from the program. Should I still be worry?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not retroactive. Furthermore, the benefits that are to be considered under this proposed rule are mostly only available to permanent residents and citizens, and permanent residents are for the most part not affected by this rule.

I think the part of this proposed rule that has the most impact is not the benefits (which people are focusing on), but rather how they would specifically consider age, health, family size, education, credit score, etc., so that if you are very young or very old, have poor health, low education, low credit score, etc., it may be harder to enter the US or get a green card.
 
newacct said:
Yes, it's not retroactive. Furthermore, the benefits that are to be considered under this proposed rule are mostly only available to permanent residents and citizens, and permanent residents are for the most part not affected by this rule.

I think the part of this proposed rule that has the most impact is not the benefits (which people are focusing on), but rather how they would specifically consider age, health, family size, education, credit score, etc., so that if you are very young or very old, have poor health, low education, low credit score, etc., it may be harder to enter the US or get a green card.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your promt reply. So basically as a green card holder, I just simply apply for citizenship? Is there any specific part of the N400 form, where they can question you about receiving public benefit at all?
 
Hello everyone,
Thanks for your efforts to help each one.
Sometimes we apply for financial assistance to take our children to visit a hospital and we approved for 100% assistance. Is it consider public change? The Insurrance we have is just with a charity group and just waived us from paying panelty when we file taxes and only good for a accedents or surgery.
Thanks
 
DV immigrant said:
Hello everyone,
Thanks for your efforts to help each one.
Sometimes we apply for financial assistance to take our children to visit a hospital and we approved for 100% assistance. Is it consider public change? The Insurrance we have is just with a charity group and just waived us from paying panelty when we file taxes and only good for a accedents or surgery.
Thanks
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If it's not one of the ones listed in the proposed rule, it's not considered.
 
Hello.
I was selected in DV-2019 while awaiting political asylum. In this case, the new rules also concern me? What do you think?
 
The USDHS has announced the final rule on the new (expanded) definition of Public Charge. This final rule advocating self-sufficiency which becomes effective on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance.

The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs. The rule also makes nonimmigrant aliens who have received certain public benefits above a specific threshold generally ineligible for extension of stay and change of status.

The new rule excludes certain public benefits such as Medicaid for aliens under 21 and pregnant women; Medicaid for school-based services (including services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and Medicaid benefits for emergency medical services from the public charge definition.

Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds - for anyone interested in reading the actual ruling (FYI - 837 pages long :p - happy reading :D).
 
I thought Mueller report was too long to read (397 pages) so will pass on this one as well. So quick question, do I need to submit any form I-I34 during interview if I have family of 3 and annual income is around $50 K with business loss of $9K (per tax return) . Will have bank balance around $10K. Will that be enough or need to show more bank balance?
 
Hi @Sm1smom hope you’re doing well and nice to meet you, thanks for your goodwill. I’m from South America and I have a doubt related to the public charge rule.

I was selected on the DV 2020. My wife and myself were in the US on Jan 2017, with our tourist visa, my wife was pregnant at that time and my son was born there on March, we left the US on May. We used emergency Medicaid.

I’m an Engineer, I speak english, my annual income is above $ 50K, I’m 32 years old, I have 2 credit cards from Bofa and a good credit history. We are a family of 3 members (my wife, my son and me).

But I’m a little bit worried about this new rule. I’m living in Venezuela.
 
Everest2020 said:
I thought Mueller report was too long to read (397 pages) so will pass on this one as well. So quick question, do I need to submit any form I-I34 during interview if I have family of 3 and annual income is around $50 K with business loss of $9K (per tax return) . Will have bank balance around $10K. Will that be enough or need to show more bank balance?
Click to expand...

I cant say if you “need” an I-134 or not. However I always say being over prepared is better than being caught off guard, so get an I-134 if you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top