Breaking Down DHS’s New Final Rule on Public Charges
On Monday, August 12, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced that it would be publishing its new rule on “public charge” inadmissibility. DHS first proposed the rule in October 2018. DHS says that the rule will not go into effect until October 15, 2019. The rule will create significant changes to the permanent residency and immigration process. It is worth noting that the rule should only apply for applicants seeking immigrant visas or adjustment of status, and should not apply to all visa types or applications with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS.”) The current immigration law is known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA.”) INA Section 212 covers numerous grounds of what is known as “inadmissibility.” A potential immigrant, i.e. a green card or immigrant visa applicant, cannot be inadmissible to the United States. Otherwise, the applicant may require a waiver to overcome his inadmissibility, if one is available in the relevant category. INA Section 212(a)(4) covers the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility. A public charge is a person who relies mostly on the government for financial support. The new rule will redefine the rule, in its application, to a potential immigrant’s case. It also changes much of how DHS and USCIS shall interpret the existing law. This article will help break down the new rule, then go over a handful of talking points and takeaways. First, the new public charge rule expands the list of public benefits types and programs that DHS may use in determining whether someone is a public charge. These include, but are not limited to: Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); Any Federal, State or local cash benefit programs (i.e., general assistance); Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and food stamps; Section 8 Housing Assistance; Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance; Medicaid (with certain exceptions); Public Housing in certain cases Next, the new rule defines someone as such if he receives public benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period of time. Each individual public benefit the applicant has used or uses counts toward the calculation, so using two different benefits in one month will count as two months for purposes of the public charge calculation. The new rule also allows officers to consider English language proficiency; potential immigrants who speak English will get a “positive” factor in the analysis, whereas those who do not speak English will get a “negative” factor in the public charge analysis. Medical conditions and the applicant’s access to private health insurance are also positive/negative factors. The new rule will require certain USCIS applicants to file a new form, Form I-944, with their applications. DHS officials may also impose a bond to be paid by the applicant if the officer believes that the individual is inadmissible based on being a public charge. Bonds will be discretionary, and the rule states that certain factors will make the applicant ineligible for bond, and therefore inadmissible and unable to obtain their permanent residency. The new rule will not be retrospective, only prospective, considering public benefits received and used from October 15, 2019 and onward. This means that public benefits that an immigrant received in the past should not count against them through the new rule, although the old rule still applies for such cases. The new rule demands that DHS officers analyze a potential immigrant’s work history. The new rule gives significant leeway to a primary caregiver for a child or person with a disability. This should mean that stay-at-home parents or caretakers who are not employed and are not working because they are tied down to helping their loved one should get some benefit of the doubt from DHS. Credit scores will now be a mandatory part of permanent residency applications, according to the new rule. The rule states that DHS should weigh the applicant’s: Credit history and credit score in the United States, and other evidence of the alien’s liabilities not reflected in the credit history and credit score (e.g., any mortgages, car loans, unpaid child or spousal support, unpaid taxes, and credit card debt)… The applicant will also have to provide DHS with three years of tax transcripts. One last pointer is that a potential immigrant should not be deemed a public charge if one of their loved ones or household members have received public benefits, unless the potential immigrant is specifically listed as a beneficiary of the benefit.The Public Charge
DHS’s New Rules
Practical Analysis of DHS’s New Rule
How Can We Help?
Our Services
More Immigration Blogs
Hear From Our
"One of the top immigration lawyers in Chicagoland. Michael Ibrahim is attentive, supportive, and knowledgeable. One of his best abilities is his availability. He responds to emails with attention and detail, often on the same day. Don't underestimate that in dealing with any immigration matter. He is personable; he does not simply collect fees and treat you like a client but rather like a friend. Your success is his success, and he understands that. If Michael were a surgeon, accountant, or another lawyer in any other field. I would want him. You cannot replicate him.." -Yousef S.
"My wife and I are very thankful for Micheal Ibrahim. Before we hired him, we approached many immigration lawyers over ten years to duplicate documents that were destroyed in a fire. The results were disappointing. Micheal was able to find the lost documents. My wife got her permanent residency. He was always available for us during a stressful time. We would like to thank Michael for his knowledge, professionalism, and expertise. We would definitely recommend Michael for immigration services." -Farzad D.
"Michael took over my case, which had been in immigration proceedings for many years, and I am so glad that he did. He is very professional, kept my husband, and I informed of every step of the process, and gave us the most honest and beneficial advice! Highly recommended for anyone who is in need of a great immigration attorney! Thank you again, Michael!" -Nida F.
