Administrative processing due to public charge ruling(?)

[roimmi 0]

My wife had her interview at the US Embassy in Bucharest today. 

She went through the process well and the consul asked her a few questions that she answered without issues. 

After the questions the consul noted that her case was well documented and thanked her for making his life easy.

After this he said that her case was good complete but that it would have to go into administrative processing. He cited some recent judge ruling in the U.S. that prevented him to issue her a visa.

He gave her papers back and the form saying that her case is in admin proc and told her that it should all go back to normal in 1-2 days but to check back with the embassy if not. 

He did not keep her passport and told her she would have to send it in at a later date when all is cleared up.

She was not asked to provide a completed DS-5540.

 

Could this be related to the recent ruling in the public charge case? If so, how/why does this affect her? 

Has there been any ruling recently or change in legislation recently that would prevent a CR1 visa to be issued?

Has anyone else had a similar situation? (apart from this https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/744753-ceac-says-visa-refused-consular-officer-said-we-were-all-good/)

 

I appreciate your replies!

[geowrian 22,336]

Yes it could be due to that. Maybe, maybe not.

Why it would impact her is they don't have clear guidance on how to determine if the the public charge inadmissibility applies right now.

I'm unaware of any issue with CR-1 visas in general.

[pushbrk 12,294]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

Yes it could be due to that. Maybe, maybe not.

Why it would impact her is they don't have clear guidance on how to determine if the the public charge inadmissibility applies right now.

I'm unaware of any issue with CR-1 visas in general.

I'm confused too, but the fact that they didn't hold onto her passport is not a good sign.

[Cccl 1]

Same issue here. CR-1 visa interview was 2 hours ago. Documentation was all accepted, and was told we would normally be approved, if not for some recent change in the treatment of public charge. We were then given a boilerplate letter for denial of our visa. They did keep the passport, though, strangely enough.

My understanding of the reason was that the risk of someone becoming a public charge was managed by the checks done by the NVC / affidavit of support, etc. But the change, which went into effect sometime in the last 48 hours, seems to refuse anyone who could potentially become a public charge, regardless of any evidence one could gather to show they would not. That includes all CR-1 visa applicants.

I looked around for any news articles or government statements related to this change, but was unable to find any.

[Elllena 84]

I am so sorry this happened, never thought the new ruling will affect spousal visas in a negative way. Please keep us updated with what they say. 

[zochu 255]

6 hours ago, Cccl said:

Same issue here. CR-1 visa interview was 2 hours ago. Documentation was all accepted, and was told we would normally be approved, if not for some recent change in the treatment of public charge. We were then given a boilerplate letter for denial of our visa. They did keep the passport, though, strangely enough.

My understanding of the reason was that the risk of someone becoming a public charge was managed by the checks done by the NVC / affidavit of support, etc. But the change, which went into effect sometime in the last 48 hours, seems to refuse anyone who could potentially become a public charge, regardless of any evidence one could gather to show they would not. That includes all CR-1 visa applicants.

I looked around for any news articles or government statements related to this change, but was unable to find any.

that’s kinda similar to us. They kept my

passport but said I needed a joint sponsor and effectively denied the visa. We submitted a joint sponsor but this new PC may change how the interpret the ruling from the judge or they are just freezing immigration until there is clarity

 

edit: potentially all immigrants may be a public charge. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by zochu

[MarlinCobon 51]

I found this link

 

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/public-charge-changes-at-uscis-doj-and-dos

 

 

 

[Sirfonners 4]

Judge stops Trump administration's 'public charge' policy citing COVID-19 concern

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-stops-trump-administrations-public-charge-policy-citing/story?id=72074858

[geowrian 22,336]

10 hours ago, Cccl said:

My understanding of the reason was that the risk of someone becoming a public charge was managed by the checks done by the NVC / affidavit of support, etc.

That's incorrect. NVC only does an initial review of the I-864 packet. If it meets the minimum income and documentation requirements, they pass it along the CO to make a decision on the public charge. The consulate always has final say on the public charge inadmissibility.

 

Quote

But the change, which went into effect sometime in the last 48 hours, seems to refuse anyone who could potentially become a public charge, regardless of any evidence one could gather to show they would not. That includes all CR-1 visa applicants.

9 hours ago, ElenaAnthony said:

I am so sorry this happened, never thought the new ruling will affect spousal visas in a negative way. Please keep us updated with what they say. 

I could be wrong, but my guess is they need DOS lawyers to look at the ruling and put out guidance. Then this can be converted into policies. Hopefully this can be done quickly, if it's just reverting to old rules.

The challenge would be getting COs familiar with those rules....some might have never dealt with th old rules, some could use a refresher, etc.

Unfortunately, the side effect of any change is disruption. I can only hope it's a short disruption.

 

Edit: Wow...I just checked the public charge section of the FAM. It was just updated and is empty now:

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Edited July 31, 2020 by geowrian

[Hilde 381]

I am a US citizen sponsoring my husband who is Brazilian and we both live in Brazil.

I earn above poverty line, we have assets  and own a residence in the USA. We have been advised in this forum and by our lawyer that we would not need a joint sponsor. However, when we were DQ´d there was a message saying that I did not meet income requirements.

I called NVC twice about it and the officers stated the same thing: given the recent-changing immigration landscape requirements, get a joint sponsor to be safe.

Very frustrating!

[Hilde 381]

13 hours ago, roimmi said:

My wife had her interview at the US Embassy in Bucharest today. 

She went through the process well and the consul asked her a few questions that she answered without issues. 

After the questions the consul noted that her case was well documented and thanked her for making his life easy.

After this he said that her case was good complete but that it would have to go into administrative processing. He cited some recent judge ruling in the U.S. that prevented him to issue her a visa.

He gave her papers back and the form saying that her case is in admin proc and told her that it should all go back to normal in 1-2 days but to check back with the embassy if not. 

He did not keep her passport and told her she would have to send it in at a later date when all is cleared up.

She was not asked to provide a completed DS-5540.

 

Could this be related to the recent ruling in the public charge case? If so, how/why does this affect her? 

Has there been any ruling recently or change in legislation recently that would prevent a CR1 visa to be issued?

Has anyone else had a similar situation? (apart from this https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/744753-ceac-says-visa-refused-consular-officer-said-we-were-all-good/)

 

I appreciate your replies!

Did you have a joint sponsor?

[roimmi 0]

11 minutes ago, Hilde said:

Did you have a joint sponsor?

We do not have a joint sponsor.

[roimmi 0]

Thank you for your replies so far.

 

2 hours ago, Sirfonners said:

Judge stops Trump administration's 'public charge' policy citing COVID-19 concern

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-stops-trump-administrations-public-charge-policy-citing/story?id=72074858

4 hours ago, MarlinCobon said:

I found this link

 

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/public-charge-changes-at-uscis-doj-and-dos

 

 

 

If I understand correctly this prevents the various institutions to implement this rule where they decide someone might become a public charge and thus they deny a visa. So effectively making the public charge assessment null.

What I don't understand is how this ruling would turn all immigrants into becoming a public charge? Is it because now they can be considered for some benefits due to the coronavirus and thus become a receiver of public benefits which is by definition a public charge under the current rules?

 

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

That's incorrect. NVC only does an initial review of the I-864 packet. If it meets the minimum income and documentation requirements, they pass it along the CO to make a decision on the public charge. The consulate always has final say on the public charge inadmissibility.

 

I could be wrong, but my guess is they need DOS lawyers to look at the ruling and put out guidance. Then this can be converted into policies. Hopefully this can be done quickly, if it's just reverting to old rules.

The challenge would be getting COs familiar with those rules....some might have never dealt with th old rules, some could use a refresher, etc.

Unfortunately, the side effect of any change is disruption. I can only hope it's a short disruption.

 

Edit: Wow...I just checked the public charge section of the FAM. It was just updated and is empty now:

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Is the website you quoted in the edit the place where the guidance used to be posted?

 

 

[HRQX 4,145]

5 minutes ago, roimmi said:

Is the website you quoted in the edit the place where the guidance used to be posted?

Yes. That's the relevant section of DOS's Foreign Affairs Manual.

[geowrian 22,336]

39 minutes ago, roimmi said:

Is the website you quoted in the edit the place where the guidance used to be posted?

Yes. The FAM lists the DOS policies. Until yesterday, that URL (I had it bookmarked and referenced it often) had several pages of the the rules they used to determine if the public charge inadmissibility applies, procedures, etc.

Edit: Here's the page as of June: https://web.archive.org/web/20200606022741/https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Edited July 31, 2020 by geowrian