Tag: U.S. Department of State

Categories
Updates

Refusal of Visas Based on “Public Charge” Ground

Share this:

For many years, an Affidavit of Support is an essential document before a visa may be issued to an applicant seeking to enter the United States. What happens if the the affidavit of support is found to be insufficient? Why are many visa applicants now being denied despite submission of Affidavits of Support? What are the new changes in policy regarding public charge?

Public Charge Finding

A non citizen may become a public charge for inadmissibility or deportability if s/he has become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence or is proven to have (1) received public cash assistance for income maintenance or (2) institutionalization for long term care at government expense. Only 3 types of public cash assistance benefits are referred to become a public charge: (1) Supplemental Security Income or SSI for the aged, blind and disabled; (2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, and (3) state and local cash assistance programs known as general assistance.

Affidavits of Support Plus Other Factors

Before new policies took place, an Affidavit of Support should be sufficient to overcome a public charge ground for denial of the visa. This is a document executed by the Petitioner who will attest that she has sufficient assets and income to support the visa applicant. If the petitioner is unable to show financial capacity to support, a co-sponsor may submit an affidavit of support. The petitioner or the sponsor shall demonstrate that she has the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line. In addition, she has to agree to provide support to maintain the sponsored visa applicant at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty income line.

Early this year, the U.S. Department of State changed the policy on Affidavits of Support. It added now a provision on 9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(2) that states that an Affidavit of Support is one of the positive factors taken into account in the totality of the circumstances test and is not in itself sufficient to protect an individual from a public charge determination. The other factors that are to be taken into account are the applicant’s age health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills.

In addition to the totality of circumstances test that is currently being used, it is anticipated that in the next few months, the new public charge policy of the Department of Homeland Security will be published and implemented. The worst part of the new rule that is USCIS will count benefits received by the petitioner U.S. citizen and take it against the visa applicant to show a finding of public charge.

In applying the amendments to the public charge policy, using the totality of circumstances test, there are cases now where a visa applicant is denied for public charge ground upon finding that the co-sponsor who executed the affidavit of support has no familial relationship to the visa applicant. This means that if the co-sponsor is a friend and not the relative of the visa applicant, even if there is proof of sufficient means to support the applicant, visa applications are being denied.

While this new policy is being implemented, there is no basis under the law to require a co-sponsor to be a relative. INA § 213A(f) or 8 CFR§213a.2 does not include a relationship requirement for a joint sponsor. In addition, the visa applicant should not be denied outright of their visas if initially there is a public charge finding. There should be an opportunity to augment the record by submitting additional evidence to show that the applicant will not be reliant on government welfare upon arrival in the United States. A visa applicant improperly denied based on public charge finding should not simply accept the decision without seeking a reconsideration and having the opportunity to submit additional documents to contest the denial.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is a San Francisco based immigration attorney and an immigrant rights advocate. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com or facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through this website.)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Deadbeat Dad’s Restriction on Foreign Travel

Share this:

Joshua was petitioned by his U.S. citizen spouse, Jessica, in 2005. After ten years, their marriage ended in divorce. There are three children born from the relationship and all of them are minors. The court ordered that Joshua pay child support in the amount of $1,500 per month.

For one year, Joshua paid his child support regularly. However, Joshua was terminated from his employment and found it difficult to pay for his child support obligations. In 2016, his unpaid child support reached $35,000.

Meanwhile, depressed and unemployed, Joshua decided to return to the Philippines.

He applied for a U.S. passport but was denied. While he was issued a U.S. passport in the past, he was told a renewal of his U.S. passport was problematic because he owed child support. Desperate to depart for the Philippines, Joshua, upon advice of his friends, applied for dual citizenship and was issued a Philippine passport. He traveled back to the Philippines and stayed with his long time sweetheart for more than three months. When he was about to return to the United States, he found himself with only a Philippine passport. He was told that a mere Philippine passport without a U.S. visa was an insufficient travel document to go back to the States.

Joshua applied again for a U.S. passport. Will he be issued one by the State Department despite his child support arrearages?

Passport Denials

The U.S. Department of State has a Passport Denial Program that is designed to help states enforce delinquent child support obligations. Parents certified by a state as having arrearages exceeding $2,500 are submitted by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the Department of State, which denies them U.S. passports upon application or the use of a passport service.

This program was established as a penalty for deadbeats who owe court-ordered child support. It also serves as an incentive for passport applicants who wish to travel to first settle their child support arrearages before taking a trip outside the United States.

Reporting Child Support Arrearages

The restriction on the issuance of a passport applies only if there is previous court intervention in the child support matter and individuals representing the child are utilizing state support collections services. If there is no court order of child support, enforcement through this program is not available.

Limited Passport

The rule restricting issuance of passports to persons who owe child support, like Joshua, is not absolute. There is an exception. Joshua could secure a passport limited in purpose only, that is, only to be issued and used for his “direct return” to the United States. He could not use this passport for any other purpose.

The regulations that restrict issuance of passports to deadbeats withstood constitutional challenges because there is governmental interest in ensuring that those who do not pay child support obligations remain within the jurisdictional authority of the United States. The exception allowing Joshua a limited passport back to the U.S. ensures that he would be within the jurisdiction of the courts to face, own up to, and hopefully comply with his child support obligations.

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

Categories
Updates

Trump calling PH a ‘terrorist nation’ is absurd

Share this:

At a campaign rally in Portland, Maine earlier this month, Presidential candidate Donald Trump discussed his plans to suspend the entry of nationals from terrorist nations into the United States because it’s too difficult to vet terrorists. In his speech, Mr. Trump listed the Philippines as one of the terrorist nations whose immigrants, or in Mr. Trump’s words – “animals”, have been arrested in the United States for terrorism-related offenses. Not only is Mr. Trump’s inclusion of the Philippines offensive considering the historical relationship between the Philippines and the United States, but it sends the wrong message to Filipino immigrants in the US and future immigrants from the Philippines.

The U.S. Department of State designates only three countries as states sponsoring terrorism – Iran, Syria and Sudan – and the Philippines is not one of them.

The United States and the Philippines have strong historical ties as allies. We were allies in the fight against fascism during World War II. During the cold war, the U.S. military bases were present in the Philippines for more than half a century. In the present war on terror, the Philippines entered into an agreement with the U.S. to allow U.S. soldiers to be stationed in some areas in the Philippines to train local forces on counter terror operations. So how can the Philippines be on the list as a terrorist nation? Was Mr. Trump referring to a dangerous terrorist group called Abu Sayyaf in Southern Philippines? This extremist group has been designated as a terrorist group even by the Philippine government together with other nations, like UK, Canada, Australia and the United States, among others. How can a terrorist group not be distinguished from a terrorist nation?

Filipinos have been coming to America for over 100 years. Filipino immigrants are one of the largest foreign-born groups in the United States. Latest census indicates that there are 3.4 million Filipinos (native- and foreign-born) which is the second largest Asian ethnic group in the United States.

Studies show that the median income of Filipino households headed by an immigrant was $82,370 as of 2013, far above the $53,000 of United States-born households.

Filipino Americans (most of whom are voters) have family members who are in the Philippines and a significant number of these Filipinos have pending petitions for their family members. Currently, there is a pending backlog of 400,000 petitions where applicants for visas have been patiently waiting for visa availability. Instead of barring admission based on assumptions, Presidential candidates should consider supporting federal legislative reforms that will eliminate the visa backlogs and create a more efficient immigration system for family members of U.S. citizens and residents. The changes must reflect policies that promote family unification, facilitate immigrant assimilation and boost economic growth.

Lawful Filipino immigrants who have played by the rules and who have contributed to the growth of this nation must be recognized.

In this war on terror, the Philippines and the United States are allies as they have been historically. On the immigration policy of admitting immigrants, both permanent and temporary, the vetting procedures for those who wish to enter the United States is quite extensive. The various levels of security checks that a person undergoes before being issued a temporary and permanent resident visa are comprehensive enough to determine who are threats to national security. If, in fact, the current vetting policy is not enough, the solution is certainly not to bar admission of nationals of a country who have always been an ally of the United States.

(Atty. Lourdes Santos Tancinco, Esq. is an immigration attorney with the Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco CA based law firm. She may be reached at 1 888 930 0808, law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or through her website tancinco.weareph.com/old)