Jump to content

Boketto

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Boketto

  • Rank
    Member
  • Member # 266094
  • Location Wisconsin Rapids, WI, USA

Profile Information

  • State
    Wisconsin

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Removing Conditions (pending)
  • Place benefits filed at
    Nebraska Service Center
  • Local Office
    Milwaukee WI
  • Country
    New Zealand

Immigration Timeline & Photos

Recent Profile Visitors

382 profile views
  1. “From a personal liberty standpoint I find a lot of what this new rule change asked for none of our government's dang business. It will do nothing about backlog, well meaning immigrants, stopping illegal immigration, or making this process less of a challenge or easing confusion.” Exactly it simply creates more chaos based on assumptions. Why not just simply issue a blanket rule where everything is the same as before in regard to admission and adjustment, but if the immigrant uses benefits at any time before they become a citizen - then the immigrant must make a detailed yearly declaration on what benefit and how much they received. The total amount of benefits cannot exceed a certain amount and if you are ever found to be lying on your reports then you’re immediately deportable. Then just enter those numbers into a database and run comparative checks with government data regularly. That way nobody has to go through this panopticon style bureaucracy and add to the workload of every officer who probably are annoyed enough as it is. Why must everyone on both sides be punished for the fault of some greedy people who take advantage of the system?
  2. Everyone who is reading this is concerned about how the new rule may impact them, so I made a light summary of what the USCIS website says about public charge that might be pertinent to whoever is reading. The full page I summarized from is here: https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/final-rule-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility If I missed anything important or got anything wrong, please let me know and I’ll revise. Summary 1. The rule applies to: - Applicants for admission, which includes those returning from abroad where their duration of stay subjects them to admission approval - Aliens seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents from within the United States (unless they are exempt for a variety of reasons such as being an asylee or trafficking victim ) - Aliens within the United States who hold a nonimmigrant visa and seek to extend their stay in the SAME classification or change their status to a DIFFERENT nonimmigrant classification So that means it does not apply to: - Removal of conditions, since the immigrant is not adjusting status to become an LPR but to renew it, nor is the immigrant holding a non immigrant visa - Naturalization, since the immigrant is already of lawful status 2. The rule considerations do NOT apply to: - Those who are exempt such as trafficking victims, asylees, VAWA etc - Benefits received by the applicant or their family members if they are enlisted or on active duty at time of filing - Medicaid benefits received: (1) for the treatment of an “emergency medical condition,” (2) as services or benefits provided in connection with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (3) as school-based services or benefits provided to individuals who are at or below the oldest age eligible for secondary education as determined under State or local law, (4) by aliens under the age of 21, and (5) by pregnant women and by women within the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy. - Public benefits received on BEHALF of someone else as guardian or power of attorney. - Public benefits obtained by someone else in the applicants household, unless the applicant is a direct beneficiary of that benefit. So the public charge concerns apply if the applicant RECEIVED THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT DIRECTLY, or as a LISTED BEENEFICARY. 3. The amount and duration taken into consideration: - An applicant is definitely considered a public charge if they receive an aggregate of 12 months worth of benefits in a 36 month period. So if you receive two types of benefits in one month, it counts as two months worth of benefits. - An applicant COULD still be considered a public charge based on the totality of he benefits they receive even if the duration doesn’t reach that threshold above. It’s all up to officer discretion. 4. Types of benefits taken into consideration: - Any federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance - Supplemental Security Income (SSI) - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - Federal, state or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the state context, but which may exist under other names) - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or formerly called “Food Stamps”) - Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program - Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate Rehabilitation) - Public Housing under section 9 the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. - Federally funded Medicaid (with certain exclusions) 5. Public charge likelihood is determined by: - The weighing of positive vs negative factors Apart from the basics of the applicant’s: Age Health Family status Assets, resources, and financial status Education and skills Prospective immigration status Expected period of admission Sufficient Form I-864 The following are considered strongly positive or negative: Strongly positive factors: - Sponsor or household income is 250% above FPG - Applicant has private health insurance for foreseeable future - Applicant is employed with income 250% above FPG Strongly negative factors: - Applicant doesn’t study or work, no employment history - Applicant has received 12 out of 36 aggregate months of benefits - Applicant has a medical condition but doesn’t have private health insurance So if you have negative factors, the positive factors would weigh favorably to mitigate them. Similarly if you have positive factors, the negative factors would offset them. 6. What I got from this (my own interpretation) is that: - Either side having an income of 250% above FPG - Having private health insurance - Never having been on any benefits for an aggregate of 1 year out of 3 ...Are the most crucial factors to getting approved.
  3. You’re wrong. On the USCIS website it states very clearly that it doesn’t apply to naturalization applications. https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge Literally the first question / answer: ”What is a public charge and when does it apply?” Answer: “Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (Green Card) is inadmissible if the individual, "at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge." Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings. If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted.”
  4. Basically I feel that this rule will mostly affect anyone whose USC sponsor isn’t making a lot of money in order to curb chain migration. To be honest, it will be very hard to evaluate the immigrant him/herself based on all those standards combined if the person is from a relatively backward country but the USC sponsor’s information is easily verifiable and substantiated. I think in reality, it will be mostly enforced more stringently against cases where the USC is making too close to 125% of poverty level income.
  5. Yes, sorry I didn’t see that you’re at the visa stage.
  6. Likely not if it’s just for a month a long time ago... they will focus on your current financial situation and whether if your husband would likely become a public charge in the future based on his financial situation.
  7. If an application is pending before the rule comes into effect in mid October, it means it has been accepted (not approved) before the rule is effective. So its adjudication would not be affected. If the rule does come into effect in 60 days, then it means any application accepted by USCIS after a date around mid October would fall under its coverage.
  8. What’s kind of bothersome is they will apply this to citizenship applications and potentially bar anyone who earns under a certain amount from becoming a citizen. It seems ethically questionable since if an immigrant hasn’t used any government handouts and worked hard in the US, but incidentally doesn’t earn above a certain threshold, does that mean they are not good enough to be a citizen?
  9. Right now it doesn’t matter. But in the future it will matter when this law comes into effect because the whole purpose of the law is to bar poor people who are more likely to become public charges from being able to immigrate. This is not based on race but more on class. So I guess with this law, they are making the following assumptions: 1. They assume if someone comes from a poor country, with a low level of education, makes very little and can’t speak English then the likelihood that person will rely on government aid would go up. 2. They assume if an applicant doesn’t make much but the USC makes more than enough to cover both and hasn't used government assistance, then it is less likely that the applicant would become a public charge, and that is taken into the totality of consideration and an approval is more likely.
  10. The applicant (immigrant) will have to report how much he/she makes, his/her assets, and his/her education level and English proficiency to prove that likelihood they will become a public charge in the future is low. Hence “self sufficiency”.
  11. I thought that the whole point of affidavit of support was to ensure that immigrants don’t become public charges. All they really need to do is to make sure that sponsors are legally compelled to support those they sponsored. If a wealthy individual decided to sponsor a poor spouse/parent/sibling from overseas for example, they shouldn’t be penalized just because the applicant is poor. The sponsor should just be made to carry the consequences of their decision - if the immigrant becomes a liability, then said immigrant becomes the burden of the sponsor and not the government. By barring the immigrant entry based on how much he or she makes, they are essentially punishing both and USC and the immigrant for an unforeseeable potential outcome.
  12. Does this apply to ROC or citizenship applications?
  13. Why not just wait for possible RFE and send it then? If you don’t get an RFE, then great. But if you do get an RFE, don’t you think it would be strong supplemental evidence to send in a birth certificate as a response to it? Instead of sending it in now and having it possibly being misplaced while rerouted and filed etc?
×
×
  • Create New...