Search results for: public charge

The Trump administration has directed U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to temporarily pause and reschedule immigrant visa interviews while consular officers undergo mandatory training on enhanced screening procedures, including the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This development represents a significant change for individuals pursuing U.S. permanent residence through consular processing and may result in delays for family-based, employment-based, and other immigrant visa applicants around the world.

The Pause Applies to Immigrant Visa Interviews

This pause should not be confused with a suspension of all U.S. visa interviews. Based on information currently available from the State Department, the directive applies to immigrant visa interviews – meaning, to family-sponsored and employment-based applicants seeking to obtain U.S. permanent residence through U.S. embassies and consulates. Nonimmigrant visa categories — including B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1 students, H-1B workers, L-1 intracompany transferees, and E-2 treaty investors — are not presently included in the worldwide interview pause. Applicants should nevertheless continue to monitor communications from the U.S. consular post or embassy handling their specific case, as appointment practices may vary by post.

New Training Focuses on Public Charge Review

The U.S. Department of State reportedly instituted a temporary immigrant visa interview pause to provide consular officers with additional training on screening immigrant visa applicants, with particular attention to the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, certain applicants may be found inadmissible if the government determines that they are likely at any time to become a public charge.

Public charge determinations involve considering an applicant’s overall circumstances, including financial resources, age, health, education, skills, family circumstances, and other relevant factors, as applicable under governing law and policy. The emphasis on additional officer training might be related to the recent DHS announcement of a new final rule surrounding public charge determinations and suggests that immigrant visa applicants may encounter heightened scrutiny of financial circumstances and self-sufficiency once interviews resume.

Accordingly, the significance of the current development may extend beyond the temporary rescheduling of interviews. GT will continue to track this development, including any adjudication trends noted after consular officers complete the new training.

How Long Will the Pause Last?

The State Department has not announced a firm date by which immigrant visa interviews will resume normal operations. Reports indicate that applicants with affected appointments may have their interviews postponed or rescheduled and should receive further instructions regarding new interview dates. Some reporting suggests that the interruptions may continue into September, although applicants may not want to rely on a particular date unless confirmed by the U.S. consular post where their interview is scheduled. Individuals with upcoming immigrant visa appointments should carefully monitor their email, the relevant embassy or consulate website, and any communications received through the visa processing portal. Applicants might also avoid making non-refundable travel arrangements based solely on an existing interview date without confirming that the appointment remains scheduled. The State Department urges applicants to avoid securing U.S. travel arrangements until such time that their immigrant visa applications have been approved.

The Announcement Follows a Significant Federal Court Decision

The timing of the worldwide interview pause is particularly notable, as this directive follows closely after a federal court struck down a separate Trump administration policy that had suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. However, the two developments should not be conflated. The earlier policy imposed restrictions based on nationality, while the new interview pause is broader geographically and is being characterized as a temporary operational measure designed to allow the State Department to train consular officers on enhanced adjudication standards. Nevertheless, the developments collectively reflect the administration’s continuing effort to impose greater scrutiny on immigrant visa adjudications and legal immigration overall.

Considerations for Immigrant Visa Applicants

Applicants pursuing permanent residence through consular processing may wish to be particularly vigilant during this period.

Those applicants who previously received immigrant visa interview notifications may wish to confirm whether their appointments remain scheduled, as well as closely monitor communications from the relevant consular post. Applicants who receive notification of interview postponement should preserve all notices and follow the post’s rescheduling instructions. Applicants may also wish to use any additional time to review the financial and other documentation required in support of their applications. Given the administration’s increased focus on public charge inadmissibility, applicants should be prepared to address questions concerning their financial circumstances and ability to support themselves in the United States.

Employment-based applicants and their employers should also consider whether a prolonged consular delay might affect employment start dates, existing nonimmigrant status, international travel, or other immigration planning.

What Comes Next May Be More Important Than the Pause

While the immediate concern is the interruption of immigrant visa interviews, the longer-term significance of the announcement may be the adjudication environment applicants encounter when interviews resume. Mandatory worldwide training is an indication that the State Department expects consular officers to apply its screening policies more consistently — and potentially more rigorously — across U.S. consular posts. Applicants should consider preparing not only for a rescheduled interview, but potentially for a more demanding immigrant visa adjudication process once interviews resume. Given the rapidly evolving immigration environment, immigrant visa applicants should continue monitoring all State Department announcements and guidance from the U.S. embassy or consulate handling their cases.

Only days after the U.S. Department of State (DOS) made its B-1/B-2 visa bond program permanent, the agency has opened a second, more expensive front in its use of financial guarantees. On Aug. 5, 2026, DOS announced the Immigrant Visa Public Charge Bond Pilot Program, which allows consular officers to invite certain immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds to post a bond as a condition of visa issuance. Reports indicate the pilot is beginning at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo.

Where the permanent nonimmigrant program caps bonds at $20,000 for business visitors and tourists, this pilot reaches would-be permanent residents and, according to public reporting, contemplates bonds from roughly $100,000 to as much as $250,000. For families pursuing immigrant visas, and the sponsors behind them, it injects a potential six-figure requirement into a process some assumed would depend on the Affidavit of Support alone.

A Bond, Not a Waiver: The Legal Foundation

The legal foundation is longstanding. Section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has for more than a century authorized the admission of a noncitizen who is otherwise inadmissible as likely to become a public charge upon the posting of a suitable and proper bond, with regulations at 8 CFR 213.1 and 103.6. What has changed is not the authority but the decision to use it at scale in the immigrant visa context, where it has rarely been exercised in the modern era.

The bond is an additional remedy layered on top of, not a substitute for, the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864). When Congress amended INA 213 in 1996, it clarified that a bond may be requested in addition to, not in lieu of, a sufficient Form I-864. Nor is the bond a waiver of the public charge ground; it does not erase the officer’s finding but offers a conditional path to a visa despite it.

Who May Be Affected

The pilot reaches a narrow, specifically identified population. It applies only after a consular officer finds an applicant inadmissible under INA Section 212(a)(4) as likely to become a public charge, a determination made under the totality of the circumstances, weighing factors such as age, health, family status, finances, education, and skills. An applicant cannot request the option; the officer decides whether to offer it, and the applicant is notified.

Being offered a bond is not a guarantee of approval; it opens a route around a denial, but the officer retains discretion and the applicant must still be otherwise admissible. The pilot also does not affect immigrant visas already issued, which remain valid; it concerns applicants still in process. Family-based applicants, routinely subject to the public charge assessment, fall within its scope; humanitarian categories generally do not.

Why Santo Domingo Went First

DOS selected the Dominican Republic because of the scope and scale of immigrant visa operations at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, one of the highest-volume posts in the world, letting it test the machinery, including moving large sums into Treasury-held accounts. The choice is also practical: the Dominican Republic is not among the countries covered by the immigrant visa issuance pause DOS imposed earlier in 2026, so launching there avoids entangling the bond in that litigation. DOS has signaled the program may expand, so Santo Domingo appears to be a starting point, not a boundary.

That broader pause has since run into trouble. On Jan. 14, 2026, DOS announced it would suspend immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries deemed at high risk of becoming a public charge. On Aug. 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York struck that policy down, holding in a 61-page decision that it was contrary to law and exceeded the secretary of state’s authority by categorically refusing visas based on nationality and displacing consular officers’ individualized public charge determinations. The bond pilot is a separate mechanism and does not rise or fall with that ruling, but the decision underscores that public charge findings must rest on the individualized statutory factors rather than blanket, nationality-based bars. The government may appeal.

Bond Amounts and How They Are Posted

Public reporting places bond amounts between $100,000 and $250,000, with the exact figure set by the consular officer’s assessment, far above the historical minimums. The mechanics run on the established Form I-945 framework.

An applicant may post a bond only after being invited to do so and must include the government’s invitation when submitting Form I-945, Public Charge Bond. The bond may be cash, secured by a deposit of the full-face value or a surety bond. USCIS administers it, with funds held in a U.S. Treasury account. Cash deposits accrue interest at the Treasury rate; on cancellation, USCIS refunds the deposit plus interest, but on breach the principal is forfeited and only the interest is remitted.

Cancellation, Breach, and Refunds

A public charge bond is not open-ended, but it does not cancel automatically, either. Under INA 213 and 8 CFR 103.6, it may be cancelled when the noncitizen dies, permanently departs, naturalizes, or reaches the fifth anniversary of becoming a lawful permanent resident, provided in that last case the individual did not receive public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It may also be cancelled earlier if USCIS determines the individual is not likely to become a public charge.

Cancellation must be requested. The obligor, an agent or co-obligor, or the noncitizen or their representative may file Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, which USCIS adjudicates. If USCIS denies cancellation, it states the reasons and the right to appeal under 8 CFR part 103, subpart A. A breach, such as receipt of the specified public benefits in violation of the bond’s conditions, forfeits the principal, subject to the administrative process before any demand for payment becomes final.

How It Differs From the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program

Though similarly named, the two programs rest on different foundations. The nonimmigrant program rests on INA Section 221(g)(3), reaches B-1/B-2 applicants from designated countries, caps bonds at $20,000, and runs through the consular and DHS bond process. This pilot rests on INA Section 213, reaches immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds, runs through USCIS on Form I-945, and contemplates larger bonds. The nonimmigrant program is now a permanent regulation; the immigrant program is, for now, a discretionary pilot at a single post. The two programs are easy to confuse but they differ in who selects the applicant, which agency holds the funds, and what conduct triggers forfeiture.

Practical Steps for Petitioners, Sponsors, and Applicants

For families with immigrant visa cases at Santo Domingo, the pilot makes early attention to the public charge assessment essential. Because the bond is offered only after a Section 212(a)(4) finding, the best strategy may be to avoid that finding altogether, through a sufficient Form I-864, a well-qualified sponsor, and documentation of the applicant’s assets, income, education, and skills before the interview. Where a bond is offered, applicants and sponsors might prepare for a possible six-figure cash requirement, the time needed to move funds into a Treasury-held account, and the risk to the principal if the bond’s conditions are later breached.

Employers that sponsor employees for permanent residence, or support relocating key personnel and their families, may wish to weigh how a potential bond might affect timelines, budgets, and relocation planning, and to involve counsel early to strengthen the record against a public charge finding.

Public Charge Is Reshaping the Landscape

Taken together, these developments show public charge moving to the center of U.S. immigration policy. In a matter of months, the concept has driven a permanent bond program for business visitors and tourists, this six-figure bond pilot for immigrant visa applicants, the rescission of the 2022 public charge rule, and the now-enjoined suspension of immigrant visa issuance for 75 countries, alongside stepped-up consular vetting for potential public benefit use. A ground once rarely invoked has become a primary lever over who receives a visa, and the bonds attached to it carry real stakes for families and their U.S. sponsors.

Public charge is also only one front. The same period has brought new fees, tighter adjudication standards, and travel and processing limits across DOS, DHS, and USCIS, with rules, guidance, and litigation shifting the ground almost weekly. Employers, sponsors, and families may wish to plan accordingly: treating immigration planning as dynamic, building the possibility of a bond or other new requirement into timelines and budgets, strengthening the financial record well before an interview, and staying alert to where these programs expand next.

In November 2025, both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) signaled changes to how the U.S. government will determine whether visa applicants or those seeking permanent residence are “likely to become a public charge.” While both agencies are moving toward a broader, more discretionary approach, their guidance reveals important similarities and differences that may affect immigrants, nonimmigrants, and their advocates.

DHS Proposed Rule: Rescinding the 2022 Regulations

On Nov. 19, 2025, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) indicating its intent to rescind the 2022 public charge regulations. DHS plans to withdraw the 2022 rule, which narrowly defined public charge and limited the types of public benefits considered (mainly cash assistance and long-term institutionalization) because the agency believes it is inconsistent with congressional intent and too restrictive. Officers would be guided by both statutory “minimum factors” (age, health, family status, assets/resources, and education/skills) and any additional evidence relevant to an individual’s case showing self-sufficiency. The rule would apply to applicants for admission or adjustment of status within the United States (e.g., those filing Form I-485 with USCIS).

Key Points:

  • Restores Officer Discretion: DHS officers would once again consider the “totality of the circumstances,” not just a narrow set of benefits or factors.
  • Any Means-Tested Benefits: Officers may take into account any means-tested public benefit—not just cash assistance and long-term care—when assessing self-sufficiency.
  • No Bright-Line Rule: There are no fixed criteria; instead, each case is judged on its unique facts.
  • Statutory Minimum Factors: Age, health, family status, assets/resources, education/skills, and (when required) the Affidavit of Support.
  • Forward-Looking: The determination is prospective—whether the individual is likely to become a public charge at any time.

DOS Consular Guidance: Implementing Public Charge for Visa Applicants

It appears that DOS issued new guidance to consular officers around the world, updating the way they assess whether visa applicants –both immigrant and most nonimmigrant (temporary)– are “likely to become a public charge” under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(a)(4). An unofficial copy of the cable dated Nov. 6, 2025, offers insight into how U.S. consular officers are being instructed to implement public charge policy. This guidance marks a renewed focus on self-sufficiency for both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants and clarifies what evidence officers should evaluate during visa interviews.

Key Points:

  • Broad Applicability: Most visa categories are subject to public charge review unless they fall into specific exempt categories (as listed in 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(6)).
  • Comprehensive Review: Consular officers must review all available evidence—petitions, interviews, medical reports, affidavits, financial and employment documents, and any record of public benefits use (domestic or abroad).
  • No Bright-Line Test: No single factor (except lacking a required Affidavit of Support) is dispositive; decisions must be based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
  • Statutory Minimum Factors: Same as DHS—age, health, family status, assets/resources, education/skills, and (when required) Affidavit of Support.
  • Benefit Use—Past and Present: Both cash benefits and long-term institutionalization in the U.S., as well as similar assistance received abroad, are relevant. Officers are also told to consider use of non-cash assistance (like food, housing, or private charity) as a possible indicator of future need, even if not strictly covered by regulation.
  • Burden of Proof: Rests entirely on the applicant to prove they are not likely to become a public charge.
  • Special Guidance for Affidavit of Support: While necessary for many family-based (and some employment-based) cases, a sufficient affidavit does not guarantee approval; the credibility and ability of the sponsor is also scrutinized.

Key Contrasts of Potential DHS Guidance and Recent DOS Guidance

  • Breadth of Evidence: DOS explicitly encourages officers to consider any evidence of need—public or private, U.S. or foreign. DHS’s proposal is less explicit about foreign aid but restores broad discretion, which might include such evidence.
  • Application Frequency: At consulates, even repeat nonimmigrant applicants (e.g., tourists) may face public charge review every time they apply. In the U.S., the focus is on admission or adjustment.
  • Documentation: DOS guidance makes clear that applicants must provide and, if requested, verify financial and other supporting documents. DHS’s proposed rule might require similar evidence, but details may come in future policy guidance.
  • Affidavit of Support: For DOS, even a technically sufficient affidavit is scrutinized for credibility and the sponsor’s financial reality. DHS’s approach is similar, but with less emphasis in the proposed rule on sponsor credibility.

Conclusion: Impacts on Applicants

Both DHS and DOS are moving to a more discretionary, case-by-case approach that looks beyond a narrow list of public benefits or financial factors. Applicants—whether seeking a green card in the United States or a visa abroad—may wish to document their financial stability, health, family situation, and employability in detail. Past use of any public assistance, even outside the United States, may be considered, though it is not automatically disqualifying.

The bottom line: Self-sufficiency is the touchstone, and officers at both DHS and DOS will have broad latitude to deny applications if they find an applicant is likely to become a public charge, based on the totality of the evidence.

Applicants should monitor for new interpretive guidance from DHS and updates to the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual as these policies evolve.

On July 20, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its policy manual to make it easier for green card applicants to identify who may be considered inadmissible to the United States on the grounds that they are likely to become a public charge.

The new guidance is designed to enable applicants to respond accurately to questions on the public charge ground of inadmissibility on Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

 “Public charge” refers to an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for financial support. See our January 2023 blog post for factors that determine who falls under this category. U.S. immigration law includes this ground of inadmissibility that can disqualify certain applicants for a green card.

Under the new guidance, the following adjustment of status applicants are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility:

Family-Based Applicants:

  • Immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents) of U.S. citizens
  • Unmarried children of U.S. citizens and their children
  • Spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of Legal Permanent Residents
  • Married children of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children
  • Siblings of U.S. citizens
  • Fiance(e)s of U.S. citizens
  • Spouses, widows, or widowers of U.S. citizens
  • Amerasians based on preference category, born on or after Dec. 31, 1950, and before Oct. 22, 1982

Employment-Based Applicants:

  • Priority workers
  • Professionals with advanced degrees or noncitizens of exceptional ability
  • Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
  • Investors

In addition, special immigrants such as religious workers, U.S. armed forces personnel, retired employees of international organizations, and others are also subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibly.

For the full list, please see Volume 8, Part G, Chapter 3 of the USCIS Policy Manual.

USCIS has published a new Form I-485 with additional public charge questions required for use starting Dec. 23, 2022. When a nonimmigrant foreign national applies for an adjustment of status (AOS) to lawful permanent resident (Green Card holder), USCIS must determine whether that applicant is inadmissible on the grounds of being “likely at any time to become a public charge” unless exempt from this rule. See USCIS Public Charge Resources. A public charge determination is based on someone’s likelihood of becoming primarily dependent of the U.S. government for subsistence, typically through public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense. Specifically, USCIS considers an applicant’s receipt of past and/or current public cash assistance including Supplement Security Income (SSI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; and state and local cash assistance programs (General Assistance programs) as well as whether the applicant has been institutionalized in a facility such as a nursing home or mental health institution when making a public charge ground of inadmissibility determination. USCIS does not generally consider noncash benefits (except institutionalization), or special-purpose cash assistance not intended for income maintenance when making public charge determinations nor will the agency consider benefits related to COVID-19 relief. See Id. If an applicant is found likely to become a public charge, USCIS can deny the AOS application.

In accordance with the requirements of the new Public Charge Final Rule, which went into effect Dec. 23, 2022, USCIS has required that all Applications to Adjust Status (Form I-485) filed on or after Dec. 23, 2022, use the latest edition of the form. The latest edition of the form, dated Dec. 23, 2022, includes additional questions responsive to the Final Rule.

When a nonimmigrant foreign national applies for an adjustment of status (AOS) to that of lawful permanent resident (Green Card holder) USCIS must determine whether that applicant is inadmissible on the grounds of being “likely at any time to become a public charge” unless exempt from this rule.[1] A public charge determination is based on an individual’s likelihood of becoming primarily dependent of the U.S. government for subsistence typically through public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense. Specifically, USCIS considers an applicant’s receipt of past and/or current public cash assistance including Supplement Security Income (SSI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; and state and local cash assistance programs (General Assistance programs) as well as whether the applicant has been institutionalized in a facility such as a nursing home or mental health institution when making a public charge ground of inadmissibility determination. USCIS does not generally consider noncash benefits (except institutionalization) or special-purpose cash assistance not intended for income maintenance when making public charge determinations, nor will the agency consider benefits related to COVID-19 relief.[2] If an applicant is found to become likely to be a public charge, USCIS can deny the AOS application.

The updated Form I-485 contains approximately two pages of additional questions related to the applicant’s household size, income, and liabilities as well as the applicant’s education and skills such as certification, licenses, and work experience, etc.[3] Please contact your GT immigration attorney with any questions regarding the Public Charge Final Rule and the latest edition of the Form I-485.

[1] See USCIS.gov, Green Card Processes and Procedures – Public Charge Resources.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

On March 9, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed several pending appeals over the “Public Charge Rule” following the Biden administration’s announcement that it would not defend the Trump-era regulation, issued in 2019, which dramatically increased scrutiny of assessment of public charge inadmissibility. In response, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 9, 2021, that applicants and petitioners were no longer required to provide information of public benefits and financial standing required solely by the Public Charge Rule for the benefit of a “totality of the circumstances” test assessing whether prospective immigrants were likely “at any time” to be a public charge.

Applicants for adjustment of status are therefore no longer required to provide Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, or any evidence or documentation required on that form with their Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status. This includes evidence of household assets and liabilities and applicants’ credit report, health insurance, education documentation, professional licenses and formal English education as well as information regarding receipt of public benefits. Similarly, applicants and petitioners for extension of nonimmigrant stay and change of nonimmigrant status are no longer required to provide information related to the receipt of public benefits. USCIS will also cease applying the Public Charge Rule to pending applications for adjustment of status and applications/petitions for extension of nonimmigrant stay and change of nonimmigrant status adjudicated on or after March 9, 2021. In the case of pending Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) due on or after March 9, 2021, USCIS will no longer require information and documentation relating to the Public Charge Rule. However, the aspects of the RFE or NOID that otherwise pertain to eligibility for the immigration benefit sought must still be addressed.

Following abandonment of the Public Charge Rule, USCIS has reverted to solely applying the 1999 Interim Field Guidance to applicants for adjustment of status, which provides a less restrictive definition of a “public charge” as someone primarily dependent on the government for public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense. USCIS is therefore no longer considering an applicant’s receipt of Medicaid (except for long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense), public housing, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination.

The Public Charge Inadmissibility Final Rule was issued in August 2019 and was to go into effect October 2019, when a preliminary injunction with national scope was granted that prevented the Department of Homeland Security from implementing the rule. On Jan. 27, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed the national injunction, and DHS may now implement the rule, except in the state of Illinois. Continue Reading USCIS Revises Forms in Response to Public Charge Inadmissibility Final Rule

As an update to previous entries, the Office of Management and Budget has posted the conclusion of DHS/USCIS Public Charge Rule review:

Department of Homeland Security

AGENCY: DHS-USCIS RIN: 1615-AA22 Status: Concluded
TITLE: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: Yes
RECEIVED DATE: 07/12/2019 LEGAL DEADLINE: None
** COMPLETED: 07/31/2019 COMPLETED ACTION: Consistent with Change

As further previously reported on this blog, the Department of Justice awaits conclusion of OMB review of the rule as to certain matters under its jurisdiction, but today’s action moves DHS closer to issuance of a final Public Charge rule.  This proposed rule is highly controversial and is expected to generate opposition upon issuance.

For more on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), click here.

On July 12, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) completed review and forwarded a final rule on a Public Charge rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action follows action last week as reported here wherein the Department of Justice completed review and forwarded aspects of a Public Charge final rule within its jurisdiction to OMB.

AGENCY: DHS-USCIS RIN: 1615-AA22 Status: Pending Review
TITLE: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: Yes
** RECEIVED DATE: 07/12/2019 LEGAL DEADLINE: None

For complete reporting on the Public Charge rule please see here.

Please consult your GT attorney with specific questions and check back as this matter will be updated as information becomes available.

For more on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), click here.

On July 3rd, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) posted receipt of a “public charge” rule from the Department of Justice (DOJ)-

AGENCY: DOJ-EOIR RIN: 1125-AA84 Status: Pending Review
TITLE: Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 07/03/2019 LEGAL DEADLINE: None

While the text of the rule is not public, it is expected to be a companion rule similar to a Department of Homeland Security rule published for public comment in October 2018.

It is believed that the strict adherence to the public charge rule could greatly expand persons who could be deported for using public benefits, such as public welfare, food stamps or other social services without an ability to pay themselves or by their sponsors.

Current law allows deportation of immigrants that receive government social benefits within five years of U.S. arrival but the government has not made great use of the deportation method in recent years.

For more on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), click here.