Final public charge rule

[geowrian 22,335]

Just now, Allaboutwaiting said:

Certain areas are actually scrutinized. Some people, are asked for their full curriculum vitae at embassy interviews due to their profession.

Agreed. If they have concerns about the specifics or authenticity, then I can foresee them looking into it more.

If somebody worked for the past 10 years w/ 3 different jobs in the same general line of work, I doubt they will go back and verify it all (unless something comes up suggesting it is inaccurate).

[yuna628 9,530]

7 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Agreed. If they have concerns about the specifics or authenticity, then I can foresee them looking into it more.

If somebody worked for the past 10 years w/ 3 different jobs in the same general line of work, I doubt they will go back and verify it all (unless something comes up suggesting it is inaccurate).

My husband worked for a US based but worldwide company. I'm sure they could more easily verify something like that. I know when he was hired in the US, his employer actually bothered to speak to his former manager in the UK.

[Mrsjackson 300]

1 hour ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Certain areas are actually scrutinized. Some people, are asked for their full curriculum vitae at embassy interviews due to their profession.

For work based visas, yes? 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,500]

46 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

For work based visas, yes? 

And fiancé/spousal visas, depending on the profession and area of expertise.

[Mrsjackson 300]

Family based visas were created to reunite family members. 

[jim_julian 25]

It's been a few years since I've posted.  VJ was a tremendously valuable resource when I brought my K-1 and K-2 to the USA.

 

K-1 is now a naturalized citizen who loves America.  K-2 is a UCLA grad on a GC supporting herself.  I've been married to the K-1 for 10+ years and consider the K-2 to be my "real" daughter, as she does.

 

K-2 is in process of renewing her 10 year GC.  We live in California and K-2 has MediCal health insurance for which she pays zero as her income does not exceed 138% of the national poverty level.  I've spent a LOT of time researching this on the web without concrete results.

 

Will the fact that K-2 has MediCal no cost (to her) health insurance qualify as government support in the sense of the clarified regulations and provide one factor that could jeopardize her GC renewal?

 

Thanks!

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, jim_julian said:

Will the fact that K-2 has MediCal no cost (to her) health insurance qualify as government support in the sense of the clarified regulations and provide one factor that could jeopardize her GC renewal?

She has been an LPR since 10/02/2007. AFAIK, California's full-scope medicaid is available to LPRs after 5 years. Thus, it isn't an issue for her GC renewal.

[jim_julian 25]

Thanks HRQX ... do you have a document that would support that?  I want to equip her with evidence.  I'm sure most of us have been there with arbitrary application of rules.

[HRQX 4,145]

4 minutes ago, jim_julian said:

Thanks HRQX ... do you have a document that would support that?

Correction for my previous post:

Turns out California is even more lax: "Under current Medi-Cal policy, eligible green card holders get full scope Medi-Cal in California even if they have been in the United States for less than 5 years." https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/eligibility/Pages/Medi-CalFAQs2014b.aspx

[geowrian 22,335]

1) Medi-Cal uses state funds, which there is no bar on new immigrants, for immigrants within the first 5 years.

2) After 5 years, the bar on federal funds goes away, so federal funds for Medicaid programs are on the table.

3) Renewal of a green card does not have a public charge consideration anyway. The new rule does not change this. The rule addresses visas, admissibility, COS, EOS, and AOS cases who are subject to the public charge inadmissibility. Unless somebody improperly obtained public funds, then it's not an issue.

[jim_julian 25]

Geowrian and HQRX

 

Thank you for your obvious research on this ... VJ is SUCH a resource.

 

We welcome more input and will report back on the GC renewal.

 

VJ has the best people!!

[Ready to do it 101]

On 8/18/2019 at 4:01 PM, geowrian said:

1) Medi-Cal uses state funds, which there is no bar on new immigrants, for immigrants within the first 5 years.

2) After 5 years, the bar on federal funds goes away, so federal funds for Medicaid programs are on the table.

3) Renewal of a green card does not have a public charge consideration anyway. The new rule does not change this. The rule addresses visas, admissibility, COS, EOS, and AOS cases who are subject to the public charge inadmissibility. Unless somebody improperly obtained public funds, then it's not an issue.

Are you sure?  That makes no sense.  I've read that LPR's cannot receive any public means tested benefits.  I'm not sure if it would be an issue to renew 10 year green card though... perhaps if she wants to apply for US Citizenship it would be an issue.  I really don't know at this point.  I've even read on here where folks state "ACA is not a public means tested benefit," lol, okeeedokee.  I honestly know nothing about Medi-Cal but I certainly wouldn't start accepting any state benefits from "California" and think everything is hunky dory from a federal standpoint. I mean, all the rules, laws, court cases, etc that California (and like 12 other states) are in their own corner on will all change once they get to the Supreme Court and/or once the Republicans hold all three branches of power in 2020. It would suck to accept ANYTHING California says at face value only to find out you're now no longer eligible to get US Citizenship, etc because you listened to your state as opposed to the federal government.  I'm not going to give advise because I think folks are all over the map on this.  I am curious if one can accept ACA subsidies after being a Lawful Permanent Resident after 5 years and then not have a problem trying to get US Citizenship.  Curious for a friend, not my situation.  I took a look at the N-400 briefly.  Honestly, I didn't see any questions asking about income, receiving means tested benefits, etc, so who knows. Is there even an income requirement to go for US Citizenship after one has had a LPR for 10 years, etc?  

[geowrian 22,335]

5 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

Are you sure?  That makes no sense.  I've read that LPR's cannot receive any public means tested benefits.  I'm not sure if it would be an issue to renew 10 year green card though... perhaps if she wants to apply for US Citizenship it would be an issue.  I really don't know at this point.  I've even read on here where folks state "ACA is not a public means tested benefit," lol, okeeedokee.  I honestly know nothing about Medi-Cal but I certainly wouldn't start accepting any state benefits from "California" and think everything is hunky dory from a federal standpoint. I mean, all the rules, laws, court cases, etc that California (and like 12 other states) are in their own corner on will all change once they get to the Supreme Court and/or once the Republicans hold all three branches of power in 2020. It would suck to accept ANYTHING California says at face value only to find out you're now no longer eligible to get US Citizenship, etc because you listened to your state as opposed to the federal government.  I'm not going to give advise because I think folks are all over the map on this.  I am curious if one can accept ACA subsidies after being a Lawful Permanent Resident after 5 years and then not have a problem trying to get US Citizenship.  Curious for a friend, not my situation.

Yes. You read incorrectly. It's not an issue for naturalization either (unless one received funds for which they did not actually qualify, in which case it can be a GMC issue).

 

The public exchanges are not a means tested benefit as defined by the I-864 or current policy. How an individual classifies it is up to them.

There's no issue accepting Medi-Cal in terms of being a public charge. The state's residents pay for it within the first 5 years, and the state then determines who is eligible to receive coverage. And after that, the 5 year bar is no longer an issue.

That said, note there is a huge difference between an LPR being a public charge + I-864 ramifications vs sponsoring somebody. The rule noted ITT addresses factors considered for being a suitable sponsor and being somebody sponsored. They don't impact existing LPRs.

 

5 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

I took a look at the N-400 briefly.  Honestly, I didn't see any questions asking about income, receiving means tested benefits, etc, so who knows. Is there even an income requirement to go for US Citizenship after one has had a LPR for 10 years, etc?  

You read correctly. There is nothing relating to income or means tested benefits involved with naturalization. Those are not requirements for naturalization.

Although as noted above, if one were to improperly receive aid (i.e. by lying, not due to the nature of the aid program) then that can be a Good Moral Character (GCM) issue, which is a requirement for naturalization.

 

[Ready to do it 101]

16 hours ago, geowrian said:

Yes. You read incorrectly. It's not an issue for naturalization either (unless one received funds for which they did not actually qualify, in which case it can be a GMC issue).

 

The public exchanges are not a means tested benefit as defined by the I-864 or current policy. How an individual classifies it is up to them.

There's no issue accepting Medi-Cal in terms of being a public charge. The state's residents pay for it within the first 5 years, and the state then determines who is eligible to receive coverage. And after that, the 5 year bar is no longer an issue.

That said, note there is a huge difference between an LPR being a public charge + I-864 ramifications vs sponsoring somebody. The rule noted ITT addresses factors considered for being a suitable sponsor and being somebody sponsored. They don't impact existing LPRs.

 

You read correctly. There is nothing relating to income or means tested benefits involved with naturalization. Those are not requirements for naturalization.

Although as noted above, if one were to improperly receive aid (i.e. by lying, not due to the nature of the aid program) then that can be a Good Moral Character (GCM) issue, which is a requirement for naturalization.

 

What is ITT?  I didn't follow that. Not familiar with that term.

[geowrian 22,335]

4 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

What is ITT?  I didn't follow that. Not familiar with that term.

ITT = In This Thread