Final public charge rule

[Soul Mates 44]

Pages 810 to 820 list out all the positive, negative, heavily weighted positive and heavily weighted negative factors.

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-17142.pdf

[Soul Mates 44]

15 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

Whats cool about married couples is that the sponsors household income and immigrant’s household income are the same.  The US spouses tax returns are the immigrant’s tax returns.  

 

Not so true for parents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives.  Those cases?  They’ll be looked at differently in the future.

For spousal and K1 visas, would one be easier to get if the immigrant isn't making enough money and has a lot of negative factors? Probably something to think about.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Soul Mates

[Nitas_man 3,100]

10 minutes ago, Soul Mates said:

For spousal and K1 visas, would one be easier to get if the immigrant isn't making enough money and has a lot of negative factors? Probably something to think about.

Spouse and sponsors household income, tax returns, and assets are the same.  

 

Spouses qualify for health insurance on their sponsors plan.  

 

Other categories of family members do not.

 

I wouldn’t expect differentiation between a K1 and a spouse visa and wouldn’t expect much difference from the way things are today.

 

 

[Soul Mates 44]

12 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

Spouse and sponsors household income, tax returns, and assets are the same.  

 

Spouses qualify for health insurance on their sponsors plan.  

 

Other categories of family members do not.

 

I wouldn’t expect differentiation between a K1 and a spouse visa and wouldn’t expect much difference from the way things are today.

 

 

For a spousal visa the household wouldn't be the same unless the US citizen is living with them overseas?

 

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the consultant changes, but that might be easier to pass as K1 than spousal if the immigrant doesn't make enough and has other negative factors?

[Soul Mates 44]

It seems like any scenario where the immigrant and sponsor have separate households (like the immigrant is still overseas), this rule is going to be much tougher to pass.

[Hemutian 68]

22 hours ago, azblk said:

Good luck getting a house husband/wife approved if you file after October. 

 

I hope you are right about how this new standard will be implemented because based on my personal experiences the in are going to interpret this in ways most disadvantageous to intending immigrants. 

 

I just don’t see how these new rules will be better at preventing any one from becoming a public charge in the future. Lazy is lazy regardless of the level of education blah blah. I have seen people with masters degrees homeless and people with less than a high school education very successful.

 

Based on the totality of circumstances I see about the changes at the uscis over the last  2.5 years, I believe the USCIS sees itself as the gate keeper keeping out the unwashed hordes trying to overrun America , protecting the American worker from foreign competition et al.

 

When you say "Good luck getting a house husband/wife approved if you file after October." what exactly are you referring to filing? My fiancee is a K1 filer. We filed her K1 application 6 months ago. Her interview is next week. If all goes well we'll be married in the US next month and start filing for AOS. Does your "good luck if you file after October" comment refer to our K1 filing, or to our future AOS filing?

[Hemutian 68]

12 hours ago, azblk said:

Before this new rule, For most immigrants the public charge bar was overcame with an i-864 completed by your sponsor or joint sponsor. As long they could show they earned over 125% of the poverty level for your household you would get approved. Under the new rules - The i-864 stops being sufficient on its own and the consular/DHS officer must now consider other factors like age, income, health, job skills, job history , credit score and the like.  Each of those factors is assigned a positive/negative rating.

 

So in my thinking a house wife/husband who stays home has a lot of negative factors and almost no positives based on the guidance from the new rule - she has no personal income, no employment history, no job skills, is unemployed blah blah. So with all those negative factors and one positive factor it is hard to see that person getting approved.

I have also seen some interpretations that the applicant(immigrant) must have an income of 125% level as well.

What about the value of caregiving, of raising children, of forming a vital part of a nuclear family? Aren't these traditionally values that the American government has placed value on?

[WaterLeaf 199]

On 8/12/2019 at 2:04 PM, Lemonslice said:

It's my understanding that USC using these programs would disqualify the immigrant(s) in the family.  

Does that include the USC Preg Women who is on such program that is offered by the state? Like in Tennessee, the Women have to have TennCare - health insurance for kid until they are 18 years old.

[Hemutian 68]

5 hours ago, Soul Mates said:

For spousal and K1 visas, would one be easier to get if the immigrant isn't making enough money and has a lot of negative factors? Probably something to think about.

My understanding is that these new changes apply not at the visa stage but at the AOS (green card) stage. 

By the time K1 immigrants file for AOS, they're already married, so the distinction is moot, isn't it?

[Hemutian 68]

5 hours ago, Soul Mates said:

It seems like any scenario where the immigrant and sponsor have separate households (like the immigrant is still overseas), this rule is going to be much tougher to pass.

My understanding is these new guidelines only apply to AOS filers, not visa filers. By the time K1 filers file for AOS, they're already both in the US and married into one household, so there would be no "immigrant is still oversees"/"separate household"-type situation as you suggest.

[Ready to do it 101]

Wow so much misinformation here.... and those pamphlets someone posted out of California... so much bad advise.  

 

The new law clearly states that receiving health insurance subsidies will be a public charge after after Oct 15, 2019.  I.e. If you are a LPR and plan to apply for citizenship, you better make sure you no longer are receiving subsidies.  That is how I read it and there's this pamphlet that someone posted that says recieving public benefits will not be considered a public charge when applying for citizenship... completely false.

 

I can see how it is confusing as LPRs "legally" can accept some public benefits, such as medicaid after they have been a LPR for 5 years.  However, "legally" and being considered a public charge or not are two different things and according to the new Trump plan, accepting subsidies for 12 months out of a 36 month period will be considered a public charge.  Just wanted to point that out as I've seen many folks come on here and ask, "Is Obamacare or Medicaid or using ACA subsidies a public charge?"... and almost every answer to those questions has been no.  That is false, the document clearly states that Obamacare/ACA/Medicaid/subsidies... whatever you want to call it, IS going to be considered a public charge after October 15, 2019.

[Hemutian 68]

13 minutes ago, Ready to do it said:

Just wanted to point that out as I've seen many folks come on here and ask, "Is Obamacare or Medicaid or using ACA subsidies a public charge?"... and almost every answer to those questions has been no.  That is false, the document clearly states that Obamacare/ACA/Medicaid/subsidies... whatever you want to call it, IS going to be considered a public charge after October 15, 2019.

Are you sure about that?

"Obamacare/ACA" is not the same thing as "Medicaid/subsidies". You can't lump them into the same category. 

I'm a USC who has health insurance through the ACA in one of the marketplaces. I pay a $500 a month premium for individual health insurance. The only benefit I get from Obamacare/ACA is that insurance can't turn me away because of my preexisting condition. I'm not getting any "subsidies" from the government to help pay for my health insurance. That $500 a month comes out of my own pocket. Surely this would not make me a public charge!?

[SCOREAU 36]

On 8/14/2019 at 2:55 AM, geowrian said:

The 250+% threshold is to be considered as a heavily-weighted positive factor. The 125% level remains the same.

Totality of circumstances has been around for decades.

Tbh, I'd be happy to relinquish all rights to public funding so I can go to usa and just get by the best way I can until I drop dead.

[Ready to do it 101]

2 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

Are you sure about that?

"Obamacare/ACA" is not the same thing as "Medicaid/subsidies". You can't lump them into the same category. 

I'm a USC who has health insurance through the ACA in one of the marketplaces. I pay a $500 a month premium for individual health insurance. The only benefit I get from Obamacare/ACA is that insurance can't turn me away because of my preexisting condition. I'm not getting any "subsidies" from the government to help pay for my health insurance. That $500 a month comes out of my own pocket. Surely this would not make me a public charge!?

Agreed.  Technically, it should be if you receive subsidies or cost sharing.  However, I would look into it because I have heard many pharmacies say, "Oh, that's medicaid," to folks who bought insurance policies on the healthcare.gov website even though they have 0 subsidies and there is no cost sharing on their plan. I forsee a pretty big mess in the future.  But you are correct, technically that should not be considered a public charge, in my opinion at least, if you simly purchased your insurance plan on the healthcare.gov website and receive 0 subsidies and 0 cost sharing.

[WaterLeaf 199]

5 minutes ago, Ready to do it said:

Agreed.  Technically, it should be if you receive subsidies or cost sharing.  However, I would look into it because I have heard many pharmacies say, "Oh, that's medicaid," to folks who bought insurance policies on the healthcare.gov website even though they have 0 subsidies and there is no cost sharing on their plan. I forsee a pretty big mess in the future.  But you are correct, technically that should not be considered a public charge, in my opinion at least, if you simly purchased your insurance plan on the healthcare.gov website and receive 0 subsidies and 0 cost sharing.

What about the ones who also have tax credit on it? (Not paying the full insurance price?)