Public Charge Rule Dead?

[Jody and Misho 99]

I am hearing that the Public Charge Rule is now 'dead' again.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/biden-administration-ditches-trump-plan-limit-immigration-financially-dependent-n1260239

[Crazy Cat 39,213]

That is not what I gathered from reading the article.

[Jody and Misho 99]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

That is not what I gathered from reading the article.

What is your take on it?  Certain attornies are claiming that it's over.

[HRQX 4,145]

16 minutes ago, Jody and Misho said:

Certain attornies are claiming that it's over.

It's still technically in force. For example, if someone is filing I-485 this week they should still include I-944 to avoid rejection by the Lockbox. The SCOTUS case is proceeding in the backdrop so it looks like the days are numbered for the public charge guidance implemented by the Trump administration; i.e. it would eventually revert back to the 1999 guidance.

Edited March 9, 2021 by HRQX

[Crazy Cat 39,213]

17 minutes ago, Jody and Misho said:

What is your take on it?  Certain attornies are claiming that it's over.

Thearticle says the Biden administration is not going defend the EXPANSION of the previous policy.  The public charge rule has been in effect for many years.

[Crazy Cat 39,213]

3 minutes ago, HRQX said:

It's still technically in force. For example, if someone is filing I-485 this week they should still include I-944 to avoid rejection by the Lockbox. The SCOTUS case is proceeding in the backdrop so it looks like the days are numbered for the public charge guidance implemented by the Trump administration; i.e. it would eventually revert back to the 1999 guidance.

Thus, DOS consulate officers would still make decisions based their discretion, correct?

Edited March 9, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Jody and Misho 99]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Thearticle says the Biden administration is not going defend the EXPANSION of the previous policy.  The public charge rule has been in effect for many years.

Guess I should have been more clear in my wording.  @HRQX  explained my thoughts much more clearly.

[Jody and Misho 99]

Either way, this is big news.  The I 944 is an overwhelming document.  Also seems hard to justify the I 944 with all that is currently happening at the border.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Jody and Misho

[Crazy Cat 39,213]

1 minute ago, Jody and Misho said:

Either way, this is big news.  The I 944 is an overwhelming document.  Also seems hard to justify this with all that is currently happening at the border.

It might eliminate the I-944, but I'm not sure it will do much more.  I agree that I-944 seems pretty bothersome and difficult.  

[HRQX 4,145]

48 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Thus, DOS consulate officers would still make decisions based their discretion, correct?

For DOS they are still currently enjoined from implementing their version of the rule because of the preliminary SDNY ruling. The DOJ will most likely settle the ongoing case in the lower court and/or not actively defend the rule in court.

Edited March 9, 2021 by HRQX

[OliverBa 61]

It has been enjoined and will not be enforced due to the court order that came out an hour ago. DHS says they will be relying on interim guidance from the 1999 guidance issued previously about Public charge until final guidance is issued soon. Which means all the stuff we had to provide for public charge, including the public charge form, are no longer required. 

[Ryan H 3,790]

Moved from Adjustment of Status from K Visas Progress Reports to Immigration News and Discussion.

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, OliverBa said:

It has been enjoined and will not be enforced due to the court order that came out an hour ago.

SCOTUS did not enjoin the rule today. The parties just agreed to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 46.1: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-449/171281/20210309101553454_20-0449 - DHS v New York Dismissal Stipulation.pdf Todays actions will have to filter down to the circuit courts of appeals and then to the district courts (like N.D. Illinois, W.D. Washington, etc). There will likely be a gap in time before a formal decision is issued.

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/09/dhs-statement-litigation-related-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility

"Once the previously entered judicial invalidation of the 2019 Rule becomes final..."

"DHS and USCIS will provide additional updates regarding the administration of the public charge ground of inadmissibility, including announcing when DHS will cease applying the 2019 Rule."

I.e. not yet dead but soon.

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

7 hours ago, Jody and Misho said:

Either way, this is big news.  The I 944 is an overwhelming document.  Also seems hard to justify the I 944 with all that is currently happening at the border.

I didn’t find it overwhelming or difficult... it’s really just putting in your education, financial status and employment history.. what’s so hard about that?

 

justification would be that it’s part of the legal migration process, not part of the craziness that’s currently going on at the boarder

[OliverBa 61]

1 hour ago, Duke & Marie said:

I didn’t find it overwhelming or difficult... it’s really just putting in your education, financial status and employment history.. what’s so hard about that?

 

justification would be that it’s part of the legal migration process, not part of the craziness that’s currently going on at the boarder

I guess you like spending hundreds of extra dollars on education evaluations, translations, waiting weeks to get letters from the credit bureaus stating that you don’t have a credit report because you’ve never lived in the country, etc. For those reasons alone it delays people almost a month or more in in filing their AOS paperwork.