Submit I-944 or not after new ruling?

[IndominusRex 17]

5 minutes ago, Pickle_slushy said:

Do you have a source or link for this news? 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/block-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court/2020/08/05/68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html%3foutputType=amp

[laylalex 7,247]

Sounds like it could be headed to the Supreme Court. There's now a conflict in rulings at the appeals court level on this.

[geowrian 22,335]

3 minutes ago, IndominusRex said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/block-on-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-lifted-by-court/2020/08/05/68f23426-d74f-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Complicating things a bit more...

1) There were rulings by the court to create a nationwide injunction against the updated public charge rules for USCIS and DOS.

2) A different court ruled in a similar manner but only for NY, Connecticut, and Vermont

3) An appeals court also ruled against the public charge rule taking effect.

4) This ruling by yet another appeals court invalidates the ruling in #1.

 

The actual impact right now is uncertain.

The I-944 is not available on the USCIS website anymore. The I-485 page (https://www.uscis.gov/i-485) says:

"As long as the July 29, 2020, SDNY decision is in effect, USCIS will apply the 1999 public charge guidance that was in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented on Feb. 24, 2020 to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status on or after July 29, 2020. "

But this could be changed at any time depending on the latest ruling.

 

The FAM (for visa cases) is still completely blank on the topic ever since the first ruling.

 

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Sounds like it could be headed to the Supreme Court. There's now a conflict in rulings at the appeals court level on this.

Possibly. Although I would be surprised if they took the case and ruled differently than they did last time (earlier this year) when they let the rule go into effect. While world events have changed since then, I just can't imagine that they would say "ignore our prior ruling because of the pandemic"...SCOTUS generally rules on specific questions of law and legal facts (are the rules within the law), not so much how they're used (should they be policy during a pandemic?).

[IndominusRex 17]

I'm leaning towards including the 944 but I'm not sure if I should. I am mailing everything tomorrow or Saturday. Thoughts? 

[Pickle_slushy 4]

4 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Complicating things a bit more...

1) There were rulings by the court to create a nationwide injunction against the updated public charge rules for USCIS and DOS.

2) A different court ruled in a similar manner but only for NY, Connecticut, and Vermont

3) An appeals court also ruled against the public charge rule taking effect.

4) This ruling by yet another appeals court invalidates the ruling in #1.

 

The actual impact right now is uncertain.

The I-944 is not available on the USCIS website anymore. The I-485 page (https://www.uscis.gov/i-485) says:

"As long as the July 29, 2020, SDNY decision is in effect, USCIS will apply the 1999 public charge guidance that was in place before the Public Charge Rule was implemented on Feb. 24, 2020 to the adjudication of any application for adjustment of status on or after July 29, 2020. "

But this could be changed at any time depending on the latest ruling.

 

The FAM (for visa cases) is still completely blank on the topic ever since the first ruling.

 

Possibly. Although I would be surprised if they took the case and ruled differently than they did last time (earlier this year) when they let the rule go into effect. While world events have changed since then, I just can't imagine that they would say "ignore our prior ruling because of the pandemic"...SCOTUS generally rules on specific questions of law and legal facts (are the rules within the law), not so much how they're used (should they be policy during a pandemic?).

This is ridiculous. I guess I'll just submit it anyways and they can do with it as they please. 

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

4) This ruling by yet another appeals court invalidates the ruling in #1.

How does the 4th Circuit ruling invalidate SDNY ruling, if SDNY is in the 2nd Circuit?

SDNY ruling on 07/29/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/07/Dkt 221.Judge's Order granting COVID-19 PI and denying most of MTD.7 29 2020 cuccinelli.pdf

4th Circuit ruling: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192222.P.pdf

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

2) A different court ruled in a similar manner but only for NY, Connecticut, and Vermont

3) An appeals court also ruled against the public charge rule taking effect.

I think your #2 and #3 are referring to the 2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20 affirming but limiting the SDNY ruling on 10/11/19 to only NY, Connecticut, and Vermont. Correct?

2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/08/465-1.pdf

SDNY ruling on 10/11/19:https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/10/146 Order Granting Injunction.pdf 

[geowrian 22,335]

29 minutes ago, HRQX said:

How does the 4th Circuit ruling invalidate SDNY ruling, if SDNY is in the 2nd Circuit?

SDNY ruling on 07/29/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/07/Dkt 221.Judge's Order granting COVID-19 PI and denying most of MTD.7 29 2020 cuccinelli.pdf

4th Circuit ruling: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/192222.P.pdf

Ah, I forgot that the SDNY was 2nd circuit. Wires have gotten crossed in the various rulings. The article specifically mentioned reversing a lower court injunction, but that apparently wasn't (and couldn't have been) the 2nd district court's nationwide injunction. I've read through the ruling now (well, the actual rulings....not opinions yet). Thanks for the reminder.

 

Although how this gets resolved with different courts in different circuits having opposing rulings is going to be interesting. As noted above, I'm not confident SCOTUS would take the case on an issue they just ruled on. But the status quo is "judge x ruled first and made the injunction nationwide" is not going to sit well with the administration IMHO...they will likely push for it to be taken up.

 

Quote

I think your #2 and #3 are referring to the 2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20 affirming but limiting the SDNY ruling on 10/11/19 to only NY, Connecticut, and Vermont. Correct?

2nd Circuit ruling on 08/04/20: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/08/465-1.pdf

SDNY ruling on 10/11/19:https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/10/146 Order Granting Injunction.pdf 

Yes.

Edited August 6, 2020 by geowrian