Articles Posted in Public Charge

by

The aftermath of the presidential election has sent shockwaves throughout the immigrant community.

In just 70 days, Donald Trump is set to become the next President of the United States. That means that major changes are coming to immigration law and policy.

In this video attorney Jacob Sapochnick explains what Trump’s victory means for immigration, including his promise to execute mass deportations throughout the United States, as well as other controversial immigration policies that he is expected to implement when he takes office on January 20, 2025.

Want to know more? Just keep on watching

Overview

Mass Deportations

Throughout his campaign, Trump has called for mass deportations nationwide which he has said will be the “largest deportation effort in American history. “

It is said that his advisors are discussing whether they can declare a “national emergency,” to allow the government to call upon military officials to detain and remove undocumented migrant gang members from the United States. His campaign has also suggested ending sanctuary cities to remove suspected criminals, including drug dealers and cartel members from the population.

His promises also include hiring thousands of border patrol agents to secure the southern border to deter illegal immigration.

Trump’s Top Five Policies Targeting Immigration Law

The following are the top 5 areas where Trump’s policies will have the greatest impact in the lives of immigrants in the United States.

Immigrants should understand the potential challenges they could face under the Trump administration and consult with an experienced immigration attorney to create a plan of action in the months ahead. It is important to do so as soon as possible, because sensitive cases may call for immediate action before Trump is inaugurated.

#1 Asylum Restrictions

During Trump’s presidency in 2017, his administration was responsible for implementing widespread asylum restrictions. It is likely that his administration will re-implement many of his previous immigration policies, which limit asylum applications.

His policies are also likely to restrict asylum applications at the border, as they did during his first term in office.

Examples of Asylum Restrictions:

In 2020, the Trump administration published 7 final rules in the Federal Register to:

Continue reading

by

Are you seeking to financially sponsor someone who wants to immigrate to the United States?

If so, you will be interested to know that all immediate relatives of U.S. Citizens and individuals falling in the family-based preference categories, are required to submit the Form I-864 Affidavit of Support to obtain permanent residency in the United States.

The form is signed by the U.S. Citizen or legal permanent resident petitioning for the intending immigrant to show they will have the adequate means of financial support while in the U.S. and will not seek financial benefits from the U.S. government.

By signing the affidavit of support, you are accepting financial responsibility for the applicant seeking to immigrate to the United States.

In this video, we share with you everything you need to know regarding your responsibilities and obligations as a financial sponsor of the affidavit of support.

Overview

Who Signs the I-864 Affidavit of Support

The I-864 Affidavit of Support must be completed and signed by the U.S. Citizen or lawful permanent resident who is petitioning for the intending immigrant (also known as the primary sponsor).

The affidavit is essentially a contract between the petitioner and U.S. government, which establishes that the petitioner has enough income or assets to financially support the intending immigrant. Its main purpose is to ensure the alien does not become a public charge on the U.S. government.

Continue reading

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the top 5 reasons a U.S. immigrant may be subject to deportation in the year 2024 and how to avoid falling into these circumstances.

If you would like to know more about this topic, we invite you to watch our video.

Overview

There are several reasons that may lead immigration to start the process of deporting an immigrant from the United States to their country of origin. Removal may occur because of certain actions undertaken by the foreign national that violate the immigration laws of the United States.

One of the most common scenarios is where the foreign national did not have the right to be in the United States in the first place. But this is not the only reason a person may be subject to deportation. Other reasons may include crossing the border illegally or even overstaying a U.S. visa beyond your authorized period of stay.

Here we discuss the top 5 most common reasons that may lead to deportation.

Continue reading

by

In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses the final rule, “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility” announced by the Biden administration on December 19, 2022.

The final rule applies to adjustment of status applications postmarked on or after December 23, 2022.

The new public charge rule was issued in response to President Biden’s Executive Order 14012, entitled, “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.”

As you might recall, in 2018 former President Trump expanded the public charge rule making it more difficult for green card applicants to immigrate to the United States. Later in 2021, the Biden administration rescinded the Trump administration’s public charge rule and restored the original public charge of inadmissibility guidance that was in place before Donald Trump became President.

To help green card applicants prepare for the change, the Biden administration released a new edition of Form I-485 to better implement the regulations.

Want to know more about this topic? Just keep on watching.

Overview

How can the public charge rule impact me?

Biden’s public charge rule will impact all those who are filing Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status on or after December 23, 2022, with few exceptions.

Although new policy updates are being implemented by the Biden administration, it is important to understand that the “public charge” concept has been around since 1999 when Congress made it a matter of law for a noncitizen’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status to be denied if the applicant is “likely at any time to become a public charge,” on the United States government.

We would like to highlight that in our practice, we have rarely seen an applicant denied solely on public charge grounds, however it is still important to understand what the public charge rule is about and what factors USCIS considers when analyzing whether a green card applicant is currently or likely to become a public charge.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick answers your frequently asked questions on a variety of different topics in the world of immigration including: the resumption of visa services at U.S. Embassies and Consulates worldwide, NVC procedures, the public charge rule, and other immigration updates.

Want to know if we answered your question? Watch this video to find out.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: When will the National Visa Center start scheduling interviews? I am already Documentarily Qualified by the NVC and I am awaiting an appointment date. It has been three months since I received Documentary Qualification.

A: This is a very common question we receive on a daily basis. To help our viewers with this question, we have made a dedicated video explaining how the NVC is working with U.S. Embassies abroad to send cases and schedule interviews based on cases that have been documentarily qualified by the NVC. NVC has stated that all cases that have been documentarily qualified will be sent to the U.S. Embassy abroad in the order that they have been documentarily qualified by the NVC.

However, please remember that even if your case has been Documentarily Qualified by the NVC, an interview is not necessarily guaranteed. The NVC must rely on the U.S. Embassy to determine whether the Embassy is accepting interview appointments. Their availability to take appointments will largely depend on the country conditions of each post. If your Embassy is not accepting cases for interviews, your case will remain warehoused at the NVC until the Embassy is ready to schedule interviews.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick provides a breaking news update: the government has officially ended the public charge rule.

How did this happen? What does this mean for you?

Keep on watching to find out more.

Overview

On March 9, 2021 the government announced that effective immediately it would be rescinding the Trump administration’s public charge rule, which was first put in place by former President Donald Trump in 2019. That rule is no longer in effect due to the Biden administration’s decision to no longer oppose the rule.

The government revealed its decision by way of a final rule published in the Federal Register that removes the 2019 public charge regulations as of March 9, 2021.

The Department of Homeland Security will now return to its previous policy of following the 1999 Interim Field Guidance to determine whether a person would be likely to become a public charge on the U.S. government. As before, petitioners are still required to submit Form I-864 Affidavit of Support and demonstrate that they meet the income requirement to sponsor their relative in the United States.

For its part, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has also said that it has stopped the immediate enforcement of the rule as a result of the government’s actions.

What does this decision mean for you?

The decision to rescind the public charge rule means that the government is no longer applying the public charge rule to adjustment of status applicants, immigrant visa petitions at U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad, and applications for extension or change of nonimmigrant status.

Accordingly, such applicants will no longer need to provide information, nor evidence relating to the public charge rule including Form I-944, Declaration of Self Sufficiency.

Additionally, the government will no longer consider a person a public charge who received any of the following benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period:

  • Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI)
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
  • Medicaid
  • Non-Emergency Medicaid
  • Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
  • Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance and
  • Certain other forms of subsidized housing.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a new and exciting court ruling decided this morning, November 2, 2020, that sets aside the public charge rule, known as the Inadmissibility on Public Charge rule effective immediately.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information

Overview

Today, November 2, 2020, federal judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a ruling in the case, Cook County Illinois et al. v. Chad Wolf et al., immediately setting aside the public charge rule on a nationwide basis.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought a motion to vacate the final rule arguing that the rule should be stricken because (1) it exceeds the government’s authority under the public charge provision of the INA (2) is not in accordance with the law (3) is arbitrary and capricious and (4) violates the equal protection clause of the fifth amendment.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs based on a previous ruling issued by the Seventh Circuit court which found that the public charge rule was substantively and procedurally defective under the APA, and was likely to fail the arbitrary and capricious standard under the law based on the government’s failure to adequately consider the interests of state and local governments.

In support of his decision to set aside the public charge rule, Feinerman stated “the Seventh Circuit has held that continued operation of the Final Rule [the public charge rule] will inflict ongoing harms on Cook County and on immigrants, and this court has held that the same is true of ICIRR [the other named plaintiff].”

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a new proposed rule published in the federal register that will soon change the regulations governing Form I-864 Affidavit of Support.

Want to know more? Keep on watching for more information.

Overview

On October 2, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security published a new proposed rule in the federal register that seeks to (1) strictly enforce the obligations of sponsors of the affidavit of support (2) tighten the types of documentation required by sponsors to demonstrate sufficient income (3) modify regulations regarding when an applicant is required to submit an affidavit of support from a joint sponsor and (4) enhance interagency reporting and information sharing among various government agencies.

What is the Affidavit of Support?

The affidavit of support is required for most family-based immigrants and some employment-based intending immigrants to show that the foreign national has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to become a public charge while in the United States.

The affidavit of support is essentially a contract between a sponsor and the U.S. government in which a sponsor must demonstrate that he or she has enough income and/or assets to support the intending immigrant. In most circumstances, the sponsor’s income must be at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines according to the size of the household.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick provides an important update regarding a recent ruling that brings back the “public charge,” rule. On August 12, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling invalidating a previous nationwide injunction issued by a lower court judge that temporarily blocked the government from enforcing the “public charge” rule nationwide for as long as the Coronavirus remained a public health emergency.

The lower court’s injunction was issued on July 29th out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Daniels. In his decision, Judge Daniels had ordered the government to immediately stop “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating,” as effective the “public charge” rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Overview

What is this all about?

Since the issuance of the lower court’s injunction on July 29th, the Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A decision was expected to be handed down in a matter of weeks.

On August 12th the decision finally came, and it was very unexpected. The Court of Appeals decided that the issuance of a nationwide injunction was inappropriate and instead narrowed the scope of the injunction to apply only to the three states that filed the lawsuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont). The Court of Appeals stated that the injunction was warranted only with respect to these states because only these states were able to demonstrate standing, irreparable harm, and a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the underlying case.

Therefore, the injunction preventing enforcement of the “public charge” rule no longer applies on a nationwide basis, and instead only prevents enforcement of the “public charge” rule against residents of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Continue reading

by

Welcome back to the Immigration Lawyer Blog, where we discuss all things immigration. In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick discusses a very important new update regarding the “public charge,” rule. On July 29, a federal judge in the state of New York issued a ruling temporarily blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the public charge rule on noncitizens seeking permanent residency in the United States, as well as nonimmigrant visa applicants abroad, for as long as the coronavirus pandemic remains a public health emergency. The ruling was made in response to a federal lawsuit filed by several states against the government, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in State of New York, et al. v. DHS, et al. and Make the Road NY et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al.

Stay tuned for more information on this topic.

Overview

In response to a lawsuit filed by the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, challenging the “public charge” rule, federal judge George Daniels approved a nationwide injunction, which temporarily blocks the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating,” as effective the “public charge” rule for any period during which there is a declared national health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The judge in this case ultimately sided with the states recognizing that the public charge rule ultimately discourages non-citizens nationwide from obtaining the necessary treatment and care they would need during the Coronavirus pandemic. In his opinion, the judge stated that in consideration of the “substantial harm” that the public would suffer from application and enforcement of the public charge rule, it was necessary to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo and allow non-citizens to seek public benefits necessary for their health and well-being. The judge stated, “no person should hesitate to seek medical care, nor should they endure punishment or penalty if they seek temporary financial aid as a result of the pandemic’s impact.”

Continue reading