If your I-601A Provisional Waiver is denied, applicants may resubmit a new waiver application showing new or additional evidence. Although there is no appeal to an I-601A waiver, it is absolutely permissible to re-file a new waiver.
Applicants should contact a competent immigration attorney to determine the reason that USCIS denied the waiver. For example, if the I-601A waiver was denied because USCIS did not find enough proof of extreme hardship, then a new application should include additional evidence to show how the qualifying relative would suffer. The attorney should evaluate what the initial waiver was missing or if there is a more evidence or new circumstances to prove extreme hardship. In some cases, the waiver may be denied simply because it was not well organized or not well-prepared in the first place. Because I-601A waiver applications generally include a great deal of supporting documents and evidence, it is important that they be properly assembled in a way that lets the USCIS officer easily evaluate the arguments.
As of September 11, 2018, USCIS has the authority to deny any application that is incomplete or lacks sufficient evidence without first issuing a request for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to deny (NOID). The new guidelines are a reversal of the current policy, which requires that an RFE be issued unless there is “no possibility” that the deficiency can be remedied. That is why it is more important than ever to make every possible effort to put together the strongest possible waiver in the first place.
Garza & Associates has successfully helped many clients re-file waivers that were prepared by someone else and initially denied. If you have a denied I-601A waiver that you believe was not properly assembled, our office has the knowledge and expertise to assist in putting together a more persuasive and thorough application. Contact us at (713) 664-6200 for a consultation.
On September 22, 2018, DHS released the draft rule regarding the effect of using public benefits for immigrants applying for permanent residency. Any benefits used before the rule goes into effect will not affect the application. The rule will not be final for a few more months. Additionally, the rule makes exceptions for some programs such as emergency Medicaid, disaster assistance such as FEMA, and SNAP benefits used by children. DHS is still considering whether to count CHIP benefits as part of the rule. A key change to the draft rule is that an applicant will not be punished for benefits that their U.S. citizen child receives.
It is important to remember that the rule does not automatically ban the use of public benefits. The ultimate decision will depend on individual factors such as family size, assets, education, age, and income. The rule provides a complicated formula for how much support an immigrant can receive before damaging her chances for a future green card.
This information is intended to update the previous post, “Will receiving public benefits affect my immigration case?”.
The Trump administration plans to publish a rule that effectively penalizes intending immigrants for any public benefits they or their children have received. This applies even if the children are United States citizens who are legally entitled to receive them. There is no new rule in effect now, but the government is considering making changes for the future. Who will be affected by the proposed rule? The proposal applies to most immigrants applying for lawful permanent residence or an immigrant visa. The rule does not apply to lawful permanent residents who are applying for citizenship. The rule does not apply to certain applicants for adjustment of status such as those applying under:
- T visa or U visa;
- Special Immigrant Juveniles;
- Cuban Adjustment Act;
- Other limited categories.
Nonimmigrants applying for a change of status or an extension of stay will also be subject to the new standard. As part of the application, they will need to prove that they are not receiving nor are likely to receive public benefits. What is the proposed rule? The proposed rule directs USCIS officers to evaluate the intending immigrant’s current financial situation to determine whether they can support themselves or whether they are likely to become a public charge. USCIS’ proposed standard would involve weighing both positive and negative financial considerations. USCIS officers will evaluate the intending immigrants’ estimated income, job history, job skills, health status, age, assets, and any family history of receiving public benefits. An applicant would be inadmissible based on public charge if he or she “is likely at any time to use or receive one or more public benefits.” What public benefits will be considered a negative factor? The following benefit programs received by the applicant or a dependent family member during the last 3 years would be a negative factor:
- Obamacare (Subsidized health insurance under the Affordable Care Act);
- Medicaid (non-emergency services);
- Food stamps, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program);
- CHIP or SCHIP (State Child Health Insurance Program);
- WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children);
- Housing assistance;
- Energy benefits;
- Earned Income Tax Credit (when it exceeds tax liability).
What public benefits do not affect the application?
- Unemployment benefits;
- Worker’s compensation;
- Medicare benefits, unless the premiums are partially or fully paid by a government agency;
- Disability benefits
- In-state college tuition
- Subsidized or unsubsidized government loans that require repayment
What other factors will USCIS consider? The applicant will be evaluated for their (1) age, (2) health, (3) family status, (4) assets, resources, and financial status, and (5) education and skills. The proposed rule will introduce a new form requiring the applicant’s employment history, education and training, current and prior income, credit scores, bankruptcies, any offers of employment, health conditions that would affect employability, enrollment in unsubsidized health insurance, and assets or resources. For example, an individual who previously requested public benefits may be able to establish that he or she sought the benefits for a short time period while unemployed but that he or she is currently working and has sufficient income and longer requires such public benefits. Negative factors that would affect the applicant: USCIS considers these “heavily weighted negative factor” against the applicant if he or she:
- Is of employable age, authorized to work, but currently unemployed;
- Has no employment history or reasonable prospect of future employment;
- Is currently receiving public benefits;
- Has received public benefits for more than six months during the last 3 years;
- Has a costly medical condition and has no unsubsidized health insurance or other apparent means of paying the costs of treatment, or
- Has a spouse or parent who is the principal beneficiary and who has been found inadmissible based on public charge.
Positive factors that would favor the applicant: USCIS considers these “heavily weighted positive factors” if the applicant:
- Is a healthy person of employable age with financial assets, resources, and support of at least 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, or
- Is authorized to work, is gainfully employed, and has an income of at least 250 %of the federal guidelines
What if my case is denied? Applicants who are initially refused based on public charge or who are determined likely to become a public charge may be offered the opportunity to post a public charge bond of at least $10,000. However, the bond will be considered breached if the immigrant receives any of the cash (SSI, TANF, or state general assistance) or non-cash programs identified above. Is it safe to continue to receive public benefits today? News of the proposed rule has many concerned parents wondering if they should stop seeking benefits for themselves or their U.S. citizen children even though the children qualify. Because of the harsh proposals, many fear that they may not be able to legalize their own immigration status in the future. The proposed rule considers the use of public benefits received on or after the effective date of the final rule. However, those who have received public benefits within 3 years of the application for adjustment will be negatively affected as well. The important thing to remember is that the proposed rule has not been published and is not in effect. When the rule is is released, there will surely be legal challenges against it and it may take months or years to become effective. Those who are legally entitled to benefits should think about and the health and safety of their family as a priority. Remember, the new rule contains many factors besides public benefits. If the rule is finalized, you may be able to overcome the public charge with other positive factors. Because the rule is not final, it is too soon to know the full consequences. We will update this blog as the topic develops. However, if you have a pending adjustment of status or immigrant visa case, and you are receiving public benefits, it is in your best interest to finalize the application before the rule takes effect.
Immigration has become a hot topic since the 2016 election. Now more than ever, it is critical that all immigrants secure their status in the United States. There has been a rise in applications for U.S. citizenship, and currently there is a backlog of 18-22 months. That means that if you file an application today, you will be interviewed between February and May 2020.
Many immigrants have put off becoming a U.S. citizen because of financial cost, language barriers, or simply because they feel that being a Legal Permanent Resident is enough. In today’s climate, this could not be further from the truth. The only protection against deportation is becoming a United States citizen. Many Legal Permanent Residents have learned the hard way that past criminal behavior or immigration violations that they thought were forgiven still have consequences. This is especially true for Legal Permanent Residents who travel abroad and risk questioning or secondary inspection upon returning to the United States.
If you have been a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) for 5 years, or if you are an LPR married to a U.S. Citizen for 3 years, you meet the first requirement to file for U.S. citizenship through naturalization. The most important step an LPR must take when deciding to become a U.S. citizen is to review their case with an experienced immigration attorney before filing the application. An experienced attorney can review your entire immigration history and advise you of any potential negative details that may hurt your chances of becoming a U.S. citizen. Today, USCIS is reviewing naturalization applications with great scrutiny. LPR’s with any criminal arrest or violation should not file an application without the assistance of an attorney. Certain crimes or prior immigration violations in your past can cause your application to be denied, or even to be referred for deportation before the Immigration Court.
Becoming a United States citizen not only allows immigrants the only protection against deportation, but it also allows for immigrants to petition for their parents, married children, and siblings. Most importantly, as a U.S. citizen, you can register to vote and make your voice heard.
For details on the requirements to become a U.S. citizen, please refer to the “Citizenship and Naturalization” section in the “Services” tab of our website. At Garza & Associates, we have an experienced legal team that has dealt with many complicated issues in the naturalization process. Contact us at (713) 664-6200 to schedule a consultation today.
A difficult case from Colombia is approved and her immigrant visa is granted
L. Torres arrived at Garza & Associates through a referral from one of our satisfied clients. She had filed her immigrant petition in another state and the case was improperly filed so it stagnated in limbo. She changed law firms and the new immigration attorney advanced the case and submitted an I-601a Unlawful Presence Waiver. This was necessary to avoid a ten-year bar as a penalty for having entered the country without immigration inspection.
The decision from USCIS was a denial. The previous law firm had not demonstrated extreme hardship to her qualifying relative. After this, she ended moving to Houston and eventually hired Garza & Associates to file a second waiver. Through a thorough analysis of the case, our lead attorney, Yohanna Romero Baca, found additional medical hardship that led to a favorable approval.
L. Torres attended her consular appointment and she is now a proud lawful permanent resident. She is happy to now focus on a future real estate career. We wish her the best and we know she will be another example of immigrants making a positive contribution. If your waiver has been denied, let us review your case so we can help you obtain your residency.
Get an assesment of your case today!
Fill the form or call 713.664.6200