Categories
Updates

USCIS Proposes to Adjust Fees to Meet Operational Needs

Share this:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will publish a notice of proposed rule-making in the Federal Register to adjust the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Immigration Examinations Fee Account fee schedule.

Fees collected and deposited into the IEFA fund nearly 96% of USCIS’ budget. Unlike most government agencies, USCIS is fee-funded. Federal law requires USCIS to conduct biennial fee reviews and recommend necessary fee adjustments to ensure recovery of the full cost of administering the nation’s immigration laws, adjudicating applications and petitions, and providing the necessary infrastructure to support those activities.

“USCIS is required to examine incoming and outgoing expenditures, just like a business, and make adjustments based on that analysis. This proposed adjustment in fees would ensure more applicants cover the true cost of their applications and minimizes subsidies from an already over-extended system,” said Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of USCIS. “Furthermore, the adjudication of immigration applications and petitions requires in-depth screening, incurring costs that must be covered by the agency, and this proposal accounts for our operational needs and better aligns our fee schedule with the costs of processing each request.”

The rule proposes adjusting USCIS IEFA fee schedules by a weighted average increase of 21% to ensure full cost recovery. Current fees would leave the agency underfunded by approximately $1.3 billion per year.

The proposed fee rule accounts for increased costs to adjudicate immigration benefit requests, detect and deter immigration fraud, and thoroughly vet applicants, petitioners, and beneficiaries.
USCIS last updated its fee structure in FY 2017, by a weighted average increase of 21%.

For more information on USCIS and its programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis), and LinkedIn (/uscis).

[Release Date: Nov. 8, 2019]

Categories
Updates

Courts Block Implementation of New Public Charge Rules: What this Means to the Visa Applicant

Share this:

On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its new public charge rules that was to take effect on October 15, 2019. However, prior to the expected effectivity date, five courts issued nationwide injunctions temporarily prohibiting the implementation of the new public charge rules.

New Public Charge Rules

Meanwhile, on October 11, 2019, Department of State (DOS) amended its rules and aligns it with the definition of public charge under the August 14, 2019 policy of the DOS.

These rules are still in the interim and no final rules are in effect although draft forms have been released in anticipation of the changes (Form I-944 and DS5540).

While the initial impact is that consular officers or immigration officers are bound to follow the existing rules, has it actually affected how visa applications are being adjudicated on public charge issues? Let’s examine the case of Jerry.

Jerry was petitioned by her U.S. citizen mother 10 years ago. The visa petition is now current, and that Jerry was scheduled for a visa interview. His petitioner mother submitted an Affidavit of Support but has insufficient income. A Joint Affidavit of Support was executed by Jerry’s best friend, Ray, also a U.S. citizen. Ray as the joint sponsor has a business and has enough income. At the visa interview, the consular officer did not approve the visa application until documents are submitted that Ray will make good of his commitment to support Jerry. Why is it that additional information is being required from co-sponsors/joint sponsors? Isn’t it that new public charge rules are not yet effective?

Likelihood of Becoming a Public Charge

There are several grounds for denying visa applications. Among them are fraud/misrepresentation, certain commission of illegal acts or prior criminal convictions. Likelihood of becoming a public charge (INA 212(a)(4)) is one of the many reasons for denying visas based on family petitions. Unlike other grounds for denial, likelihood of becoming a public charge is prospective in nature. A person will be deemed to be a public charge if there is a likelihood that s/he will rely on government benefits as his/her main source of support.

Consular Processing v. Adjustment of Status

Public charge policy guidance applies differently for a visa applicant at the U.S. consulate/embassy abroad (consular processing) and for visa applicants inside the United States (adjustment of status). The rules that apply to consular processing are governed by the Department of State (DOS) policy while that of adjustment of status are governed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy.

In both consular processing and adjustment of status, the rule in place is found in the 2018 DOS policy guidance and the 1999 DHS policy guidance respectively. Under the latter, while other factors are taken into account in determining public charge, an affidavit of support is usually sufficient to overcome the finding of public charge.

Insufficient Affidavits of Support

DOS amended rules as of January 2018 and uses the totality of circumstances test in determining whether one is likely to become a public charge. It is worthy to note that for consular processing, the 2018 policy guidance uses the totality of circumstances test and that an Affidavit of Support is just one of the factors to be considered in determining whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. Applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills are taken into account too. Hence, diminished weight is given to an affidavit of support.

When there is a joint sponsor, a consular officer will evaluate the likelihood that this joint sponsor will voluntarily meet his/her obligations under the affidavit of support. That is the reason why sometimes, the relationship between the joint sponsor and the applicant is asked during the interview. And if there is no family relationship between them there will be a probability that the joint sponsor will not follow through with the obligation under the affidavit of support.

In the case of Jerry, it may be appropriate to document his joint sponsor’s willingness to comply with his obligations under an affidavit of support. Although preliminary injunctions are in place right now prohibiting the implementation of the new public charge rules, application of existing rules have been strictly enforced. Visa applicants must prepare sufficient documentation addressing other factors that are taken into account under the totality of circumstances test.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is an immigration attorney based in San Francisco CA and a partner at the Tancinco Law Offices. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, tancinco.weareph.com/old, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1-888-930-0808)

Categories
Updates

Update on Trump’s “No Insurance, No Visa” Proclamation

Share this:

Prospective immigrant visa applicants based on family-based petitions were alarmed by the news requiring health insurance as a condition for the issuance of their immigrant visas. Filipinos who have been waiting outside the United States for their visas to become available were concerned on how they could possibly comply with this requirement. What is the proclamation about and what is the current update?

Erika waited for more than 20 years for her visa to become available. She had processed for her visa and is awaiting her interview before the consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Her legal counsel said that there is a strong probability that she will be interviewed in November 2019. In October 2019, she read the news about Trump’s new proclamation. She became hysterical and was losing hope about being able to immigrate to the United States. She wants to know what she needs to do and if she needs to comply with the health insurance requirement.

Presidential Proclamation

On October 4, 2019, President Trump released the “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System”. This will have the effect of barring qualified immigrant visa applicants from receiving visas unless they establish that they will be covered by an approved health insurance within 30 days after entry or can show proof that the visa applicant has the ability to pay for the foreseeable medical costs. Thousands of prospective legal immigrants, including those from the Philippines, will be adversely affected by this proclamation.

Doe v. Trump Case

A coalition of civil rights litigators from the Justice Action Center (JAC), the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the Innovation Law Lab, with Sidley Austin LLP providing pro bono assistance filed a lawsuit on October 30, 2019 before the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to halt the implementation of the Presidential Proclamation. The lawsuit rightfully claims that the Presidential proclamation is illegal. It unilaterally rewrites the immigration law, imposes a new ground of inadmissibility and creates requirements that are extremely difficult or impossible to satisfy by the prospective visa applicants. The proclamation, according to the complaint filed, exceeded the scope of President’s statutory authority and violates Constitutional separation of powers and equal protection principles.

As a result of the lawsuit and prior to taking effect on November 5, 2019, Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a temporary restraining order to prevent President Donald Trump’s from implementing this presidential proclamation.

Erika and prospective immigrant visa applicants should not be worried at this time about complying with the “No Insurance, No Visa” proclamation. With the temporary restraining order, consular officers may not require proof of health care insurance. However, this does not mean that the issue on public charge is not going to be addressed. It is important that during the visa processing the immigrant visa applicants have complete documentation, making sure that they are not likely to become a public charge upon their arrival in the United States.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is an immigration attorney based in San Francisco CA and a partner at the Tancinco Law Offices. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1-888-930-0808)