Administrative processing due to public charge ruling(?)

[Cheburashka34 228]

I don't understand what this all means. Everyone has to have a joint sponsor now?

[geowrian 22,335]

Is there anything suggesting having a joint sponsor avoids this issue? I think we are getting ahead of ourselves...

[Just Paul 4,591]

4 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

So the unintended consequence of the court order is to delay family immigration until things settle out. . . At least AP is better than a denial.

I was wrong as it appears to complicate spousal visa too.  Who would have thought?  

 

[Evajandra 65]

Hi. 
 

My wife has her interview next week and we have a joint sponsor. 
 

Are we safe from this state of Limbo regarding this ruling?

[JacobP 185]

1 minute ago, Evajandra said:

Hi. 
 

My wife has her interview next week and we have a joint sponsor. 
 

Are we safe from this state of Limbo regarding this ruling?

You'll be affected unless the DOS updates their guidance before then.

[roimmi 0]

From what I understand, they will revert back to an older version of evaluating the public charge inadmissibility from 1999  (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge/injunction-of-the-inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds-final-rule?fbclid=IwAR2wdt9SSIff14JPUZP15GOGnm3aVJZkcfgO9sFtnvlLhdgwvuHD5srS6ik)

 

So needing a sponsor or not will still be subjective to your case. 

I am not sure if the USCIS guidance above applies for Consulates as well or they are different entities.

 

Edit:
I noticed a case has been accepted for a CR1 visa in Bucharest today so it might be that the guidance has already propagated or maybe it was a different case. It's all just assumptions at this time.

Edited July 31, 2020 by roimmi

[JacobP 185]

1 minute ago, roimmi said:

From what I understand, they will revert back to an older version of evaluating the public charge inadmissibility from 1999  (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge/injunction-of-the-inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds-final-rule?fbclid=IwAR2wdt9SSIff14JPUZP15GOGnm3aVJZkcfgO9sFtnvlLhdgwvuHD5srS6ik)

 

So needing a sponsor or not will still be subjective to your case. 

I am not sure if the USCIS guidance above applies for Consulates as well or they are different entities.

 

 

USCIS and DOS are separate entities but they generally follow similar principles. Sounds like the USCIS is more on-top of this at the moment.

[Cheburashka34 228]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

Is there anything suggesting having a joint sponsor avoids this issue? I think we are getting ahead of ourselves...

Yeah I just was confused with people talking about income levels and joint sponsors. So this just affects everyone until they make a decision?

[geowrian 22,335]

13 minutes ago, Cheburashka34 said:

Yeah I just was confused with people talking about income levels and joint sponsors. So this just affects everyone until they make a decision?

There's no way to know what exactly the CO was talking about in the OP's case, but the timing heavily implies it's the injunctions related to the public charge rules.

Nothing was raised suggesting income was an issue, or that a joint sponsor would have avoided it.

 

If the issue is a lack of clarity, then I would expect that to continue until they get clarity. It seems USCIS has already provided such guidance, but DOS has not yet.

[Lucky2Lucky 2,526]

3 hours ago, Hilde said:

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!

I am curious if your current income will continue when you move to Brazil as you are currently there. 

[jasonlzak 173]

And I will say this again, a huge win for applicants. A sufficient I-864 will generally overcome public charge.

[roimmi 0]

5 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

And I will say this again, a huge win for applicants. A sufficient I-864 will generally overcome public charge.

This would be my assumption as well. Yet I see some say quite the opposite.

 

Also I mentioned they did not keep her passport at the Embassy. Why isa that a bad sign? I know it's highly speculative but why did they not keep it?

[jasonlzak 173]

4 minutes ago, roimmi said:

This would be my assumption as well. Yet I see some say quite the opposite.

 

Also I mentioned they did not keep her passport at the Embassy. Why isa that a bad sign? I know it's highly speculative but why did they not keep it?

Hang in there, it's just 2 days after the ruling, they still need time to re-adopt themselves to the humanitarian 1999 Field Guidance, after a long time of getting trained to refuse visas at any opportunity under the Trump administration.

[pushbrk 12,115]

18 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.

NVC has never made the public charge decision.  They can cut off the process until they are satisfied but the Consular Immigrant Visa Unit has always made the actual public charge decision.  Sounds like there's been a new court ruling that has confused things for the time being.

[chi6488 93]

Maybe they are now using common sense looking at the financial picture......... above minimum wage doesn't cut it in real life