So I guess I944 will be again needed now (unless you are in NY, CT, VT) (merged)

[LBee1592 17]

3 hours ago, INF said:

Discussed with Officer from USCIS today. No I-944 is required right now. We will be referencing that conversation in our application and submitting today. She told me to submit as soon as possible or else this may change. But today there is no change.

I would still worry. I was planning on sending mines tomorrow without it but after seeing this, I am not sure anymore..

 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by LBee1592

[geowrian 22,335]

8 minutes ago, LBee1592 said:

I would still worry. I was planning on sending mines tomorrow without it but after seeing this, I am not sure anymore..

It's hard to say much about that particular case. The announcement that an I-944 no longer needed to be sent appeared on the USCIS website only on July 31st (the ruling was on the 29th), according to archive.org's records. The page's last modified date showed the 31st as well.

So with overnight delivery, the soonest a case could be actually filed with USCIS was August 1st. That's a Saturday, so they won't actually be able to start processing it until Monday the 3rd.

Having a paper application (I-485 can only be filed by paper) rejected and getting the actual rejection letter stating why by the 13th - 10 days after fist getting it - is unusual.

Or it had to be at the very, very start of when they got such applications. It's very possible the intake worker didn't get the notice yet or otherwise just forgot about it.

 

Widow cases are also unusual in themselves with the public charge piece. They need an I-944 but no I-864 is required. When the I-944 was on hold, they needed neither form.

It's possible the intake worker mistakenly rejected it for lack of an I-864. The actual rejection notice for a missing I-864 or I-944 is the same. It says an "I-864 and/or I-944" was missing. So it's possible they filed the form correctly for that time period with neither form, but the rejection notice says I-864 and/or I-944 still, and they are assuming it was due to the lack of an I-944 when it could have been due to a lack of an I-864 that was mistakenly assumed required.

 

Either way, I would always go by whatever is currently posted on the USCIS website. When there is reason to believe that is outdated, I would hold off a few days - if possible - until the situation is confirmed.

[ECCK 211]

I found this in a news article regarding this issue: 

 

Dan Hetlage, a spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the public charge rule, said Thursday the agency was reviewing Wednesday's order to "determine the administrative viability of reimplementing" the policy "where applicable."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-news-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-green-card-wealth-test/ 

 

I would assume from the wording from the spokesperson that the public charge rule is currently not in effect as they are considering re-implementation. If nothing has changed tomorrow on the website, I am thinking that I will send my package out without the I-944 and include a copy of the I-485 page with the alert saying not to include the I-944 to show that these were the rules that were in effect when I submitted the application. 

[INF 96]

Yes I’m not too worried! There is a million reasons why an AOS could be declined for that particular case! 

[NMHayek 56]

This lawyer also speaks of it in his blog and includes a link to the court document 
https://www.visalawyerblog.com/breaking-news-appeals-court-strikes-down-nationwide-public-charge-injunction-and-modifies-scope-of-injunction-to-three-states/?fbclid=IwAR27XLjYYZO3QdcJSDLtGdWF2jDeLtU9iS_9OGQ5gMzyQYPosWoWBfbyCzU

[HRQX 4,145]

39 minutes ago, NMHayek said:

This lawyer also speaks of it in his blog and includes a link to the court document 
https://www.visalawyerblog.com/breaking-news-appeals-court-strikes-down-nationwide-public-charge-injunction-and-modifies-scope-of-injunction-to-three-states/?fbclid=IwAR27XLjYYZO3QdcJSDLtGdWF2jDeLtU9iS_9OGQ5gMzyQYPosWoWBfbyCzU

The document in the link is the 2nd Circuit's decision on 08/04/20 limiting the 10/11/19 SDNY ruling. That blog page doesn't have a link to 08/12/20 2nd Circuit decision. Also, 08/12/20 2nd Circuit decision was issued by 1 judge (Peter Hall), not three.

[NMHayek 56]

10 minutes ago, HRQX said:

The document in the link is the 2nd Circuit's decision on 08/04/20 limiting the 10/11/19 SDNY ruling. That blog page doesn't have a link to 08/12/20 2nd Circuit decision. Also, 08/12/20 2nd Circuit decision was issued by 1 judge (Peter Hall), not three.

The opinion of the appeal court  is listed on Page 105 Of his link of the court Document. I don’t know if this is it or not. I’m not a lawyer so just sharing what I seen and what I understand. Correct me If I’m wrong 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2020 by NMHayek

[HRQX 4,145]

Just now, NMHayek said:

The opinion of the appeal court  is listed on Page 105 Of his link of the court Document. 

 

 

As I said, that whole document is the 2nd Circuit's 08/04/20 decision. It isn't the 08/12/20 decision.

[NMHayek 56]

1 minute ago, HRQX said:

As I said, that whole document is the 2nd Circuit's 08/04/20 decision. It isn't the 08/12/20 decision.

Never mind I see it above - formally written” And is there a link to this document you can share?”

Edited August 14, 2020 by NMHayek

[HRQX 4,145]

2 hours ago, NMHayek said:

And is there a link to this document you can share?

https://www.law360.com/articles/1300811/attachments/0

[NMHayek 56]

51 minutes ago, HRQX said:

https://www.law360.com/articles/1300811/attachments/0

Thank u! 

[FattieBanton 35]

so i'm guessing the correct way to answer this is actually "NO" but then don't include the 944, just fill out the 864?

[Bgail 2]

2 hours ago, FattieBanton said:

so i'm guessing the correct way to answer this is actually "NO" but then don't include the 944, just fill out the 864?

I actually asked this same question some days ago because I was thinking that since we are no longer required to file I-944, then the answer to the above question would be "yes" . This is so confusing now

[geowrian 22,335]

2 hours ago, FattieBanton said:

so i'm guessing the correct way to answer this is actually "NO" but then don't include the 944, just fill out the 864?

All family-based AOS applicants are subject to the public charge inadmissibility. Only if you meet specific conditions would you be exempt (like being able to claim 40 quarters of SS work credits in the US).

 

1 minute ago, Bgail said:

I actually asked this same question some days ago because I was thinking that since we are no longer required to file I-944, then the answer to the above question would be "yes" . This is so confusing now

No no no...you are not exempt from the inadmissibility (unless you meet the condition noted above or possibly if you are doing AOS not via family).

 

Don't confuse the new public charge rule with the public charge inadmissibility. The former was newly implemented earlier this year. The latter is built into the INA from decades ago.

[Bgail 2]

Just now, geowrian said:

All family-based AOS applicants are subject to the public charge inadmissibility. Only if you meet specific conditions would you be exempt (like being able to claim 40 quarters of SS work credits in the US).

 

No no no...you are not exempt from the inadmissibility (unless you meet the condition noted above or possibly if you are doing AOS not via family).

 

Don't confuse the new public charge rule with the public charge inadmissibility. The former was newly implemented earlier this year. The latter is built into the INA from decades ago.

Ok thanks alot for the clarification. I clicked no after two persons responded to my post about that question. But should the I-944 be filed since it's no longer on the USCIS website and reading about the lifted injunctions for some states? Between I am in Georgia