Final public charge rule

[lonesurvivor 48]

8 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

The 250% is not for sponsor. It is still 125%. I see lots of comments here but unfortunately no one is reading the proposed changes. In the mean time all those talks about whether there should be F3/F4 visa or not, argument over whether it is racist or not and so on. 

 

The change is, intending applicants not the sponsor will need to show 250% of Federal Poverty Guidelines 2019 in the new I-944 which comes up to $31,225. New rule says I-864 is not enough as it was previously and based on their discretion they can still deny visa. Well the denial rate has gone multiple times since 2017, so one can only assume how it will be with the new proposed changes. 

 

Now no one is arguing about AOS, as all immigrant should and proper sponsorship must be required before one can be admitted. 

 

But how are intending immigrants supposed to prove $31,225 when per capita income in over 100 countries is below 5% of US. Hence, the talk about discriminatory policy changes targeting majority people from poor countries. 

How will a under 18 kid or parents over 61 show they have $31,225 even though their sponsor has vouched for them in I-864?

From what I read, the applicant does not need to show that amount...just that 250% from the USC (sponsor) IS EXTREMELY favorable, although not necessary. That 250% from the sponsor can overturn some other unfavorable qualities the beneficiary might have, like age, education, English proficiency etc or too close to the 125%.

 

I think these new rules are too harsh, but I do not think they'll be as bad as we expect. At least I am hoping...I think a lot of the issue here is a lot of people are misinformed/ not communicating the info so ppl who come to this thread are freaking out. Thinking there are no cosponsors now (not true, just vj input), that some visas will become obsolete (not true, vj input), and that the beneficiary must now in all cases show that 250%. I did not read that anywhere and why would that make sense? Maybe they make that overseas but most people do not have the same job available in america,,,so I do not see why that would matter at all, except for the sponsor.  but maybe I am misinformed as well. Immigration law always is quite confusing. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by lonesurvivor

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

11 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

How will a under 18 kid or parents over 61 show they have $31,225 even though their sponsor has vouched for them in I-864?

The applicants that are determined as inadmissible based on public charge grounds may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted at the discretion of the Secretary upon giving a suitable and proper bond. The bond will be no less than 10,000dlls.

 

[Nitas_man 3,100]

10 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

The 250% is not for sponsor. It is still 125%. I see lots of comments here but unfortunately no one is reading the proposed changes. In the mean time all those talks about whether there should be F3/F4 visa or not, argument over whether it is racist or not and so on. 

 

The change is, intending applicants not the sponsor will need to show 250% of Federal Poverty Guidelines 2019 in the new I-944 which comes up to $31,225. New rule says I-864 is not enough as it was previously and based on their discretion they can still deny visa. Well the denial rate has gone multiple times since 2017, so one can only assume how it will be with the new proposed changes. 

 

Now no one is arguing about AOS, as all immigrant should and proper sponsorship must be required before one can be admitted. 

 

But how are intending immigrants supposed to prove $31,225 when per capita income in over 100 countries is below 5% of US. Hence, the talk about discriminatory policy changes targeting majority people from poor countries. 

How will a under 18 kid or parents over 61 show they have $31,225 even though their sponsor has vouched for them in I-864?

I did read it and  “household” which is heavily weighted at 250%+ most assuredly includes the sponsor.

At least in the case of spouse and children.

 

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

The applicants that are determined as inadmissible based on public charge grounds may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted at the discretion of the Secretary upon giving a suitable and proper bond. The bond will be no less than 10,000dlls.

 

Many countries include cash savings as a requirement for permanent residency.

Come to think of it my wife’s home country does.

Seems fair enough.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nitas_man

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

20 minutes ago, lonesurvivor said:

From what I read, the applicant does not need to show that amount...just that 250% from the USC (sponsor) IS EXTREMELY favorable, although not necessary. 

DHS proposes to consider it a heavily weighed positive factor if the alien has financial assets, resources, support, or annual income of at least 250 percent of the FPG in the totality of the circumstances. However, DHS notes that an alien with an annual income of less than 250 percent of FPG would not automatically be inadmissible based on public charge.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting

[lonesurvivor 48]

3 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

DHS proposes to consider it a heavily weighed positive factor if the alien has financial assets, resources, support, or annual income of at least 250 percent of the FPG in the totality of the circumstances.[584] However, DHS notes that an alien with an annual income of less than 250 percent of FPG would not automatically be inadmissible based on public charge.

Well, if that is true I go back completely on what I say. I cannot see why it is so important for the alien to have 250% of the poverty line, especially when they will not make that money in the USA. Especially if they have the necessary cosponsor already... 

 

 

[yuna628 9,547]

5 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

DHS proposes to consider it a heavily weighed positive factor if the alien has financial assets, resources, support, or annual income of at least 250 percent of the FPG in the totality of the circumstances.[584] However, DHS notes that an alien with an annual income of less than 250 percent of FPG would not automatically be inadmissible based on public charge.

I think this is poorly worded lingo. I've just been through the I-944 myself and it needs some refinement in particular which sections should pertain to the immigrant and which pertain to the sponsor. For most family based immigration, the person is going to be drawing on resources and support and income (i.e. their sponsor or cosponsor). A K1 and AOSer certainly would (because they wouldn't be authorized to work for AOS and it's doubtful a lot of persons would be making 250% in foreign income).

Edited August 14, 2019 by yuna628

[lonesurvivor 48]

13 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

Many countries include cash savings as a requirement for permanent residency.

Come to think of it my wife’s home country does.

Seems fair enough.

So what about homemakers/mothers or fathers who do not work. Or young couples that even in America, do not make 250% of the poverty line, They are just inadmissible? 

 

Listen, I get having to show some sort of money in savings/ability to work in the future like young age, english proficiency, etc. But if their husband/wife makes more than enough money and in a lot of normal relationships in america, one spouse might make a lot more than the other and has no problem being the breadwinner, why does that make it so they will be a public charge?

 

I am only 23 and my husband does make 250%, but I am fortunate in that he is very successful for his age. I do not and neither does pretty much anyone in my age group in Canada or the USA that I know make anything close to that amount except for him. It is not the norm. Will that really make it so if I applied later on and I was not already waiting for an interview, I would just be inadmissible? Sounds ridiculous to me...I can easily work and finish school + my husband will and does provide the money to take care of us and obviously has no issue doing so. 

[lonesurvivor 48]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I think this is poorly worded lingo. I've just been through the I-944 myself and it needs some refinement in particular which sections should pertain to the immigrant and which pertain to the sponsor. For most family based immigration, the person is going to be drawing on resources and support and income (i.e. their sponsor or cosponsor). A K1 and AOSer certainly would (because they wouldn't be authorized to work for AOS and it's doubtful a lot of persons would be making 250% in foreign income).

I agree completely. That is what confuses me/what all of us in here keep freaking out about. If it really is mainly for the sponsor, not THAT much has changed. But if all of the sudden the beneficiary is having to show all that too, when most cannot even work iin the us/nor have the same job available even if they make it in their home country, well idk how most of us would get approved.

Edited August 14, 2019 by lonesurvivor

[yuna628 9,547]

7 minutes ago, lonesurvivor said:

I agree completely. That is what confuses me/what all of us in here keep freaking out about. If it really is mainly for the sponsor, not THAT much has changed. But if all of the sudden the beneficiary is having to show all that too, when most cannot even work/nor have the same job available even if they make it in their home country, well idk how most of us would get approved.

True. Looking back it is possible my cosponsor would have passed the 250% test barely. We certainly had well over 125% no problem. I had savings but no income, and my husband had savings. He worked in the UK but goodness the wages aren't great (he makes a butt-ton in the US now and is shocked - in fact he made more in his US starting part time job than he did with his UK full time job!) so he wouldn't have had 250% and probably not even 125% himself. Most grads in the UK also have student loans, which we are dutifully paying off. He had no credit history in the UK and we certainly didn't have credit history by the time we filed AOS.

 

So unless the administration writers of this new policy are complete idiots (hey I dunno it's possible?) or they have no idea how it actually works: then I can only imagine this is just a result of confusing wording that needs refinement. Unless the individual is self-sponsoring or it's related to a certain class of visa - it has to be the sponsor or cosponsor.

Edited August 14, 2019 by yuna628

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

Here are examples of how the applicant would be evaluated.

 

 Favorable Determination of Admissibility

 

Unfavorable Determination of Admissibility

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

@yuna628 @lonesurvivor The 250% over the FPG is NOT a requirement. Assets, support or income below that 250% is NOT a negative factor. Assets, support or income equal or over 250% is a very positive factor. 

 

So, based on that:

1) No applicant will be denied if their assets, support or income is below 250%, and

2) An applicant with a negative factor -for example, a medical condition that requires extensive treatment- could overcome inadmissibility if their assets, support or income are equal or over 250%

Edited August 14, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting

[zaback21 29]

Ok the Final Rule has been published here: https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-announces-final-rule-enforcing-long-standing-public-charge-inadmissibility-law

 

As mentioned there:  This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. 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.   

 

So, I presume people who already has submitted petition (which means pending if I am not mistaken) won't be considered under the new rule but the current 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule. Only new petition and applications from Oct 15 which will be postmarked will fall under the new rule which will include submitting I-944 forms showing intending applicants has 250% of Federal Poverty Guidelines along with other considerations. 

 

From another thread: https://www.boundless.com/blog/public-charge-rule-explained/

 

 Insufficient financial resources. Even if an applicant has never used government benefits in the past and meets all of the above criteria to demonstrate low likelihood of using benefits in the future, they could still be blocked by an entirely new requirement: personal financial resources. DHS plans to require a new form called the “Declaration of Self-Sufficiency” (Form I-944) to accompany most applications for green cards and temporary visas. This form would collect information intended to help immigration officers determine whether the applicant is a “public charge” under the new, more expansive criteria outlined above.

This new form is not to be confused with the “Affidavit of Support” (Form I-864), which Congress has mandated since 1996 to demonstrate the financial resources of the person sponsoring the applicant for a green card or other visa. Until now, immigration officers have typically given great deference to an Affidavit of Support showing that the sponsor has an income (or asset equivalent) of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, since this is a statutory threshold indicating that the visa applicant will have sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming dependent on government benefits.

Under the new policy, however, DHS plans to impose similar financial requirements on the applicant, not just the sponsor. It appears that at a minimum, applicants will have to demonstrate household income (or asset equivalent) of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. But in addition, DHS would set an entirely new and higher household income threshold at 250% of the poverty guidelines, establishing this much higher hurdle as a “heavily weighted positive factor.”

This could mean that, to safely avoid denial on public-charge grounds, an applicant would need to show annual household income of $41,150 (for a couple with no children) on up to $73,550 (for a family of five) or higher.

 

 

Given that the new public charge rule would create an entirely new income requirement for visa applicants (not just their sponsors) and would set this household income threshold as high as 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, the following possible impacts have been estimated:

• DHS could begin denying up to nearly half of all marriage green card applicants, each year forcing nearly 200,000 couples to either leave the United States together or live apart indefinitely. (Source: Boundless Immigration)
• Some 56% of all family-based green card applicants could be denied under the public charge rule’s unprecedented income requirement — more than the 47% at risk based on prior use of government benefits. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)
• Moreover, this new hurdle would have disproportionate effects based on national origin and ethnicity, blocking 71% of applicants from Mexico and Central America, 69% from Africa, and 52% from Asia — but only 36% from Europe, Canada, and Oceania. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)

[JC&BS 75]

The terms 'admissibility' and 'household size' is confusing me. Are they saying the foreigner (that applies to enter US) has to make 125%-250% to be eligible to enter OR the LPR that is already in the US? Or both?

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

24 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

 

Given that the new public charge rule would create an entirely new income requirement for visa applicants (not just their sponsors) and would set this household income threshold as high as 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, the following possible impacts have been estimated:

• DHS could begin denying up to nearly half of all marriage green card applicants, each year forcing nearly 200,000 couples to either leave the United States together or live apart indefinitely. (Source: Boundless Immigration)
• Some 56% of all family-based green card applicants could be denied under the public charge rule’s unprecedented income requirement — more than the 47% at risk based on prior use of government benefits. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)
• Moreover, this new hurdle would have disproportionate effects based on national origin and ethnicity, blocking 71% of applicants from Mexico and Central America, 69% from Africa, and 52% from Asia — but only 36% from Europe, Canada, and Oceania. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)

The 250% over FPG is not a requirement, but a heavily positive factor. People won't be denied if they earn way less than that. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting