[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51114-51296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21106]



[[Page 51113]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 196

October 10, 2018

Part III





Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





8 CFR Parts 103, 212, 213, et al.





Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51114]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 103, 212, 213, 214, 245 and 248

[CIS No. 2499-10; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012]
RIN 1615-AA22


Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to 
prescribe how it determines whether an alien is inadmissible to the 
United States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) because he or she is likely at any time to become 
a public charge. Aliens who seek adjustment of status or a visa, or who 
are applicants for admission, must establish that they are not likely 
at any time to become a public charge, unless Congress has expressly 
exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise 
permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Moreover, DHS 
proposes to require all aliens seeking an extension of stay or change 
of status to demonstrate that they have not received, are not currently 
receiving, nor are likely to receive, public benefits as defined in the 
proposed rule.
    DHS proposes to define ``public charge'' as the term is used in 
sections 212(a)(4) of the Act. DHS also proposes to define the types of 
public benefits that are considered in public charge inadmissibility 
determinations. DHS would consider an alien's receipt of public 
benefits when such receipt is above the applicable threshold(s) 
proposed by DHS, either in terms of dollar value or duration of 
receipt. DHS proposes to clarify that it will make public charge 
inadmissibility determinations based on consideration of the factors 
set forth in section 212(a)(4) and in the totality of an alien's 
circumstances. DHS also proposes to clarify when an alien seeking 
adjustment of status, who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act, may be granted adjustment of status in the discretion of DHS 
upon the giving of a public charge bond. DHS is also proposing 
revisions to existing USCIS information collections and new information 
collection instruments to accompany the proposed regulatory changes. 
With the publication of this proposed rule, DHS withdraws the proposed 
regulation on public charge that the former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) published on May 26, 1999.

DATES: Written comments and related material to this proposed rule, 
including the proposed information collections, must be received to the 
online docket via www.regulations.gov, or to the mail address listed in 
the ADDRESSES section below, on or before December 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule, including the 
proposed information collection requirements, identified by DHS Docket 
No. USCIS-2010-0012, by any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal (preferred): 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination 
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140. To ensure proper handling, please 
reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012 in your correspondence. Mail 
must be postmarked by the comment submission deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Phillips, Residence and 
Naturalization Division Chief, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 
20 Massachusetts NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140; telephone 202-272-8377.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Executive Summary
    A. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    B. Costs and Benefits
III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
    A. Self-Sufficiency
    B. Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations
IV. Background
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Immigration to the United States
    C. Extension of Stay and Change of Status
    D. Public Charge Inadmissibility
    1. Public Laws and Case Law
    2. Public Benefits Under PRWORA
    (a) Qualified Aliens
    (b) Public Benefits Exempt Under PRWORA
    3. Changes Under IIRIRA
    4. INS 1999 Interim Field Guidance
    E. Public Charge Bond
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Applicability, Exemptions, and Waivers
    1. Applicants for Admission
    2. Extension of Stay and Change of Status Applicants
    3. Adjustment of Status Applicants
    4. Exemptions
    5. Waivers
    B. Definition of Public Charge and Related Terms
    1. Public Charge
    2. Public Benefit
    (a) Types of Public Benefits
    (b) Consideration of Monetizable and Non-Monetizable Public 
Benefits
    i. ``Primarily Dependent'' Standard and Its Limitations
    ii. Fifteen Percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) Standard 
for Monetizable Benefits
    iii. Twelve Month Standard for Non-Monetizable Benefits
    iv. Combination of Monetizable Benefits Under 15 Percent of FPG 
and One or More Non-Monetizable Benefits
    (c) Monetizable Public Benefits
    i. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    ii. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
    iii. General Assistance Cash Benefits
    iv. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) v. Housing 
Programs
    a. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
    b. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
    (d) Non-Monetizable Public Benefits
    i. Medicaid
    a. Description of Program
    b. Exceptions for Certain Medicaid Services
    c. Exception for Receipt of Medicaid by Foreign-Born Children of 
U.S. Citizens
    ii. Institutionalization for Long-Term Care
    iii. Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies Under Medicare Part D
    iv. Subsidized Public Housing
    (e) Receipt of Public Benefits by Active Duty and Reserve 
Servicemembers and Their Families
    (f) Unenumerated Benefits
    (g) Request for Comment Regarding the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP)
    (h) Request for Comment Regarding Public Benefit Receipt by 
Certain Alien Children
    (i) Request for Comment Regarding Potential Modifications by 
Public Benefit Granting Agencies
    3. Likely at Any Time To Become a Public Charge
    4. Household
    (a) Definition of Household in Public Charge Context
    (b) Definitions of ``Household'' and Similar Concepts in Other 
Public Benefits Contexts
    (c) Definitions of Household and Similar Concepts in Other 
Immigration Contexts
    C. Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination
    1. Absence of a Required Affidavit of Support
    2. Prospective Determination Based on Totality of Circumstances
    D. Age
    E. Health
    1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements
    2. Potential Effects for Aliens With a Disability, Depending on 
Individual
    F. Family Status

[[Page 51115]]

    G. Assets, Resources, and Financial Status
    1. Evidence of Assets and Resources
    2. Evidence of Financial Status
    (a) Public Benefits
    (b) Fee Waivers for Immigration Benefits
    (c) Credit Report and Score
    (d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical Costs
    I. Education and Skills
    1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements
    J. Prospective Immigration Status and Expected Period of 
Admission
    K. Affidavit of Support
    1. General Consideration of Sponsorship and Affidavits of 
Support
    2. Proposal To Consider Required Affidavits of Support
    L. Heavily Weighed Factors
    1. Heavily Weighed Negative Factors
    (a) Lack of Employability
    (b) Current Receipt of One of More Public Benefit
    (c) Receipt of Public Benefits Within Last 36 Months of Filing 
Application
    (d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical Costs
    (e) Alien Previously Found Inadmissible or Deportable Based on 
Public Charge
    2. Heavily Weighed Positive Factors
    (f) Previously Excluded Benefits
    M. Summary of Review of Factors in the Totality of the 
Circumstances
    1. Favorable Determination of Admissibility
    2. Unfavorable Determination of Admissibility
    N. Valuation of Monetizable Benefits
    O. Public Charge Bonds for Adjustment of Status Applicants
    1. Overview of Immigration Bonds Generally
    2. Overview of Public Charge Bonds
    (a) Public Charge Bonds
    (b) Current and Past Public Charge Bond Procedures
    (c) Relationship of the Public Charge Bond to the Affidavit of 
Support
    (d) Summary of Proposed Changes
    3. Permission To Post a Public Charge Bond
    4. Bond Amount and Submission of a Public Charge Bond
    5. Public Charge Bond Substitution
    6. Public Charge Bond Cancellation
    (a) Conditions
    (b) Definition of Permanent Departure
    (c) Bond Cancellation for Lawful Permanent Residents After 5 
Years and Cancellation if the Alien Obtains an Immigration Status 
Exempt From Public Charge Grounds of Inadmissibility Following the 
Initial Grant of Lawful Permanent Resident Status
    (d) Request To Cancel the Bond, and Adjudication of the 
Cancelation Request
    (e) Decision and Appeal
    7. Breach of a Public Charge Bond and Appeal
    (a) Breach Conditions and Adjudication
    (b) Decision and Appeal
    (c) Consequences of Breach
    8. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
    9. Public Charge Processing Fees
    10. Other Technical Changes
    11. Concurrent Surety Bond Rulemaking
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
and Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs)
    1. Summary
    2. Background and Purpose of the Rule
    3. Population
    (a) Population Seeking Adjustment of Status
    i. Exemptions From Determination of Inadmissibility Based on 
Public Charge Grounds
    ii. Exemptions From the Requirement To Submit an Affidavit of 
Support
    (b) Population Seeking Extension of Stay of Change of Status
    4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    (a) Baseline Estimates of Current Costs
    i. Determination of Inadmissibility Based on Public Charge 
Grounds
    a. Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or 
Adjust Status
    b. Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination 
Record
    c. Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver
    d. Affidavit of Support Forms
    ii. Consideration of Receipt, or Likelihood of Receipt of Public 
Benefits Defined in Proposed 212.21(b) for Applicants Requesting 
Extension of Stay or Change of Status
    a. Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
    b. Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant 
Transitional Worker
    c. Form I-539, Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
    (b) Costs of Proposed Regulatory Changes
    i. Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency
    ii. Extension of Stay/Change of Status Using Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker; Form I-129CW, Petition for a 
CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker; or Form I-539, 
Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
    iii. Public Charge Bond
    (c) Transfer of Payments and Indirect Impacts of Proposed 
Regulatory Changes
    (d) Discounted Direct Costs and Reduced Transfer Payments
    i. Discounted Direct Costs
    ii. Discounted Reduction in Transfer Payments
    (e) Costs to the Federal Government
    (f) Benefits of Proposed Regulatory Changes
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Congressional Review Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Family Assessment
    I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    J. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. List of Subjects and Regulatory Amendments

Table of Abbreviations

AFM--Adjudicator's Field Manual
ASEC--Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current 
Population Survey
BIA--Board of Immigration Appeals
BLS--U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
CDC--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CHIP--Children's Health Insurance Program
CNMI--Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
DHS--U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOS--U.S. Department of State
FAM--Foreign Affairs Manual
FCRA--Fair Credit Reporting Act
FPG--Federal Poverty Guidelines
FPL--Federal Poverty Level
Form DS-2054--Medical Examination For Immigrant or Refugee Applicant
Form I-129--Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
Form I-129CW--Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional 
Worker
Form I-130--Petition for Alien Relative
Form I-140--Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Form I-290B--Notice of Appeal or Motion
Form I-356--Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond
Form I-407--Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident 
Status
Form I-485--Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status
Form I-539--Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
Form I-600--Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative
Form I-693--Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record
Form I-800--Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate 
Relative
Form I-864--Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA
Form I-864A--Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member
Form I-864EZ--Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act
Form I-864P--HHS Poverty Guidelines for Affidavit of Support
Form I-864W--Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant's 
Affidavit of Support
Form I-912--Request for Fee Waiver
Form I-94--Arrival/Departure Record
Form I-944--Declaration of Self-Sufficiency
Form I-945--Public Charge Bond
Form N-600--Application for Certificate of Citizenship
Form N-600K--Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate 
Under Section 322
GA- General Assistance
GAO--U.S. Government Accountability Office
HHS--U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement IIRIRA--Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
INA--Immigration and Nationality Act
INS--Immigration and Naturalization Service

[[Page 51116]]

IRCA--Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
NHE--National Health Expenditure
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PRWORA--Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996
RFE--Request for Evidence
SAVE--Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security
SIPP--Survey of Income and Program Participation
SNAP--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSA--Social Security Administration
SSI--Supplemental Security Income
TANF--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
USDA--U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S.C.--United States Code
USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
WIC--Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children

I. Public Participation

    All interested parties are invited to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on 
all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that 
relate to the economic, legal, environmental, or federalism effects 
that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted 
in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that 
will provide the most assistance to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) in implementing these changes will reference a 
specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any 
recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that 
supports such recommended change.
    Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency 
name and the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012 for this rulemaking. 
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all 
submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal 
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes 
it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal 
information that you provide in any voluntary public comment submission 
you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from 
public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an 
individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the 
Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of 
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents 
or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS 
Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012. You may also sign up for email alerts on 
the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final 
rule is published.
    The docket for this rulemaking does not include any comments 
submitted on the related notice of proposed rulemaking published by INS 
in 1999.\1\ Commenters to the 1999 notice of proposed rulemaking that 
wish to have their views considered should submit new comments in 
response to this notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Executive Summary

    DHS seeks to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge 
inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on 
public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own 
capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and 
private organizations.\2\ DHS proposes to define the term ``public 
charge'' in regulation and to identify the types, amount, and duration 
of receipt of public benefits that would be considered in public charge 
inadmissibility determinations. DHS proposes to amend its regulations 
to interpret the minimum statutory factors for determining whether an 
alien is inadmissible because he or she is likely to become a public 
charge. This proposed rule would provide a standard for determining 
whether an alien who seeks admission into the United States as a 
nonimmigrant or as an immigrant, or seeks adjustment of status, is 
likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS also provides a more comprehensive 
framework under which USCIS will consider public charge 
inadmissibility. DHS proposes that certain paper-based applications to 
USCIS would require additional evidence related to public charge 
considerations. Due to operational limitations, this additional 
evidence would not generally be required at ports of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(1), (2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also proposes amending the nonimmigrant extension of stay and 
change of status regulations by exercising its authority to set 
additional conditions on granting such benefits. Finally, DHS proposes 
to revise its regulations governing the discretion of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security (Secretary) to accept a public charge bond under 
section 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183, for those seeking adjustment of 
status.

A. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    DHS proposes to include the following major changes:
     Amending 8 CFR 103.6, Surety bonds. The amendments to this 
section set forth DHS's discretion to approve public charge bonds, 
cancellation, bond schedules, and breach of bond, and move principles 
governing public charge bonds to 8 CFR 213.1, as proposed to be revised 
in this NPRM.
     Amending 8 CFR 103.7, adding fees for new Form I-945, 
Public Charge Bond, and Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public 
Charge Bond.
     Adding 8 CFR 212.20, Applicability of public charge 
inadmissibility. This section identifies the categories of aliens that 
are subject to the public charge inadmissibility determination.
     Adding 212.21, Definitions. This section establishes key 
regulatory definitions, including public charge, public benefit, likely 
at any time to become a public charge, and household.
     Adding 212.22, Public charge determination. This section 
clarifies that evaluating the likelihood of becoming a public charge is 
a prospective determination based on the totality of the circumstances. 
This section provides details on how the statute's mandatory factors 
would be considered when making a public charge inadmissibility 
determination.
     Adding 212.23, Exemptions and waivers for the public 
charge ground of inadmissibility. This section provides a list of 
statutory and regulatory exemptions from and waivers of inadmissibility 
based on public charge.
     Adding 212.24 Valuation of monetizable benefits. This 
section provides the methodology for calculating the annual aggregate 
amount of the portion attributable to the alien for the monetizable 
benefits and considered in the public charge inadmissibility 
determination.
     Amending 8 CFR 213.1, Adjustment of status of aliens on 
submission of a public charge bond. The updates to this section change 
the title of this section and add specifics to the public charge bond 
provision for aliens who are seeking adjustment of status, including 
the discretionary availability and the minimum amount for a public 
charge bond.
     Amending 8 CFR 214.1, Requirements for admission, 
extension, and maintenance of status. These amendments provide that, 
with limited

[[Page 51117]]

exceptions, an application for extension of nonimmigrant stay will be 
denied unless the applicant demonstrates that he or she has not 
received since obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or she seeks to 
extend, is not receiving, and is not likely to receive, public benefits 
as described in 8 CFR 212.21(b). Where section 212(a)(4) of the Act 
does not apply to the nonimmigrant category that the alien seeks to 
extend, this provision does not apply.
     Amending 8 CFR 245.4 Documentary requirements. These 
amendments require applicants for adjustment of status to file the new 
USCIS Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, to facilitate USCIS' 
public charge inadmissibility determination.
     Amending 8 CFR 248.1, Change of nonimmigrant 
classification eligibility. This section provides that with limited 
exceptions, an application to change nonimmigrant status will be denied 
unless the applicant demonstrates that he or she has not received since 
obtaining the nonimmigrant status from which the alien seeks to change, 
is not currently receiving, nor is likely to receive public benefits in 
the future, as described in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b). Where section 
212(a)(4) of the Act does not apply to the nonimmigrant category to 
which the alien requests a change of status this provision does not 
apply.

B. Costs and Benefits

    This proposed rule would impose new costs on the population 
applying to adjust status using Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) that are subject to the public 
charge grounds on inadmissibility. DHS would now require any adjustment 
applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground to 
submit Form I-944 with their Form I-485 to demonstrate they are not 
likely to become a public charge.
    The proposed rule would also impose additional costs for seeking 
extension of stay or change of status by filing Form I-129 (Petition 
for a Nonimmigrant Worker); Form I-129CW (Petition for a CNMI-Only 
Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker); or Form I-539 (Application to 
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status) as applicable. The associated time 
burden estimate for completing these forms would increase because these 
applicants would be required to demonstrate that they have not 
received, are not currently receiving, nor are likely in the future to 
receive, public benefits as described in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b). 
These applicants may also incur additional costs if DHS determines that 
they are required to submit Form I-944 in support of their applications 
for extension of stay or change of status. Moreover, the proposed rule 
would impose new costs associated with the proposed public charge bond 
process, including new costs for completing and filing Form I-945 
(Public Charge Bond), and Form I-356 (Request for Cancellation of 
Public Charge Bond).
    DHS estimates that the additional total cost of the proposed rule 
would range from approximately $45,313,422 to $129,596,845 annually for 
the population applying to adjust status who also would be required to 
file Form I-944, the population applying for extension of stay or 
change of status that would experience opportunity costs in time 
associated with the increased time burden estimates for completing Form 
I-485, Form I-129, FormI-129CW, and FormI-539, and the population 
requesting or cancelling a public charge bond using Form I-945 and Form 
I-356, respectively.
    Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the total 
quantified new direct costs of the proposed rule would range from about 
$453,134,220 to $1,295,968,450 (undiscounted). DHS estimates that the 
10-year discounted total direct costs of this proposed rule would range 
from about $386,532,679 to $1,105,487,375 at a 3 percent discount rate 
and about $318,262,513 to $910,234,008 at a 7 percent discount rate.
    The proposed rule would impose new costs on the population seeking 
extension of stay or change of status using Form I-129, Form I-129CW, 
or Form I-539. For any of these forms, USCIS officers would then be 
able to exercise discretion in determining whether it would be 
necessary to issue a request for evidence (RFE) requesting the 
applicant to submit Form I-944. DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis 
estimating the potential cost of filing Form I-129, Form I-129CW, or 
Form I-539 for a range of 10 to 100 percent of filers receiving an RFE 
requesting they submit Form I-944. The costs to Form I-129 
beneficiaries who may receive an RFE to file Form I-944 range from 
$6,086,318 to $60,863,181 annually and the costs to Form I-129CW 
beneficiaries who may receive such an RFE from $114,132 to $1,141,315 
annually. The costs to Form I-539 applicants who may receive an RFE to 
file Form I-944 range from $3,164,375 to $31,643,752 annually.
    Simultaneously, DHS is proposing to eliminate the use and 
consideration of the Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant's 
Affidavit of Support (Form I-864W), currently applicable to certain 
classes of aliens. In lieu of Form I-864W, the alien would indicate 
eligibility for the exemption of the affidavit of support requirement 
on Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status.
    The proposed rule would potentially impose new costs on individuals 
or companies (obligors) if an alien has been found to be inadmissible 
on public charge grounds, but has been given the opportunity to submit 
a public charge bond, for which USCIS intends to use the new Form I-
945. DHS estimates the total cost to file Form I-945 would be at 
minimum about $34,234 annually.\3\ The proposed rule would also impose 
new costs on aliens or obligors who would submit a Form I-356; DHS 
estimates the total cost to file Form I-356 would be approximately $825 
annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Calculation: $35.66 (cost per obligor to file Form I-945) * 
960 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-945) = 
$34,233.60 = $34,234 (rounded) annual total cost to file Form I-945.
    \4\ Calculation: $33.00 (cost per obligor to file Form I-356) * 
25 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-356) = $825.00 
annual total cost to file Form I-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed rule would also result in a reduction in 
transfer payments from the federal government to individuals who may 
choose to disenroll from or forego enrollment in a public benefits 
program. Individuals may make such a choice due to concern about the 
consequences to that person receiving public benefits and being found 
to be likely to become a public charge for purposes outlined under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, even if such individuals are otherwise 
eligible to receive benefits. For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that 
the total reduction in transfer payments from the federal and state 
governments would be approximately $2.27 billion annually due to 
disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public benefits programs by 
aliens who may be receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-
year discounted transfer payments of this proposed rule would be 
approximately $19.3 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and about 
$15.9 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. Because state

[[Page 51118]]

participation in these programs may vary depending on the type of 
benefit provided, DHS was only able to estimate the impact of state 
transfers. For example, the federal government funds all SNAP food 
expenses, but only 50 percent of allowable administrative costs for 
regular operating expenses.\5\ Similarly, Federal Medical Assistance 
Percentages (FMAP) in some HHS programs like Medicaid can vary from 
between 50 percent to an enhanced rate of 100 percent in some cases.\6\ 
However, assuming that the state share of federal financial 
participation (FFP) is 50 percent, the 10-year discounted amount of 
state transfer payments of this proposed policy would be approximately 
$9.65 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and about $7.95 billion at a 
7 percent discount rate. DHS recognizes that reductions in federal and 
state transfers under federal benefit programs may have downstream and 
upstream impacts on state and local economies, large and small 
businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result in 
reduced revenues for healthcare providers participating in Medicaid, 
pharmacies that provide prescriptions to participants in the Medicare 
Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) program, companies that manufacture 
medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in 
SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for 
purchase using SNAP benefits, or landlords participating in federally 
funded housing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Per section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. See 
also Per section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. See 
also USDA, FNS Handbook 901, p. 41 available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/apd/FNS_HB901_v2.2_internet_Ready_Format.pdf
    \6\ See Dept. of Health and Human Services, ``Federal Financial 
Participation in State Assistance Expenditures; Federal Matching 
Shares for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and 
Aid to Needy Aged, Blind, or Disabled Persons for October 1, 2016 
through September 30, 2017.'' ASPE FMAP 2017 Report. Dec. 29, 2015. 
Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/fy2017-federal-medical-assistance-percentages. Accessed Sept. 13, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule would add new direct and indirect 
costs on various entities and individuals associated with regulatory 
familiarization with the provisions of this rule. Familiarization costs 
involve the time spent reading the details of a rule to understand its 
changes. To the extent that an individual or entity directly regulated 
by the rule incurs familiarization costs, those familiarization costs 
are a direct cost of the rule. For example, immigration lawyers, 
immigration advocacy groups, health care providers of all types, non-
profit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and religious 
organizations, among others, may need or want to become familiar with 
the provisions of this proposed rule. An entity, such as a non-profit 
or advocacy group, may have more than one person that reads the rule. 
Familiarization costs incurred by those not directly regulated are 
indirect costs. DHS estimates the time that would be necessary to read 
this proposed rule would be approximately 8 to 10 hours per person, 
resulting in opportunity costs of time.
    The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to help ensure 
that aliens who apply for admission to the United States, seek 
extension of stay or change of status, or apply for adjustment of 
status are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to 
meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the 
resources of their family, sponsor, and private organizations.\7\ DHS 
also anticipates that the proposed rule would produce some benefits 
from the elimination of Form I-864W. The elimination of this form would 
potentially reduce the number of forms USCIS would have to process, 
although it likely would not reduce overall processing burden. DHS 
estimates the amount of cost savings that would accrue from eliminating 
Form I-864W would be $35.78 per petitioner.\8\ However, DHS is unable 
to determine the annual number of filings of Form I-864W and, 
therefore, is currently unable to estimate the total annual cost 
savings of this change. A public charge bond process would provide 
benefits to applicants as they potentially would be given the 
opportunity to adjust their status if otherwise admissible, at the 
discretion of DHS, after a determination that they are likely to become 
public charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 8 U.S.C. 1601(2).
    \8\ Calculation for the opportunity cost of time for completing 
and submitting Form I-864W: ($34.84 per hour * 1.0 hours) = $34.84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed provisions 
and their impacts.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51119]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.000


[[Page 51120]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.001


[[Page 51121]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.002


[[Page 51122]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.003

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C

III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

A. Self-Sufficiency

    DHS seeks to better ensure that applicants for admission to the 
United States and applicants for adjustment of status to lawful 
permanent resident who are subject to the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public 
resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own 
capabilities and the resources of their family, sponsor, and private 
organizations.\9\ Under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4), an alien is inadmissible if, at the time of an application 
for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, he or she is likely at 
any time to become a public charge. The statute requires DHS to 
consider the following minimum factors that reflect the likelihood that 
an alien will become a public charge: The alien's age; health; family 
status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and 
skills. DHS may also consider any affidavit of support submitted by the 
alien's sponsor and any other factor relevant to the likelihood of the 
alien becoming a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in precedent administrative decisions, determining the 
likelihood of an alien becoming a public charge involves 
``consideration of all the factors bearing on the alien's ability or 
potential ability to be self-supporting.'' \10\ These decisions, in 
general, conclude that an alien who is incapable of earning a 
livelihood, who does not have sufficient funds in the United States for 
support, and who has no person in the United States willing and able to 
assure the alien will not need public support generally is inadmissible 
as likely to become a public charge.\11\ Furthermore, the following 
congressional policy statements relating to self-sufficiency, 
immigration, and public benefits inform DHS's proposed administration 
of

[[Page 51123]]

section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977).
    \11\ See, e.g., Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977); Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States 
immigration law since this country's earliest immigration statutes.
    (2) It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States 
that--
    (A) Aliens within the Nation's borders not depend on public 
resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own 
capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and 
private organizations; and
    (B) The availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive 
for immigration to the United States.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, codified in part 
at.8 U.S.C. 1601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within this administrative and legislative context, DHS's view of 
self-sufficiency is that aliens subject to the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility must rely on their own capabilities and secure 
financial support, including from family members and sponsors, rather 
than seek and receive public benefits to meet their needs. Aliens 
subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility include: 
Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, fianc[eacute](e)s, family-
preference immigrants, most employment-based immigrants, diversity visa 
immigrants, and certain nonimmigrants. Most employment-based immigrants 
are coming to work for their petitioning employers; DHS believes that 
by virtue of their employment, such immigrants should have adequate 
income and resources to support themselves without resorting to seeking 
public benefits. Similarly, DHS believes that, consistent with section 
212(a)(4), nonimmigrants should have sufficient financial means or 
employment, if authorized to work, to support themselves for the 
duration of their authorized admission and temporary stay. In addition, 
immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, fianc[eacute](e)s, most family-
preference immigrants, and some employment-based immigrants require a 
sponsor and a legally binding affidavit of support under section 213A 
of the Act showing that the sponsor agrees to provide support to 
maintain the alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 
percent of the FPG.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See INA section 213A(a), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS's view of self-sufficiency also informs other aspects of this 
proposal. DHS proposes that aliens who seek to change their 
nonimmigrant status or extend their nonimmigrant stay generally should 
also be required to continue to be self-sufficient and not remain in 
the United States to avail themselves of any public benefits for which 
they are eligible, even though the public charge inadmissibility 
determination does not directly apply to them. Such aliens should have 
adequate financial resources to maintain the status they seek to extend 
or to which they seek to change for the duration of their temporary 
stay, and must be able to support themselves.

B. Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations

    DHS seeks to interpret the term ``public charge'' for purposes of 
making public charge inadmissibility determinations. As noted above, 
Congress codified the minimum mandatory factors that must be considered 
as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4): Age, health, family 
status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills.\14\ 
In addition to these minimum factors, the statute states that any 
affidavit of support under section 213A of the Act may also be 
considered.\15\ In fact, since an affidavit of support is required for 
family-sponsored immigrant applicants and certain employment-sponsored 
immigrant applicants, these aliens are inadmissible as likely to become 
a public charge if they do not submit such a sufficient affidavit of 
support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    \15\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(iii).
    \16\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although INS \17\ issued a proposed rule and Interim Field Guidance 
in 1999, neither the proposed rule nor Interim Field Guidance 
sufficiently described the mandatory factors or explained how to weigh 
these factors in the public charge inadmissibility determination.\18\ 
The 1999 Interim Field Guidance allows consideration of the receipt of 
cash public benefits when determining whether an applicant meets the 
definition of ``public charge,'' but excluded consideration of non-cash 
public benefits. In addition, the 1999 Interim Field Guidance placed 
its emphasis on primary dependence on cash public benefits. This 
proposed rule would improve upon the 1999 Interim Field Guidance by 
removing the artificial distinction between cash and non-cash benefits, 
and aligning public charge policy with the self-sufficiency principles 
set forth in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).\19\ The proposed rule would 
provide clarification and guidance on the mandatory factors, including 
how these factors would be evaluated in relation to the new proposed 
definition of public charge and in making a public charge 
inadmissibility determination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On March 1, 2003, INS functions were transferred from the 
Department of Justice to DHS. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-296, sections 402(3), 441, 116 Stat. 2135, 2178, 
2192.
    \18\ See Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999); Field Guidance on Deportability 
and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 
1999). Due to a printing error, the Federal Register version of the 
field guidance appears to be dated ``March 26, 1999'' even though 
the guidance was actually signed May 20, 1999, became effective May 
21, 1999 and was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 1999, 
along with the NPRM.
    \19\ Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
    \20\ Moreover, this proposed policy change is consistent with 
the March 6, 2017 Presidential Memorandum directing DHS to issue new 
rules, regulations, and/or guidance to enforce laws relating to such 
grounds of inadmissibility and subsequent compliance. See 
Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of 
Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits, Ensuring 
Enforcement of All Laws for Entry Into the United States, and 
Increasing Transparency Among Departments and Agencies of the 
Federal Government and for the American People, 82 FR 16279 (Apr. 3, 
2017), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/memorandum-secretary-state-attorney-general-secretary-homeland-security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Background

    Three principal issues \21\ have framed the development of public 
charge inadmissibility: (1) The factors involved in determining whether 
or not an alien is likely to become a public charge, (2) the 
relationship between public charge and receipt of public benefits, and 
(3) the consideration of a sponsor's affidavit of support within public 
charge inadmissibility determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Report of the Committee of the Judiciary 
Pursuant to S. Res. 137, S. Rep. No. 81-1515, at 346-50 (1950). 
Prior to passage of the INA of 1952, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
issued a report assessing issues within the immigration system, 
including public charge. The committee recommended retention of 
public charge exclusion in the statute but highlighted two main 
problems related to its implementation: (1) How to determine who is 
likely to become a public charge and (2) how to find a better way of 
meeting the purpose for which affidavits of support were executed on 
the alien's behalf. The committee noted that there was no definition 
of the term ``likely to become a public charge'' and that the 
meaning of the term had been left to the interpretation of 
administrative officials and the courts. Factors such as financial 
status, business ownership, health, and employability were 
considerations, as were decisions rendered by the courts and in 
public charge determinations made by consular and immigration 
officers. The committee advised against defining public charge in 
the INA. Instead, it recommended that the determination of whether 
an alien falls into the public charge category should rest within 
the discretion of consular and immigration officials because the 
elements constituting public charge are varied. It also recommended 
the use of a bond or suitable undertaking over the practice of using 
affidavits of support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51124]]

A. Legal Authority

    DHS's authority for making public charge inadmissibility 
determinations and related decisions is found in several statutory 
provisions. Section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, or the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1103, 
charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the 
immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. In addition 
to establishing the Secretary's general authority for the 
administration and enforcement of immigration laws, section 103 of the 
Act enumerates various related authorities including the Secretary's 
authority to establish regulations and prescribe such forms of bond as 
are necessary for carrying out her authority. Section 212 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1182, establishes classes of aliens that are ineligible for 
visas, admission, or adjustment of status and paragraph (a)(4) of that 
section establishes the public charge ground of inadmissibility, 
including the minimum factors the Secretary must consider in making a 
determination that an alien is likely to become a public charge. 
Section 212(a)(4) of the Act also establishes the affidavit of support 
requirement as applicable to certain family-based and employment-based 
immigrants, and exempts certain aliens from both the public charge 
ground of inadmissibility and the affidavit of support requirement. 
Section 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183, provides the Secretary with 
discretion to admit into United States an alien who is determined to be 
inadmissible as a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, but 
is otherwise admissible, upon the giving of a proper and suitable bond. 
That section authorizes the Secretary to establish the amount and 
conditions of such bond. Section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, sets 
out requirements for the sponsor's affidavit of support, including 
reimbursement of government expenses where the sponsored alien received 
means-tested public benefits. Section 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184, 
addresses requirements for the admission of nonimmigrants, including 
authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the conditions of such admission 
through regulations and when necessary establish a bond to ensure that 
those admitted as nonimmigrants or who change their nonimmigrant status 
under section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1258, depart if they violate 
their nonimmigrant status or after such status expires. Section 245 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255, generally establishes eligibility criteria for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence. Section 248 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1258, authorizes the Secretary to prescribe conditions 
under which an alien may change his or her status from one nonimmigrant 
classification to another. The Secretary proposes the changes in this 
rule under these authorities.

B. Immigration to the United States

    The INA governs whether an alien may obtain a visa, be admitted to 
or remain in the United States, or obtain an extension of stay, change 
of status, or adjustment of status.\22\ The INA establishes separate 
processes for aliens seeking a visa, admission, change of status, and 
adjustment of status. For example, where an immigrant visa petition is 
required, USCIS will adjudicate the petition. If USCIS approves the 
petition, the alien may apply for a visa with the U.S. Department of 
State (DOS) and thereafter seek admission in the appropriate immigrant 
classification. If the alien is present in the United States, he or she 
may be eligible to apply to USCIS for adjustment of status to that of a 
lawful permanent resident. In the nonimmigrant context, the 
nonimmigrant typically applies directly to the U.S. consulate or 
embassy abroad for a visa to enter for a limited purpose, such as to 
visit for business or tourism.\23\ Applicants for admission are 
inspected at or, when encountered, between the port of entry. The 
inspection is conducted by immigration officers in a timeframe and 
setting distinct from the visa adjudication process. If a nonimmigrant 
alien is present in the United States, he or she may be eligible to 
apply to USCIS for an extension of nonimmigrant stay or change of 
nonimmigrant status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., INA section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (listing 
grounds of inadmissibility).
    \23\ Certain nonimmigrant classifications are subject to 
petition requirements and require that a petition be filed and 
approved by USCIS prior to application for a visa. See, e.g., INA 
section 214(c), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c). In addition, certain aliens are 
not subject to a visa requirement in order to seek admission as a 
nonimmigrant. See, e.g., INA section 217, 8 U.S.C. 1187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS has the discretion to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility 
as designated by Congress. Where an alien is seeking an immigration 
benefit that is subject to a ground of inadmissibility, DHS cannot 
approve the immigration benefit being sought if a waiver of that ground 
is unavailable under the INA, the alien does not meet the statutory and 
regulatory requirements for the waiver, or the alien does not warrant 
the waiver in any authorized exercise of discretion.

C. Extension of Stay and Change of Status

    Pursuant to section 214(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), DHS 
permits certain nonimmigrants to remain in the United States beyond 
their current period of authorized stay to continue engaging in 
activities permitted under their current nonimmigrant status. The 
extension of stay regulations require a nonimmigrant applying for an 
extension of stay to demonstrate that he or she is admissible to the 
United States.\24\ For some extension of stay applications, the 
applicant's financial status is an element of the eligibility 
determination.\25\ DHS has the authority to set conditions in 
determining whether to grant the extension of stay request.\26\ The 
decision to grant an extension of stay application, with certain 
limited exceptions, is discretionary.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3)(i).
    \25\ See, e.g., 8 CFR 214.2(f)(1)(i)(B).
    \26\ See INA section 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1); 8 CFR 
214.1(a)(3)(i).
    \27\ See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1258, DHS may permit an 
alien to change his or her status from one nonimmigrant status to 
another nonimmigrant status, with certain exceptions, as long as the 
nonimmigrant is continuing to maintain his or her current nonimmigrant 
status and is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).\28\ An applicant's financial status is 
currently part of the determination for changes to certain nonimmigrant 
classifications.\29\ Like extensions of stay, change of status 
adjudications are discretionary determinations, and DHS has the 
authority to set conditions that apply for a nonimmigrant to change his 
or her status.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See INA section 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258(a); 8 CFR 248.1(a).
    \29\ See, e.g., Adjudicator's Field Manual Ch. 30.3(c)(2)(C) 
(applicants to change status to a nonimmigrant student must 
demonstrate that they have the financial resources to pay for 
coursework and living expenses in the United States) [hereinafter 
AFM].
    \30\ See INA section 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258(a); 8 CFR 248.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Public Charge Inadmissibility

    Section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), provides that an 
alien applicant for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is 
inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public 
charge. The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies 
to any alien applying for a visa to come to the United States 
temporarily or permanently, for admission, or for

[[Page 51125]]

adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.\31\ 
Section 212(a)(4) of the Act, does not, however, directly apply to 
applications for extension of stay or change of status because 
extension of stay and change of status applications are not 
applications for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The INA does not define public charge. It does, however, specify 
that when determining if an alien is likely at any time to become a 
public charge, consular officers and immigration officers must, at a 
minimum, consider the alien's age; health; family status; assets, 
resources, and financial status; and education and skills.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some immigrant and nonimmigrant categories are exempt from the 
public charge inadmissibility ground. DHS proposes to list these 
categories in the regulation. DHS also proposes to list in the 
regulation the applicants that the law permits to apply for a waiver of 
the public charge inadmissibility ground.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), 
permits the consular officer or the immigration officer to consider any 
affidavit of support submitted under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1183a, on the applicant's behalf when determining whether the applicant 
may become a public charge.\34\ In fact, with very limited exceptions, 
aliens seeking family-based immigrant visas and adjustment of status, 
and a limited number of employment-based immigrant visas or adjustment 
of status, must have a sufficient affidavit of support or will be found 
inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(ii). When required, the applicant must submit an 
Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864).
    \35\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C), (D), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C), 
(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, an alien whom DHS has determined to be inadmissible 
based on the public charge ground may, if otherwise admissible, be 
admitted at the discretion of the Secretary upon giving a suitable and 
proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary.\36\ The purpose 
of issuing a public charge bond is to ensure that the alien will not 
become a public charge in the future.\37\ Since the introduction of 
enforceable affidavits of support in section 213A of the Act, the use 
of public charge bonds has decreased and USCIS does not currently have 
a public charge bond process.\38\ This rule would outline a process 
under which USCIS could, in its discretion, offer public charge bonds 
to applicants for adjustment of status who are inadmissible only on 
public charge grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
    \37\ See Matter of Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252 (BIA 1985).
    \38\ See AFM Ch. 61.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Public Laws and Case Law
    Since at least 1882, the United States has denied admission to 
aliens on public charge grounds.\39\ The INA of 1952 excluded aliens 
who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application 
for a visa, or in the opinion of the Government at the time of 
application for admission, are likely at any time to become public 
charges.\40\ The Government has long interpreted the words ``in the 
opinion of'' as evincing the subjective nature of the 
determination.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Immigration Act of 1882, ch. 376, sections 1-2, 22 
Stat. 214, 214. Section 11 of the Act also provided that an alien 
who became a public charge within 1 year of arrival in the United 
States from causes that existed prior to his or her landing, was 
deemed to be in violation of law, and was to be returned at the 
expense of the person or persons, vessel, transportation, company or 
corporation who brought the alien into the United States.
    \40\ See INA of 1952, ch. 477, section 212(a)(15), 66 Stat. 163, 
183.
    \41\ See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 588 (Reg'l Cmm'r 
1974) (``[T]he determination of whether an alien falls into that 
category [as likely to become a public charge] rests within the 
discretion of the consular officers or the Commissioner . . . 
Congress inserted the words `in the opinion of' (the consul or the 
Attorney General) with the manifest intention of putting borderline 
adverse determinations beyond the reach of judicial review.'' 
(citation omitted)); Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421 
(Att'y Gen. 1962) (``[U]nder the statutory language the question for 
visa purposes seems to depend entirely on the consular officer's 
subjective opinion.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A series of administrative decisions after passage of the Act 
clarified that a totality of the circumstances review was the proper 
framework for making public charge determinations and that receipt of 
welfare would not, alone, lead to a finding of likelihood of becoming a 
public charge. In Matter of Martinez-Lopez, the Attorney General opined 
that the statute ``require[d] more than a showing of a possibility that 
the alien will require public support. Some specific circumstance, such 
as mental or physical disability, advanced age, or other fact showing 
that the burden of supporting the alien is likely to be cast on the 
public, must be present. A healthy person in the prime of life cannot 
ordinarily be considered likely to become a public charge, especially 
where he has friends or relatives in the United States who have 
indicated their ability and willingness to come to his assistance in 
case of emergency.'' \42\ In Matter of Perez, the Board of Immigration 
Appeals (BIA) held that ``[t]he determination of whether an alien is 
likely to become a public charge . . . is a prediction based upon the 
totality of the alien's circumstances at the time he or she applies for 
an immigrant visa or admission to the United States. The fact that an 
alien has been on welfare does not, by itself, establish that he or she 
is likely to become a public charge.'' \43\ As stated in Matter of 
Harutunian,\44\ public charge determinations should take into 
consideration factors such as an alien's age, incapability of earning a 
livelihood, a lack of sufficient funds for self-support, and a lack of 
persons in this country willing and able to assure that the alien will 
not need public support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-23 (BIA 1962).
    \43\ 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974).
    \44\ See 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The totality of circumstances approach to public charge 
inadmissibility determinations was codified in relation to one specific 
class of aliens in the 1980s. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act (IRCA), providing eligibility for lawful status 
to certain aliens who had resided in the United States continuously 
prior to January 1, 1982.\45\ No changes were made to the language of 
the public charge exclusion ground under former section 212(a)(15) of 
the Act, but IRCA contained special public charge rules for aliens 
seeking legalization under 245A of the Act. Although IRCA provided 
otherwise eligible aliens an exemption or waiver for some grounds of 
excludability, the aliens generally remained excludable on public 
charge grounds.\46\ Under IRCA, however, if an applicant demonstrated a 
history of self-support through employment and without receiving public 
cash assistance, he or she would not be ineligible for adjustment of 
status on public charge grounds.\47\ In addition, aliens who were 
``aged, blind or disabled'' as defined in section 1614(a)(1) of the 
Social Security Act, could obtain a waiver from the public charge 
provision.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See IRCA of 1986, Public Law 99-603, section 201, 100 Stat. 
3359, 3394.
    \46\ See INA section 245A(d)(2)(B)(ii)(IV), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(d)(2)(B)(ii)(IV).
    \47\ See INA section 245A(d)(2)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(d)(2)(B)(iii).
    \48\ See INA section 245A(d)(2)(B)(ii); see also 42 U.S.C. 
1382c(a)(1). DHS does not propose to apply this proposed rule to 
legalization applications filed pursuant to section 245A of the INA 
or otherwise amend the regulations at 8 CFR part 245a. That 
provision is subject to legal standards and settlement agreements 
that impact public charge inadmissibility determinations in this 
specific context. See, e.g., Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc. v. Meese, 
vacated sub nom. Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 
(1993); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. INS, vacated sub nom. 
Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51126]]

    INS promulgated 8 CFR 245a.3,\49\ which established that 
immigration officers would make public charge determinations by 
examining the ``totality of the alien's circumstances at the time of 
his or her application for legalization.'' \50\ According to the 
regulation, the existence or absence of a particular factor could never 
be the sole criterion for determining whether a person is likely to 
become a public charge.\51\ Further, the regulation established that 
the determination is a ``prospective evaluation based on the alien's 
age, health, income, and vocation.'' \52\ A special provision in the 
rule stated that aliens with incomes below the poverty level are not 
excludable if they are consistently employed and show the ability to 
support themselves.\53\ Finally, an alien's past receipt of public cash 
assistance would be a significant factor in a context that also 
considers the alien's consistent past employment.\54\ In Matter of A-
,\55\ INS again pursued a totality of circumstances approach in public 
charge determinations. ``Even though the test is prospective,'' INS 
``considered evidence of receipt of prior public assistance as a factor 
in making public charge determinations.'' INS also considered an 
alien's work history, age, capacity to earn a living, health, family 
situation, affidavits of support, and other relevant factors in their 
totality.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Adjustment of Status for Certain Aliens, 54 FR 29442 
(Jul. 12, 1989).
    \50\ 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(i).
    \51\ 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(i).
    \52\ 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(i).
    \53\ 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(iii).
    \54\ See 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(iii).
    \55\ 19 I&N Dec. 867 (Comm'r 1988).
    \56\ See 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The administrative practices surrounding public charge 
inadmissibility determinations began to crystalize into legislative 
changes in the 1990s. The Immigration Act of 1990 reorganized section 
212(a) of the Act and re-designated the public charge provision as 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).\57\ In 1996, PRWORA 
\58\ and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) \59\ altered the legislative landscape of public 
charge considerably.\60\ Through PRWORA, which is commonly known as the 
1996 welfare reform law, Congress declared that aliens generally should 
not depend on public resources and that these resources should not 
constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.\61\ 
Congress also created section 213A of the Act and made a sponsor's 
affidavit of support for an alien beneficiary legally enforceable.\62\ 
The affidavit of support provides a mechanism for public benefit 
granting agencies to seek reimbursement in the event a sponsored alien 
received means-tested public benefits.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, section 
601(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5072.
    \58\ Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
    \59\ Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat 3009-546.
    \60\ In 1990, Congress reorganized INA section 212(a), 
redesignated the public charge provision as INA section 212(a)(4), 
and eliminated the exclusion of paupers, beggars, and vagrants as 
these grounds were sufficiently covered under the public charge 
provision. See Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, section 
601(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5072.
    \61\ See Public Law 104-193, section 400, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 
(codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601).
    \62\ See Public Law 104-193, section 423, 110 Stat. 2105, 2271 
(codified at INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a). The provision was 
further amended with the passage of IIRIRA.
    \63\ See INA section 213A(b), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Public Benefits Under PRWORA
    PRWORA also significantly restricted alien eligibility for many 
Federal, State, and local public benefits.\64\ With certain exceptions, 
Congress defined the term ``Federal public benefit'' broadly as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial 
license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated 
funds of the United States; and
    (B) Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted 
housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment 
benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance 
are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by 
an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United 
States.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Public Law 104-193, section 401(c), 110 Stat. 2105, 
2262 (1996) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)). Congress 
provided that such term shall not apply--
    (A) to any contract, professional license, or commercial license 
for a nonimmigrant whose visa for entry is related to such 
employment in the United States, or to a citizen of a freely 
associated state, if section 141 of the applicable compact of free 
association approved in Public Law 99-239 or 99-658 (or a successor 
provision) is in effect;
    (B) with respect to benefits for an alien who as a work 
authorized nonimmigrant or as an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.] qualified for such benefits and for whom the 
United States under reciprocal treaty agreements is required to pay 
benefits, as determined by the Attorney General, after consultation 
with the Secretary of State; or
    (C) to the issuance of a professional license to, or the renewal 
of a professional license by, a foreign national not physically 
present in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Qualified Aliens
    Generally, under PRWORA, ``qualified aliens'' are eligible for 
federal means-tested benefits after 5 years and are not eligible for 
``specified federal programs,'' and states are allowed to determine 
whether the qualified alien is eligible for ``designated federal 
programs.'' \66\ The following table provides a list of immigration 
categories that are qualified aliens under PRWORA.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Public Law 104-193, tit. IV, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260-77.
    \67\ See Public Law 104-193, section 431, 110 Stat. 2105, 2274 
(codified at 8 U.S.C. 1641); Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000 section 107(b)(1), 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51127]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.004

    The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 further provided 
that an alien who is a victim of a severe form of trafficking in 
persons, or an alien classified as a nonimmigrant under section 
101(a)(15)(T)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(ii), is eligible 
for benefits and services under any Federal or State program or 
activity funded or administered by any official or agency.\72\ These 
individuals are generally exempt from the public charge inadmissibility 
ground.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Lawful permanent residents seeking entry into the United 
States typically are not applicants for admission, and therefore, 
generally are not subject to section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a), including INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(4), but 
lawful permanent residents described in INA section 101(a)(13)(C), 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), are regarded as seeking admission and 
generally are subject to inadmissibility grounds.
    \69\ Parole is not a category of admission. See INA section 
101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B); INA section 212(d)(5), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
    \70\ While an alien paroled into the United States is not 
subject to an admission determination at the time the decision to 
parole the alien is made, if an alien who has been paroled into the 
United States is applying for an immigration benefit for which 
admissibility is required, e.g. adjustment of status, the parolee 
will be subject to section 212(a)(4) of the Act in the context of 
seeking the subsequent immigration benefit.
    \71\ As in effect immediately before the effective date of 
section 307 of division C of Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546.
    \72\ See Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 section 
107(b)(1), 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1).
    \73\ However, while lawful permanent residents seeking entry 
into the United States typically are not applicants for admission, 
and therefore, generally are not subject to section 212(a) of the 
INA (including section 212(a)(4)), a lawful permanent resident 
described in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the INA is regarded as seeking 
admission and is subject to section 212(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With certain exceptions, aliens who were not ``qualified aliens,'' 
including nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens, were generally barred 
from obtaining Federal benefits.\74\ In addition to the federal public 
benefits definitions, PRWORA categorizes the benefits into the 
following categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See PRWORA, Public Law 104-193, section 401(a), 110 Stat. 
2105, 2261 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1611(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Specified Federal Programs;
     Designated Federal Programs; and
     Federal Means-Tested Benefits.
    The following tables provide a summary of the definition of federal 
public benefit and the three categories of public benefits under PRWORA 
as applicable to aliens and qualified aliens.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51128]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.005


[[Page 51129]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.006


[[Page 51130]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.007

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
    Congress chose not to restrict eligibility for certain benefits, 
including

[[Page 51131]]

emergency medical assistance; short-term, in-kind, non-cash emergency 
disaster relief; and public health assistance related to immunizations 
and treatment of the symptoms of a communicable disease.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ If section 141 of the applicable compact of free 
association approved in Public Law 99-239 or 99-658 (or a successor 
provision) is in effect.
    \76\ See Final Specification of Community Programs Necessary For 
Protection Of Life Or Safety Under Welfare Reform Legislation, 66 FR 
3613 (Jan. 16, 2001); see also Specification of Community Programs 
Necessary for Protection of Life or Safety Under Welfare Reform 
Legislation, 61 FR 45985 (Aug. 30, 1996).
    \77\ See 42 U.S.C. 401-434.
    \78\ See 8 CFR 1.3(a).
    \79\ 42 U.S.C. 433.
    \80\ 42 U.S.C. 402(t).
    \81\ Benefits payable under title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act. See 42 U.S.C. 1395-1395lll.
    \82\ See 8 CFR 1.3(a).
    \83\ See 42 U.S.C. 1395c to 1395i-5.
    \84\ See 45 U.S.C. 231-231v.
    \85\ See 45 U.S.C. 351-369.
    \86\ See 42 U.S.C. 1381-1383f.
    \87\ See Food Stamp Act of 1977.
    \88\ In addition, there are certain extensions for SSI benefits 
through fiscal year 2011. See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(M).
    \89\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(D).
    \90\ See 8 U.S.C. 162(a)(2)(J).
    \91\ As defined in 38 U.S.C. 101.
    \92\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(B).
    \93\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(C).
    \94\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(G); see also INA section 289, 8 
U.S.C. 1359.
    \95\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(G); see also 25 U.S.C 5304(e) 
(defining Indian tribe).
    \96\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(E).
    \97\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(F).
    \98\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A).
    \99\ As in effect immediately before the effective date of 
section 307 of division C of Public Law 104-208.
    \100\ 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3).
    \101\ As defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980.
    \102\ See section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as 
contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329, 
and amended by the 9th proviso under migration and refugee 
assistance in title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1989, Public Law 100-461, 
102 Stat. 2268, as amended).
    \103\ An alien who was lawfully residing in the United States 
and receiving benefits on August 2, 1996, would have continued to 
receive benefits until January 1, 1997. In addition, an alien who 
was receiving SSI would still be eligible to receive Medicaid. See 8 
U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(F).
    \104\ See 42 U.S.C. 601-619.
    \105\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397-1397h.
    \106\ See 42 U.S.C. 1396 to 1396w-5.
    \107\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(B).
    \108\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(C).
    \109\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(E).
    \110\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(A).
    \111\ As in effect immediately before the effective date of 
section 307 of division C of Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009.
    \112\ 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3).
    \113\ As defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education 
Assistance Act of 1980.
    \114\ See section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 (as 
contained in section 101(e) of Pub. L. 100-202, 101 Stat. 1329, and 
amended by the 9th proviso under migration and refugee assistance in 
title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 1989, Pub. L. 100-461, 102 Stat. 2268, 
as amended).
    \115\ See Federal Means-Tested Public Benefits, 63 FR 36653 
(July 7, 1998).
    \116\ See 8 U.S.C. 1613(c).
    \117\ See 8 U.S.C. 1613(b)(1).
    \118\ See section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance act 
of 1980.
    \119\ See 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(A)(i)(V).
    \120\ See 8 U.S.C. 1613(b)(2).
    \121\ See 8 U.S.C. 1613(d).
    \122\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1); see also Final Specification of 
Community Programs Necessary for Protection of Life or Safety Under 
Welfare Reform Legislation, 66 FR 3613 (Jan. 16, 2001); Interim 
Guidance on Verification of Citizenship, Qualified Alien Status and 
Eligibility Under Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 62 FR 61344 (Nov. 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRWORA defined the term ``State or local public benefit'' in broad 
terms except where the term encroached upon the definition of Federal 
public benefit.\123\ With certain exceptions for qualified aliens, 
nonimmigrants, or parolees, PRWORA also limited aliens' ability to 
obtain certain State and local public benefits.\124\ Under PRWORA, 
States may enact their own legislation to provide public benefits to 
certain aliens not lawfully present in the United States.\125\ PRWORA 
also provided that a State that chooses to follow the Federal 
``qualified alien'' definition in determining aliens' eligibility for 
public assistance ``shall be considered to have chosen the least 
restrictive means available for achieving the compelling governmental 
interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with 
national immigration policy.'' \126\ Still, some States and localities 
have funded public benefits (particularly medical and nutrition 
benefits) that aliens may be not eligible for federally.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See 8 U.S.C. 1621(c).
    \124\ See generally 8 U.S.C. 1621.
    \125\ See 8 U.S.C. 1621(d).
    \126\ 8 U.S.C. 1601(7).
    \127\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Overview of Immigrants 
Eligible for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid and CHIP (Mar. 27, 2012), 
available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/11/ImmigrantAccess/Eligibility/ib.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While PRWORA allows both qualified aliens and non-qualified aliens 
to receive certain benefits (e.g., emergency benefits (all aliens); 
SNAP (qualified alien children under 18)), Congress did not exempt the 
receipt of such benefits from consideration for purposes of INA section 
212(a)(4).'' \128\ Therefore, DHS may take into consideration for 
purposes of a public charge determination, receipt of public benefits 
even if an alien may receive such benefits under PRWORA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Public Benefits Exempt Under PRWORA
    Although PRWORA provided a broad definition of public benefits that 
only qualified aliens are eligible to receive,\129\ it also made 
certain public benefits available even to non-qualified aliens.\130\ 
Congress excluded certain benefits, such as contracts, professional 
licenses, and commercial licenses from the ``federal public benefit'' 
definition.\131\ In addition, Congress further provided that the 
following public benefits are available to all aliens, regardless of 
whether an individual is a qualified alien: \132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See Public Law 104-193, section 401(c), 110 Stat. 2105, 
2262 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)). Only qualified 
aliens may be eligible for certain benefits. See 8 U.S.C. 1641.
    \130\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(b).
    \131\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(2).
    \132\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security 
Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.] (or any successor program to such title) 
for care and services that are necessary for the treatment of an 
emergency medical condition (as defined in section 1903(v)(3) of such 
Act [42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)(3)]) of the alien involved and are not related 
to an organ transplant procedure, if the alien involved otherwise meets 
the eligibility requirements for medical assistance under the State 
plan approved under such title (other than the requirement of the 
receipt of aid or assistance under title IV of such Act [42 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.], supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such 
Act [42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.], or a State supplementary payment).
     Short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster 
relief.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Such relief would include a range of services and benefits 
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other 
agencies. For instance, it would include the Disaster Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP), which ``gives food assistance 
to low-income households with food loss or damage caused by a 
natural disaster.'' See DHS, Disaster Assistance.gov, Disaster 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP), available at 
https://www.disasterassistance.gov/get-assistance/forms-of-assistance/5769 (last updated June 25, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Public health assistance (not including any assistance 
under title XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.]) 
for immunizations with respect to immunizable diseases and for testing 
and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases whether or not such 
symptoms are caused by a communicable disease.
     Programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, 
crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter) specified 
by the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's sole and 
unreviewable discretion after consultation with appropriate Federal 
agencies and departments, which (i) deliver in-kind services at the 
community level, including through public or private nonprofit 
agencies; (ii) do not condition the provision of assistance, the amount 
of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance

[[Page 51132]]

provided on the individual recipient's income or resources; and (iii) 
are necessary for the protection of life or safety.
     Programs for housing or community development assistance 
or financial assistance administered by the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development, any program under title V of the Housing Act of 1949 
[42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.], or any assistance under section 1926c of 
title 7, to the extent that the alien is receiving such a benefit on 
August 22, 1996.
    These benefits, which are described in 8 U.S.C. 1611(b), were 
further clarified by the Department of Justice and some of the agencies 
that administer these public benefits. On January 16, 2001, the 
Department of Justice published a notice of final order, ``Final 
Specification of Community Programs Necessary for Protection of Life or 
Safety Under Welfare Reform Legislation,'' \134\ which indicated that 
PRWORA does not preclude aliens from receiving police, fire, ambulance, 
transportation (including paratransit), sanitation, and other regular, 
widely available services programs, services, or assistance. In 
addition, the notice provided for a three-part test in identifying 
excluded benefits and services for the protection of life and safety. 
Specified programs must satisfy all three prongs of this test:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See Final Specification of Community Programs Necessary 
for Protection of Life or Safety Under Welfare Reform Legislation, 
66 FR 3613 (Jan. 16, 2001); see also Specification of Community 
Programs Necessary for Protection of Life or Safety Under Welfare 
Reform Legislation, 61 FR 45985 (Aug. 30, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The government-funded programs, services, or assistance 
specified are those that: Deliver in-kind (non-cash) services at the 
community level, including through public or private non-profit 
agencies or organizations; do not condition the provision, amount, or 
cost of the assistance on the individual recipient's income or 
resources; and serve purposes of the type described in the list below, 
for the protection of life or safety.
    2. The community-based programs, services, or assistance are 
limited to those that provide in-kind (non-cash) benefits and are open 
to individuals needing or desiring to participate without regard to 
income or resources. Programs, services, or assistance delivered at the 
community level, even if they serve purposes of the type described, are 
not within this specification if they condition on the individual 
recipient's income or resources: (a) The provision of assistance; (b) 
the amount of assistance provided; or (c) the cost of the assistance 
provided on the individual recipient's income or resources.
    3. Included within the specified programs, services, or assistance 
determined to be necessary for the protection of life or safety are the 
following types of programs:
     Crisis counseling and intervention programs; services and 
assistance relating to child protection, adult protective services, 
violence and abuse prevention, victims of domestic violence or other 
criminal activity; or treatment of mental illness or substance abuse;
     Short-term shelter or housing assistance for the homeless, 
for victims of domestic violence, or for runaway, abused, or abandoned 
children;
     Programs, services, or assistance to help individuals 
during periods of heat, cold, or other adverse weather conditions;
     Soup kitchens, community food banks, senior nutrition 
programs such as meals on wheels, and other such community nutritional 
services for persons requiring special assistance;
     Medical and public health services (including treatment 
and prevention of diseases and injuries) and mental health, disability, 
or substance abuse assistance necessary to protect life or safety;
     Activities designed to protect the life or safety of 
workers, children and youths, or community residents; and
     Any other programs, services, or assistance necessary for 
the protection of life or safety.
    In congressional debates leading up to the passage of IIRIRA, 
Senator Kennedy stated that ``[t]hese benefit all, because they relate 
to the public health and are in the public interest. Where the public 
interest is not served, we should not provide the public assistance to 
illegal immigrants.'' \135\ Therefore, these benefits were provided to 
all aliens including illegal aliens. These benefits would not be part 
of the public charge determination under the proposed rule.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See 142 Cong. Rec. S3282 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 1996) 
(statement of Sen. Kennedy), available at https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/04/15/CREC-1996-04-15-pt1-PgS3276.pdf.
    \136\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1)(B); see also Final Specification 
of Community Programs Necessary for Protection of Life or Safety 
Under Welfare Reform Legislation, 66 FR 3613 (Jan. 16, 2001); 
Specification of Community Programs Necessary for Protection of Life 
or Safety Under Welfare Reform Legislation, 61 FR 45985 (Aug. 30, 
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Changes Under IIRIRA
    Under IIRIRA,\137\ the public charge inadmissibility statute 
changed significantly. IIRIRA codified the following minimum factors 
that must be considered when making public charge determinations: \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat 3009-546 (1996).
    \138\ Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 531, 110 Stat. 3009-
546, 3009-674 (1996) (amending INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Age;
     Health;
     Family status;
     Assets, resources, and financial status; and
     Education and skills.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress also generally permitted but did not require consular and 
immigration officers to consider an enforceable affidavit of support as 
a factor in the determination of inadmissibility,\140\ except in 
certain cases where an affidavit of support is required and must be 
considered at least in that regard.\141\ The law required affidavits of 
support for most family-based immigrants and certain employment-based 
immigrants and provided that these aliens are inadmissible unless a 
satisfactory affidavit of support is filed on their behalf.\142\ In the 
Conference Report, the committee indicated that the amendments to INA 
section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), were designed to expand the 
public charge ground of inadmissibility.\143\ The report indicated that 
self-reliance is one of the fundamental principles of immigration law 
and aliens should have affidavits of support executed.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    \141\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4); INA 
section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183A.
    \142\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(C) and (D).
    \143\ See H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 240-41 (1996) (Conf. Rep.); 
see also H.R. Rep. No. 104-469(I), at 143-45 (1996).
    \144\ See H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 241 (1996) (Conf. Rep.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS believes that the policy goals articulated in PRWORA and IIRIRA 
should inform its administrative implementation of the public charge 
ground of inadmissibility. There is no tension between the availability 
of public benefits to some aliens as set forth in PRWORA and Congress's 
intent to deny visa issuance, admission, and adjustment of status to 
aliens who are likely to become a public charge. Indeed, Congress, in 
enacting PRWORA and IIRIRA very close in time, must have recognized 
that it made certain public benefits available to some aliens who are 
also subject to the public charge grounds of inadmissibility, even 
though receipt of such benefits could render the alien inadmissible as 
likely to become a public charge.

[[Page 51133]]

    Under the carefully devised scheme envisioned by Congress, aliens 
generally would not be issued visas, admitted to the United States, or 
permitted to adjust status if they are likely to become public charges. 
This prohibition may deter aliens from making their way to the United 
States or remaining in the United States permanently for the purpose of 
availing themselves of public benefits.\145\ Congress must have 
understood, however, that certain aliens who were unlikely to become 
public charges when seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of status 
might thereafter reasonably find themselves in need of public benefits 
that, if obtained, would render them a public charge. Consequently, in 
PRWORA, Congress made limited allowances for that possibility. But 
Congress also did not correspondingly limit the applicability of the 
public charge statute; if an alien subsequent to receiving public 
benefits wished to adjust status in order to remain in the United 
States permanently or left the United States and later wished to 
return, the public charge inadmissibility consideration (naturally 
including consideration of receipt of public benefits) would again come 
into play. In other words, although an alien may obtain public benefits 
for which he or she is eligible, the receipt of those benefits may be 
considered for future public charge inadmissibility determination 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ H.R. Rep. No. 104-469(I), at 144-45 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. INS 1999 Interim Field Guidance
    On May 26, 1999, INS issued interim Field Guidance on Deportability 
and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.\146\ This guidance 
identified how the agency would determine if a person is likely to 
become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a), for admission and adjustment of status purposes, and whether a 
person is deportable as a public charge under section 237(a)(5) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).\147\ INS proposed promulgating these policies 
as regulations in a proposed rule issued on May 26, 1999.\148\ DOS also 
issued a cable to its consular officers at that time implementing 
similar guidance for visa adjudications, and its Foreign Affairs Manual 
(FAM) was similarly updated.\149\ USCIS has continued to follow the 
1999 Interim Field Guidance in its adjudications, and DOS has continued 
following the public charge guidance set forth in the FAM.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999).
    \147\ See 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999).
    \148\ See Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999).
    \149\ See 64 FR 28676, 28680 (May 26, 1999).
    \150\ See Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization 
Act of 2009, Public Law 111-3, section 214, 123 Stat. 8, 56; 9 FAM 
302.8-2(B)(2), Determining ``Totality of Circumstances,'' (g) Public 
Charge Bonds, available at https://fam.state.gov/fam/09fam/09fam030208.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1999 proposed rule, INS proposed to ``alleviate growing 
public confusion over the meaning of the currently undefined term 
`public charge' in immigration law and its relationship to the receipt 
of Federal, State, or local public benefits.'' \151\ INS sought to 
reduce negative public health and nutrition consequences generated by 
the confusion and to provide aliens, their sponsors, health care and 
immigrant assistance organizations, and the public with better guidance 
as to the types of public benefits that INS considered relevant to the 
public charge determinations.\152\ INS also sought to address the 
public's concerns about immigrants' fears of accepting public benefits 
for which they remained eligible, specifically in regards to medical 
care, children's immunizations, basic nutrition and treatment of 
medical conditions that may jeopardize public health. With its 
guidance, INS aimed to stem the fears that were causing noncitizens to 
refuse limited public benefits, such as transportation vouchers and 
child care assistance, so that they would be better able to obtain and 
retain employment and establish self-sufficiency.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See 64 FR 28676, 28676 (May 26, 1999).
    \152\ See 64 FR 28676, 28676-77 (May 26, 1999).
    \153\ See 64 FR 28676, 28676-77 (May 26, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INS defined public charge in its proposed rule and 1999 Interim 
Field Guidance to mean ``the likelihood of a foreign national becoming 
primarily dependent \154\ on the government for subsistence, as 
demonstrated by either:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Former INS defined ``primarily dependent'' as ``the 
majority'' or ``more than 50 percent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance; 
or
     Institutionalization for long-term care at government 
expense.''
    When developing the proposed rule, INS consulted with Federal 
benefit-granting agencies such as the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Deputy Secretary of HHS, which 
administers Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, 
the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other benefits, 
advised that the best evidence of whether an individual is relying 
primarily on the government for subsistence is either the receipt of 
public cash benefits for income maintenance purposes or 
institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.\155\ The 
Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs at SSA 
agreed that the receipt of SSI ``could show primary dependence on the 
government for subsistence fitting the INS definition of public charge 
provided that all of the other factors and prerequisites for admission 
or deportation have been considered or met.'' \156\ And the USDA's 
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services advised that 
``neither the receipt of food stamps nor nutrition assistance provided 
under the Special Nutrition Programs administered by [USDA] should be 
considered in making a public charge determination.'' \157\ While these 
letters supported the approach taken in the 1999 proposed rule and 
Interim Field Guidance, the letters specifically focused on the 
reasonableness of a given INS interpretation; i.e. primary dependence 
on the government for subsistence. The letters did not foreclose the 
agency adopting a different definition consistent with statutory 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See 64 FR 28676, 28686-87 (May 26, 1999).
    \156\ 64 FR 28676, 28687 (May 26, 1999).
    \157\ 64 FR 28676, 28688 (May 26, 1999). The USDA letter did not 
include supportive reasoning. As noted in greater detail elsewhere 
in this preamble, DHS no longer believes that primary dependence on 
the government for subsistence is the appropriate standard for 
public charge determination purposes. In light of the proposed 
change in the public charge standard and the passage of time, DHS 
does not believe that the views expressed in those interagency 
consultations remain fully relevant. DHS has nonetheless considered 
such views, and has addressed the relevant considerations--legal 
authority, predictability, administrability, and adverse impacts--
throughout this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 proposed rule provided that non-cash, supplemental and 
certain limited cash, special purpose benefits should not be considered 
for public charge purposes, in light of INS' decision to define public 
charge by reference to primary dependence on public benefits. 
Ultimately, however, INS did not publish a final rule conclusively 
addressing these issues.

E. Public Charge Bond

    If an alien is determined to be inadmissible on public charge 
grounds under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), he or 
she may be admitted in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, if otherwise admissible, upon the giving of a suitable and 
proper bond.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183; see also 8 CFR 103.6; 
8 CFR 213.1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51134]]

    Historically, bond provisions started with states requiring certain 
amounts to assure an alien would not become a public charge.\159\ Bond 
provisions were codified in federal immigration laws in 1903.\160\ 
Notwithstanding codification in 1903, the acceptance of a bond posting 
in consideration of an alien's admission and to assure that he or she 
will not become a public charge apparently had its origin in federal 
administrative practice earlier than this date. Beginning in 1893, 
immigration inspectors served on Boards of Special Inquiry that 
reviewed exclusion cases of aliens who were likely to become public 
charges because the aliens lacked funds or relatives or friends who 
could provide support.\161\ In these cases, the Board of Special 
Inquiry usually admitted the alien if someone could post bond or one of 
the immigrant aid societies would accept responsibility for the 
alien.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See, e.g., Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty of City of N.Y. v. 
Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) (upholding a New York statute that required 
vessel captains to provide certain biographical information about 
every passenger on the ship and further permitting the mayor to 
require the captain to provide a surety of not more than $300 for 
each noncitizen passenger to indemnify and hold harmless the 
government from all expenses incurred to financially support the 
person and the person's children); see also H.D. Johnson & W.C. 
Reddall, History of Immigration (Washington, 1856).
    \160\ See Immigration Act of 1903, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. 1213 
(repealed by Act of Feb. 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, and 
Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874).
    \161\ Immigration Act of 1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084, created 
the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury 
Department. The Superintendent oversaw a new corps of U.S. Immigrant 
Inspectors stationed at the country's principal ports of entry. See 
USCIS History and Genealogy, Origins of Federal Immigration Service, 
https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/origins-federal-immigration-service (last updated Feb. 4, 
2016).
    \162\ See USCIS History and Genealogy, Origins of Federal 
Immigration Service, https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/origins-federal-immigration-service (last 
updated Feb. 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The present language of section 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183, has 
been in the law without essential variation since 1907.\163\ Under 
section 21 of the Immigration Act of 1917, an immigration officer could 
admit an alien if a suitable bond was posted. In 1970, Congress amended 
section 213 of the Act to permit the posting of cash received by the 
U.S. Department of the Treasury and to eliminate specific references to 
communicable diseases of public health significance.\164\ At that time, 
Congress also added, without further explanation or consideration, the 
phrase that any sums or other security held to secure performance of 
the bond shall be returned ``except to the extent forfeited for 
violation of the terms thereof'' upon termination of the bond.\165\ 
Subsequently, IIRIRA amended the provision yet again when adding a 
parenthetical which clarified that a bond is provided in addition to, 
and not in lieu of, the affidavit of support and the deeming 
requirements under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183A.\166\ 
Regulations implementing the public charge bond were promulgated in 
1964 and 1966,\167\ and are currently found at 8 CFR 103.6 and 8 CFR 
213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See Act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, section 26, 34 
Stat. 898, 907.
    \164\ See Public Law 91-313, 84 Stat. 413, 413 (1970); see also 
116 Cong. Rec. S9957 (daily ed. June 26, 1970).
    \165\ See Public Law 91-313, 84 Stat. 413, 413 (1970).
    \166\ See Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 564(f), 110 Stat. 
3009-546, 3009-684.
    \167\ See Miscellaneous Amendments to Chapter, 29 FR 10579 (July 
30, 1964); Miscellaneous Edits to Chapter, 31 FR 11713 (Sept. 7, 
1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish a proper nexus between public 
charge and receipt of public benefits by defining the terms public 
charge and public benefit, among other terms. DHS proposes to interpret 
the minimum statutory factors involved in public charge determinations 
and to establish a clear framework under which DHS would evaluate those 
factors to determine whether or not an alien is likely at any time in 
the future to become a public charge. DHS also proposes to clarify the 
role of a sponsor's affidavit of support within public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.
    In addition, DHS proposes that certain factual circumstances would 
weigh heavily in favor of determining that an alien is not likely to 
become a public charge and other factual circumstances would weigh 
heavily in favor of determining that an alien is likely to become a 
public charge.\168\ The purpose of assigning greater weight to certain 
factual circumstances is to provide clarity for the public and 
immigration officers with respect to how DHS would fulfill its 
statutory duty to assess public charge admissibility. Ultimately, each 
determination would be made in the totality of the circumstances based 
on consideration of the relevant factors. In addition, DHS proposes 
that for applications for adjustment of status, the alien would be 
required to submit a Form I-944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also proposes to establish a public charge bond process in the 
adjustment of status context, and proposes to clarify DHS's authority 
to set conditions for nonimmigrant extension of stay and change of 
status applications.
    Finally, this proposed rule interprets the public charge 
inadmissibility ground under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4), not the public charge deportability ground under section 
237(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). Department of Justice 
precedent decisions would continue to govern the standards regarding 
public charge deportability determinations.

A. Applicability, Exemptions, and Waivers

    This rule would apply to any alien subject to section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), who is applying for admission to the 
United States or is applying for adjustment of status to that of lawful 
permanent resident before DHS.\169\ DOS screens applicants who are 
subject to public charge inadmissibility grounds and who are seeking 
nonimmigrant or immigrant visas at consular posts worldwide. Nearly 
sixty percent of the 2.7 million immediate relatives, family-
sponsored,\170\ employment-based, and diversity visa-based immigrants 
who obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States 
between fiscal years 2014 and 2016 consular processed immigrant visa 
applications overseas prior to being admitted to the United States as 
lawful permanent residents at a port-of-entry. Fifty-one percent of 
immediate relatives, ninety-two percent of family-sponsored immigrants, 
and ninety-eight percent of diversity visa immigrants obtained an 
immigrant visa at a consular post overseas before securing admission as 
a lawful permanent resident at a port-of-entry between fiscal years 
2014 and 2016.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.20.
    \170\ Including first, second, third and fourth preferences of 
family sponsored immigrants and immediate relatives. See DHS, 
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2016, Table 6, Persons Obtaining 
Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of 
Admission: Fiscal Years 2014 to 2016, available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table6 (last 
updated Dec. 18, 2017).
    \171\ See DHS, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2016, Table 6, 
Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major 
Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 2014 to 2016, available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table6 (last 
updated Dec. 18, 2017). The 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 
is a compendium of tables that provide data on foreign nationals who 
are granted lawful permanent residence (i.e., immigrants who receive 
a ``green card''), admitted as temporary nonimmigrants, granted 
asylum or refugee status, or are naturalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule also addresses eligibility for extension of stay and 
change of

[[Page 51135]]

status.\172\ Because the processes, evidentiary requirements, and 
nature of the stay in the United States for aliens seeking a visa, 
admission, extension of stay, change of status, and adjustment of 
status differ, DHS proposes public charge processes appropriately 
tailored to the benefit the alien seeks. For instance, aliens seeking 
adjustment of status undergo a different process than a temporary 
visitor for pleasure from Canada seeking admission to the United 
States. The length and nature of the stay of these two subsets of 
aliens differs significantly, as does frequency of entry. Accordingly, 
the processes and evidentiary requirements proposed in this rule vary 
in certain respects depending on the type of benefit and status an 
alien is seeking, as set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See proposed 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3)(iv); proposed 8 CFR 
214.1(c)(4)(iv); proposed 8 CFR 248.1(a); proposed 8 CFR 
248.1(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Applicants for Admission
    Under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), any alien 
who is applying for a visa or for admission to the United States is 
inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public 
charge. A nonimmigrant is admitted into the United States to stay for 
the limited period and purpose of the classification under which he or 
she was admitted and, in most instances, then is expected to depart the 
United States and return to his or her country. A visa applicant 
applies directly to a U.S. consulate or embassy abroad for a 
nonimmigrant visa to travel to the United States temporarily for a 
limited purpose, such as to visit for business or tourism.\173\ DOS 
consular officers assess whether the alien would be inadmissible, 
including under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Certain nonimmigrant classifications are subject to 
petition requirements, and a petition generally must be approved on 
an alien's behalf by USCIS prior to application for a visa. See, 
e.g., INA section 214(c), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c). In addition, certain 
aliens are not subject to a visa requirement in order to seek 
admission as a nonimmigrant. See, e.g., INA section 217, 8 U.S.C. 
1187; see also 8 CFR 212.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants for admission are inspected at, or when encountered 
between, ports of entry. They are inspected by immigration officers to 
assess, among other things, whether they are inadmissible under section 
212(a) of the Act, including section 212(a)(4). Under the proposed 
rule, the type of nonimmigrant status and the duration of the 
nonimmigrant's stay in the United States would be considered in 
assessing whether the applicant has met his or her burden of 
demonstrating that he or she is likely to become a public charge. For 
example, in determining whether an applicant for admission as a B-2 
nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure who is coming to the United States 
for a one-week vacation is inadmissible on public charge grounds, DHS 
would consider that this temporary visit is short in nature and that 
the individual likely would only need financial resources to cover the 
expenses associated with the vacation.
    Similarly, an alien who is the beneficiary of an immigrant visa 
petition approved by USCIS may apply to a DOS consulate abroad for an 
immigrant visa to allow him or her to seek admission to the United 
States as an immigrant.\174\ As part of the immigrant visa process, DOS 
determines whether the applicant is eligible for the visa, which 
includes a determination of whether the alien has demonstrated that he 
or she is admissible to the United States and that no inadmissibility 
grounds in section 212(a) of the Act apply. In determining whether the 
applicant has demonstrated that he or she is not inadmissible on the 
public charge ground, DOS reviews all of the mandatory factors, 
including any required affidavits of support submitted under section 
213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See INA sections 221 and 222, 8 U.S.C. 1201 and 1202; 8 
CFR 204; 22 CFR part 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process would not change under the proposed rule, but it is 
likely that DOS will amend its guidance to prevent the issuance of 
visas to inadmissible aliens,\175\ except as otherwise provided in the 
Act. DOS would continue to review affidavits of support and screen 
aliens for public charge inadmissibility in accordance with applicable 
regulations and instructions prior to the alien undergoing inspection 
and applying for admission at a pre-inspection location or port-of-
entry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, although lawful permanent residents generally are not 
considered to be applicants for admission upon their return from a trip 
abroad, in certain limited circumstances a lawful permanent resident 
will be considered an applicant for admission and, therefore, subject 
to an inadmissibility determination.\176\ This inadmissibility 
determination includes whether the alien is inadmissible as likely to 
become a public charge, which will be determined upon the lawful 
permanent resident's return to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Lawful permanent residents are regarded as applicants for 
admission in the following circumstances: (1) Lawful permanent 
residents who have abandoned or relinquished that status; (2) lawful 
permanent residents who have been outside the United States for a 
continuous period in excess of 180 days; (3) lawful permanent 
residents who have engaged in illegal activity after departing the 
United States; (4) lawful permanent residents who have departed the 
United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien 
from the United States, including removal proceedings and 
extradition proceedings; (5) lawful permanent residents who have 
committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2) of the INA, 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), unless granted a waiver of inadmissibility for 
such offense or cancellation of removal; and (6) lawful permanent 
residents attempting to enter at a time or place other than as 
designated by immigration officers or who have not been admitted to 
the United States after inspection and authorization by an 
immigration officer. See INA section 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(13)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Extension of Stay and Change of Status Applicants
    As mentioned above, a nonimmigrant is admitted into the United 
States to stay for the limited period and purpose of the classification 
under which he or she was admitted and, in most instances, then is 
expected to depart the United States and return to his or her country. 
However, consistent with the INA and controlling regulations, DHS may, 
in its discretion, extend an alien's nonimmigrant status or change an 
alien's nonimmigrant status from one classification to another.\177\ 
Furthermore, DHS is authorized under the INA to set conditions on the 
extension of stay or change of status. Consistent with this authority, 
DHS is proposing to require an applicant for an extension of stay or 
change of status to attest that he or she has neither received since 
obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or she seeks to extend or to which 
he or she seeks to change, is not receiving, nor is likely to receive 
at any time in the future one or more public benefits as defined in 
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See INA sections 214(a)(1) and 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1) 
and 1258(a); see also 8 CFR 214.1, 248.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although section 212(a)(4) of the Act by its terms only applies to 
applicants for visas, admission, and adjustment of status, and thus 
does not, by its terms, render aliens who are likely to become a public 
charge ineligible for the extension of stay or change of status, the 
government's interest in a nonimmigrant alien's ability to maintain 
self-sufficiency for the duration of the temporary stay does not end 
with his or her admission as a nonimmigrant. In particular, the 
government has an interest in ensuring that aliens present in the 
United States do not depend on public benefits to meet their 
needs.\178\ Aliens therefore should remain self-sufficient for the 
entire period of their stay, including any extension of stay or 
additional period of stay afforded by a change of status. Accordingly, 
DHS is proposing to consider whether the alien

[[Page 51136]]

has received since obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or she seeks to 
extend or to which he or she seeks to change, is currently receiving, 
or is likely to receive public benefits as defined in the proposed 
rule, when adjudicating an application to extend a nonimmigrant stay or 
change a nonimmigrant status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Extension of stay and change of status applicants are already 
required to provide evidence of maintenance of their current 
nonimmigrant status.\179\ As part of that determination, for some 
applicants, DHS considers the alien's financial status \180\ and 
believes it sound policy to extend that consideration to extensions of 
stay and change of status generally, rather than to just subsets of 
nonimmigrants. Although the INA does not indicate that aliens seeking 
an extension of stay or change of status must establish self-
sufficiency, consideration of such alien's self-sufficiency aligns with 
the aforementioned policy statements set forth in PRWORA.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See INA 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4); INA 
248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258; 8 CFR 248.1(a).
    \180\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(1)(i)(B); AFM Ch. 30.2(c)(2)(F) 
(``Students seeking reinstatement must submit evidence of 
eligibility, including financial information . . . .''); AFM Ch. 
30.3(c)(2)(C) (applicants applying to change status to a 
nonimmigrant student must demonstrate that they have the financial 
resources to pay for coursework and living expenses in the United 
States).
    \181\ 8 U.S.C. 1601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except where the nonimmigrant status that the alien seeks to extend 
or to which the alien seeks to change is exempted by law from section 
212(a)(4) of the Act, in order for an alien to demonstrate that he or 
she has neither received since obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or 
she seeks to extend or from which he or she seeks to change, nor is 
currently receiving or likely to receive any such public benefits, DHS 
will require applicants to answer questions on their application 
form,\182\ under penalty of perjury, regarding their receipt of these 
public benefits. The responses to these questions would be used in 
determining whether the applicant has met his or her burden to 
establish eligibility for extension of stay or change of status under 
the proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Aliens in nonimmigrant classifications whose employers 
will be filing Form I-129 or Form I-129CW on their behalf will be 
required to provide this information to their employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adjudicating whether the applicant has demonstrated that he or 
she is not likely to receive public benefits as defined in the proposed 
rule, at any time in the future, DHS would consider the status to which 
the alien seeks to extend or to which to change, as well as the 
anticipated additional period of stay. DHS would also consider whether 
the applicant has provided evidence of maintenance of status and that 
he or she has sufficient financial means to maintain the status he or 
she seeks, or that he or she will be gainfully employed in such status, 
as applicable. Based on the information the alien provides in support 
of the application for extension of stay or change of status, USCIS 
would determine whether the applicant should also submit Form I-944 in 
order to demonstrate that he or she is unlikely to receive public 
benefits during the temporary stay in the United States.
    For example, if the alien is a B-2 nonimmigrant who was admitted to 
the United States to seek medical treatment and is seeking to extend 
his or her visit because he or she requires additional medical 
treatment that was unanticipated at the time of admission, the alien 
would need to submit evidence that he or she has the financial means to 
pay for this additional medical treatment and otherwise support himself 
or herself during the extended duration of his or her temporary stay. 
An alien seeking to extend his or her stay in, or change status to, F-1 
or M-1 nonimmigrant status would submit evidence of his or her 
financial ability to pay for his or her study and to financially 
support himself or herself.\183\ An alien seeking to extend stay in or 
change to an employment-based nonimmigrant status, such as H-2B 
temporary non-agricultural worker status, would need to submit evidence 
such as tax return transcripts, W-2, or other documentation evidencing 
income from gainful employment appropriate to the nonimmigrant status 
being sought.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(1)(i)(B) (students must present 
``documentary evidence of financial support in the amount indicated 
on the SEVIS Form I-20 (or the Form I-20A-B/I-20ID)''); AFM Ch. 
30.2(b)(2)(F) (``(F) Students seeking reinstatement must submit 
evidence of eligibility, including financial information and a 
current I-20.''); AFM Ch. 30.3(c)(2)(C) (``Aliens seeking F-1 or M-1 
status must submit the appropriate Form I-20 and evidence of 
financial ability to maintain the new status. Aliens seeking J-1 
status must submit Form IAP-66.''); AFM Ch. 30.3(b)(3)(D) (``[T]he 
applicant [for change of status] must demonstrate he or she is able 
to maintain him or herself in the status sought, particularly 
financially. This issue needs particular examination when the 
applicant seeks a prolonged stay in any status where employment is 
not a routine part of the status, for example student status.'').
    \184\ See, e.g., AFM Ch. 30.3(b)(3)(E) (``Because the alien 
applicant on Form I-129 will be gainfully employed once the new 
status is granted, it is generally not necessary to further explore 
an applicant's ability to maintain status financially (unless the 
rate of remuneration is so low that the principal would be unable to 
support him/herself and all dependents).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 below provides a summary of nonimmigrant categories and the 
applicability of the public charge condition to such categories.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51137]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.008


[[Page 51138]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.009


[[Page 51139]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.010


[[Page 51140]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.011


[[Page 51141]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.012


[[Page 51142]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.013


[[Page 51143]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.014


[[Page 51144]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.015


[[Page 51145]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.016


[[Page 51146]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.017

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
3. Adjustment of Status Applicants
    In general, an alien who is physically present in the United States 
may be eligible to apply for adjustment of status before USCIS to that 
of a lawful permanent resident if the applicant was inspected and 
admitted or paroled, is eligible to receive an immigrant visa, is 
admissible to the United States, and has an immigrant visa immediately 
available at the time of filing the adjustment of status 
application.\187\ As part of the adjustment process, USCIS is 
responsible for determining whether the applicant has met his or her 
burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit,\188\ which 
includes a determination of whether the alien has demonstrated that no 
inadmissibility grounds in section 212(a) of the Act apply (or, if they 
do apply, the alien is eligible for a waiver of the inadmissibility 
ground). In determining whether the adjustment applicant has 
demonstrated that he or she is not inadmissible on the public charge 
ground, DHS proposes to review the mandatory statutory factors together 
with any required affidavit of support and any other relevant 
information, in the totality of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ This classification can no longer be sought as of December 
20, 2009. See the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, Public Law 109-423.
    \186\ J nonimmigrant who are admitted for a specific time period 
are not eligible for an extension of stay.
    \187\ See INA section 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255. Aliens in removal 
proceedings before an immigration judge may also apply for 
adjustment of status pursuant to 8 CFR 1245.
    \188\ See INA section 291, 8 U.S.C. 1361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 5 through 9 below provide a summary of immigrant categories 
for adjustment of status and the applicability of the public charge 
inadmissibility determination to such categories.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51147]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.018


[[Page 51148]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.019


[[Page 51149]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.020


[[Page 51150]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.021


[[Page 51151]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.022


[[Page 51152]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.023


[[Page 51153]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.024


[[Page 51154]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.025


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Applicants who filed a Form I-485 prior to December 19, 
1997 are exempt from the Affidavit of Support requirement. See 
Public Law 104-208, div. C., section 531(b), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 
3009-675; 8 CFR 213a.2(a)(2)(i) (adjustment applicants) and 
213a.2(a)(2)(ii)(B) (applicants for admission). Aliens who acquired 
citizenship under section 320 of the Act upon admission to the 
United States are exempt from submitting an affidavit of support. 
See 8 CFR 213a.2(a)(2)(ii)(E); Child Citizenship Act, Public Law 
106-395, section 101, 114 Stat. 1631, 1631 (2000) (amending INA 
section 320). In addition, the surviving spouses, children, and 
parents of a deceased member of the military who obtain citizenship 
posthumously are exempt from a public charge determination. See 
National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 
108-136, section 1703(e), 117 Stat. 1392, 1695 (2003).
    \190\ Including the following categories: IR-6 Spouses; IR-7 
Children; CR-7 Children, conditional; IH-8 Children adopted abroad 
under the Hague Adoption Convention; IH-9 Children coming to the 
United States to be adopted under the Hague Adoption Convention; IR-
8 Orphans adopted abroad; IR-9 Orphans coming to the United States 
to be adopted; IR-0 Parents of adult U.S. citizens. Note children 
adopted abroad generally do not apply for adjustment of status.
    \191\ Including the following categories: A-16 Unmarried 
Amerasian sons/daughters of U.S. citizens F-16 Unmarried sons/
daughters of U.S. citizens; A-17 Children of A-11 or A-16; F-17 
Children of F-11 or F-16; B-17 Children of B-11 or B-16.
    \192\ Including the following categories: F-26 Spouses of alien 
residents, subject to country limits; C-26 Spouses of alien 
residents, subject to country limits, conditional; FX-6 Spouses of 
alien residents, exempt from country limits; CX-6 Spouses of alien 
residents, exempt from country limits, conditional; F-27 Children of 
alien residents, subject to country limits; C-28 Children of -C-26, 
or C-27, subject to country limits, conditional; B-28 Children of, 
B-26, or B-27, subject to country limits; F-28 Children of F-26, or 
F-27, subject to country limits; C-20 Children of C-29, subject to 
country limits, conditional; B-20 Children of B-29, subject to 
country limits; F-20 Children of F-29, subject to country limits; C-
27 Children of alien residents, subject to country limits, 
conditional; FX-7 Children of alien residents, exempt from country 
limits; CX-8 Children of CX-7, exempt from country limits, 
conditional; FX-8 Children of FX-7, or FX-8, exempt from country 
limits; CX-7 Children of alien residents, exempt from country 
limits, conditional; F-29 Unmarried sons/daughters of alien 
residents, subject to country limits; C-29 Unmarried children of 
alien residents, subject to country limits, conditional.
    \193\ Including the following categories: A-36 Married Amerasian 
sons/daughters of U.S. citizens; F-36 Married sons/daughters of U.S. 
citizens; C-36 Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens, conditional; 
A-37 Spouses of A-31 or A-36; F-37 Spouses of married sons/daughters 
of U.S. citizens; C-37 Spouses of married sons/daughters of U.S. 
citizens, conditional; B-37 Spouses of B-31 or B-36; A-38 Children 
of A-31 or A-36, subject to country limits; F-38 Children of married 
sons/daughters of U.S. citizens; C-38 Children of C-31 or C-36, 
subject to country limits, conditional; B-38 Children of B-31 or B-
36, subject to country limits.
    \194\ Includes the following categories: F-46 Brothers/sisters 
of U.S. citizens, adjustments; F-47 Spouses of brothers/sisters of 
U.S. citizens, adjustments; F-48 Children of brothers/sisters of 
U.S. citizens, adjustments.
    \195\ Includes the following categories: CF-1 Spouses, entered 
as fiance(e), adjustments conditional; IF-1 Spouses, entered as 
fiance(e), adjustments.
    \196\ Includes the following categories: Immediate Relative AR-6 
Children, Amerasian, First Preference: A-16 Unmarried Amerasian 
sons/daughters of U.S. citizens; Third Preference A-36 Married 
Amerasian sons/daughters of U.S. citizens; See INA 204(f). Note that 
this program does not have a specific sunset date and technically 
applicants could apply but should have already applied.
    \197\ Includes the following categories: AM-1 principal (born 
between 1/1/1962-1/1/1976); AM-2 Spouse, AM-3 child; AR-1 child of 
U.S. citizen born Cambodia, Korea, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. Note 
that this program does not have a specific sunset date and 
technically applicants could apply but should have already applied.
    \198\ Includes the following categories: IB-6 Spouses, self-
petitioning; IB-7 Children, self-petitioning; IB-8 Children of IB-1 
or IB-6; IB-0 Parents battered or abused, of U.S. citizens, self-
petitioning.
    \199\ Includes the following categories: B-26 Spouses of alien 
residents, subject to country limits, self-petitioning; BX-6 Spouses 
of alien residents, exempt from country limits, self-petitioning; B-
27 Children of alien residents, subject to country limits, self-
petitioning; BX-7 Children of alien residents, exempt from country 
limits, self-petitioning; BX-8 Children of BX-6, or BX-7, exempt 
from country limits; B-29 Unmarried sons/daughters of alien 
residents, subject to country limits, self-petitioning.
    \200\ Includes the following categories: B-36 Married sons/
daughters of U.S. citizens, self-petitioning B-37 Spouses of B-36, 
adjustments; B-38 Children of B-36, subject to country limits; Third 
Preference VAWA; B-36 Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens, self-
petitioning; B-37 Spouses of B-36, adjustments B-38 Children of B-
36, subject to country limits; Third Preference VAWA; B-37 Spouses 
of B-36, adjustments; B-38 Children of B-36, subject to country 
limits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51155]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Includes the following categories: E-16 Aliens with 
extraordinary ability; E-17 Outstanding professors or researchers; 
E-18 Certain Multinational executives or managers; E-19 Spouses of 
E-11, E-12, E-13, E-16, E-17, or E-18; E-10 Children of E-11, E-12, 
E-13, E-16, E-17, or E-18.
    \202\ Relative means a husband, wife, father, mother, child, 
adult son, adult daughter, brother, or sister. Significant ownership 
interest means an ownership interest of 5 percent or more in a for-
profit entity that filed an immigrant visa petition to accord a 
prospective employee an immigrant status under section 203(b) of the 
Act. See 8 CFR.213a.1.
    \203\ Includes the following categories: E-26 Professionals 
holding advanced degrees; ES-6 Soviet scientists; E-27 Spouses of E-
21 or E-26; E-28 Children of E-21 or E-26.
    \204\ Includes the following categories: EX-6 Schedule--A 
worker; EX-7 Spouses of EX-6; EX-8 Children of EX-6; E-36 Skilled 
workers; E-37 Professionals with baccalaureate degrees; E-39 Spouses 
of E-36, or E-37; E-30 Children of E-36, or E-37; EW-8 Other 
workers; EW-0 Children of EW-8; EW-9 Spouses of EW-8; EC-6 Chinese 
Student Protection Act (CSPA) principals; EC-7 Spouses of EC-6; EC-8 
Children of EC-6.
    \205\ Includes the following categories: C-56 Employment 
creation, not in targeted area, adjustments, conditional E-56 
Employment creation; I-56 Employment creation, targeted area, pilot 
program, adjustments, conditional; T-56 Employment creation, 
targeted area, conditional; R-56 Investor pilot program, not 
targeted, conditional; C-57 Spouses of C-51 or C-56, conditional; E-
57 Spouses of E-51 or E-56; I-57 Spouses of I-51 or I-56, 
conditional; T-57 Spouses of T-51 or T-56, conditional; R-57 Spouses 
of R-51 or R-56, conditional; C-58 Children of C-51 or C-56, 
conditional; E-58 Children of E-51 or E-56; I-58 Children of I-51 or 
I-56, conditional; T-58 Children of T-51 or T-56, conditional; R-58 
Children of R-51 or R-56, conditional.
    \206\ EB-5 applicants are Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by 
Alien Entrepreneur, self-petitioners. The regulation at 8 CFR 213a.1 
relates to a person having ownership interest in an entity filing 
for a prospective employee and therefore the requirements for an 
affidavit of support under INA section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Includes the following categories: SD-6 Ministers; SD-7 
Spouses of SD-6; SD-8 Children of SD-6; SR-6 Religious workers; SR-7 
Spouses of SR-6; SR-8 Children of SR-6.
    \208\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers (for 
example, a religious institution), would generally not be a relative 
of the alien or a for-profit entity and therefore the requirements 
for an affidavit of support under INA section 212(a)(4)(D) is 
inapplicable.
    \209\ Includes the following categories: SE-6 Employees of U.S. 
government abroad, adjustments; SE-7 Spouses of SE-6; SE-8 Children 
of SE-6. Note that this program does not have a specific sunset date 
and technically applicants could apply but should have already 
applied.
    \210\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers (for 
example, the U.S. armed forces), would generally not be a relative 
of the alien or a for-profit entity and therefore the requirements 
for an affidavit of support under INA section 212(a)(4)(D) is 
inapplicable.
    \211\ Includes the following categories: SF-6 Former employees 
of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government; SF-7 Spouses 
or children of SF-6; SG-6 Former U.S. government employees in the 
Panama Canal Zone; SG-7 Spouses or children of SG-6; SH-6 Former 
employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone government, 
employed on April 1, 1979; SH-7 Spouses or children of SH-6. Note 
that this program does not have a specific sunset date and 
technically applicants could apply but should have already applied.
    \212\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers generally 
would not be a relative of the alien or a for-profit entity and 
therefore the requirements for an affidavit of support under INA 
section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
    \213\ Includes the following categories: SJ-6 Foreign medical 
school graduate who was licensed to practice in the United States on 
Jan. 9, 1978; SJ-7 Spouses or children of SJ-6; Note that this 
program does not have a specific sunset date and technically 
applicants could apply but should have already applied.
    \214\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers would 
generally not be a relative of the alien or a for-profit entity and 
therefore the requirements for an affidavit of support under INA 
section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
    \215\ Includes the following categories: SK-6 Retired employees 
of international organizations; SK-7 Spouses of SK-1 or SK-6; SK-8 
Certain unmarried children of SK-6; SK-9 Certain surviving spouses 
of deceased international organization employees.
    \216\ Includes SN-6 Retired NATO-6 civilian employees; SN-7 
Spouses of SN-6; SN-9 Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO-6 
civilian employees; SN-8 Certain unmarried sons/daughters of SN-6.
    \217\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers would 
generally not be a relative of the alien or a for-profit entity and 
therefore the requirements for an affidavit of support under INA 
section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
    \218\ Includes the following categories: SM-6 U.S. Armed Forces 
personnel, service (12 years) after 10/1/91 SM-9 U.S. Armed Forces 
personnel, service (12 years) by 10/91; SM-7 Spouses of SM-1 or SM-
6; SM-0 Spouses or children of SM-4 or SM-9; SM-8 Children of SM-1 
or SM-6.
    \219\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers would 
generally not be a relative of the alien or a for-profit entity and 
therefore the requirements for an affidavit of support under INA 
section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
    \220\ Includes the following categories: BC-6 Broadcast (IBCG of 
BBG) employees; BC-7 Spouses of BC-1 or BC-6; BC-8 Children of BC-6.
    \221\ For this category, although the applicants are subject to 
public charge under INA section 212(a)(4), the employers would 
generally not be a relative of the alien or a for-profit entity and 
therefore the requirements for an affidavit of support under INA 
section 212(a)(4)(D) is inapplicable.
    \222\ Includes the following categories: SI-6 Special immigrant 
interpreters who are nationals of Iraq or Afghanistan; SI-6, SI-7, 
SI-8--spouse and child of SI-6; SQ-6 Certain Iraqis and Afghans 
employed by U.S. Government SQ-6, SQ-7, SQ-8 Spouses and children of 
SQ-6; SI-6 Special immigrant interpreters who are nationals of Iraq 
or Afghanistan; SI-7 Spouses of SI-1 or SI-6; SI-8 Children of SI-1 
or SI-6.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51156]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Including the following categories: AS-6 Asylees; AS-7 
Spouses of AS-6; AS-8 Children of AS-6; SY-8 Children of SY-6; GA-6 
Iraqi asylees; GA-7 Spouses of GA-6; GA-8 Children of GA-6.
    \224\ Note that this program does not have a specific sunset 
date and technically applicants could apply but should have already 
applied.
    \225\ Includes the following categories: RE-6 Other refugees 
(Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96-212, 94 Stat. 102); RE-7 Spouses 
of RE-6; RE-8 Children of RE-6; RE-9 Other relatives.
    \226\ Note that this program has a sunset date of two years 
after enactment, however, some cases may still be pending.
    \227\ Includes the following categories: 1995--HA-6 Principal 
HRIFA Applicant; Spouse of HA-6, HA-7 and Child of HA-6, HA-8; 
Unmarried Son or Daughter 21 Years of Age or Older of HA-6, HA-9 
Principal HRIFA Applicant paroled into the United States before 
December 31, 1995- HB-6; Spouse of HB-6, HB-7; Child of HB-6, HB-8; 
Unmarried Son or Daughter 21 Years of Age or Older of HB-6 HB-9; 
Principal HRIFA Applicant who arrived as a child without parents in 
the United States HC-6; Spouse of HC-6, HC-7; Child of HC-6, HC-8; 
Unmarried Son or Daughter 21 Years of Age or Older of HC-6, HC-9; 
Principal HRIFA Applicant child who was orphaned subsequent to 
arrival in the United States HD-6, Spouse of HD-6, HD-7; Child of 
HD-6, HD-8; Unmarried Son or Daughter 21 Years of Age or Older of 
HD-6, HD-9 Principal HRIFA Applicant child who was abandoned 
subsequent to arrival and prior to April 1, 1998--HE-6; Spouse of 
HE-6, HE-7; Child of HE-6, HE-8; Unmarried Son or Daughter 21 Years 
of Age or Older of HE-6, HE-9. Note that this program has a sunset 
date of March 31, 2000; however, dependents may still file for 
adjustment of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
4. Exemptions
    The public charge inadmissibility ground does not apply to all 
applicants who are seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of 
status.\232\ Congress has specifically exempted certain groups from the 
public charge inadmissibility ground and DHS regulations permit waivers 
of the ground for certain other groups, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ Note that this program has a sunset date of April 1, 2000; 
however, some cases may still be pending.
    \229\ Note that this program sunset date of September 30, 2014, 
only applies to parole. Eligible applicants may still apply for 
adjustment of status.
    \230\ INA section 244(c)(2)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(ii), 
authorizes DHS to waive any section 212(a) ground, except for those 
that Congress specifically noted could not be waived.
    \231\ See INA section 244(c)(2)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(ii).
    \232\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.23(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Refugees and asylees at the time of admission and 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, pursuant to sections 
207(c)(3) and 209(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(3), 1159(c);
     Amerasian immigrants at admission, pursuant to in section 
584(a)(2) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act of 1988, Public Law 100-202, 101 Stat. 
1329-183 (Dec. 22, 1987) (as amended), 8 U.S.C. 1101 note 5;
     Afghan and Iraqi Interpreter, or Afghan or Iraqi national 
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, pursuant to section 
1059(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 Public Law 109-163 (Jan. 6, 2006), section 602(b) of the Afghan 
Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended Public Law 111-8 (Mar. 11, 
2009), and section 1244(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008, as amended Public Law 110-181 (Jan. 28, 2008);
     Cuban and Haitian entrants at adjustment, pursuant to 
section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 
Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Jan. 3, 1986) (as amended), 8 U.S.C. 
1255a, note;
     Aliens applying for adjustment of status, pursuant to the 
Cuban Adjustment Act, Public Law 89-732 (Nov. 2, 1966) as amended; 8 
U.S.C. 1255, note;
     Nicaraguans and other Central Americans who are adjusting 
status, pursuant to section 202(a) and section 203 of the Nicaraguan 
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Public Law 105-
100, 111 Stat. 2193 (Nov. 19, 1997) (as amended), 8 U.S.C. 1255 note;
     Haitians who are adjusting status, pursuant to section 902 
of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, Public Law 
105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21, 1998), 8 U.S.C. 1255 note;
     Lautenberg parolees, pursuant to section 599E of the 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act of 1990, Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195 (Nov. 
21, 1989), 8 U.S.C.A. 1255 note;
     Special immigrant juveniles, pursuant to section 245(h) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(h);
     Aliens who entered the United States prior to January 1, 
1972, and who meet the other conditions for being granted lawful 
permanent residence under section 249 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1259, and 8 
CFR part 249;
     Aliens applying for Temporary Protected Status, pursuant 
to section 244(c)(2)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(ii) and 8 CFR 
244.3(a); \233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ INA section 244(c)(2)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(ii), 
authorizes DHS to waive any INA section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) 
ground, except for those that Congress specifically noted could not 
be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(A)(i) and 
(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(A)(i) and (A)(ii) (Ambassador, 
Public Minister, Career Diplomat or Consular Officer, or Immediate 
Family or Other Foreign Government Official or Employee, or Immediate 
Family), pursuant to section 102 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1102, 22 CFR 
41.21(d);
     A nonimmigrant classifiable as C-2 (alien in transit to 
U.N. Headquarters) or C-3 (foreign government official), pursuant to 22 
CFR 41.21(d);
     A nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(G)(i), 
(G)(ii), (G)(iii), and (G)(iv), of the Act (Principal Resident 
Representative of Recognized Foreign Government to International 
Organization, and related categories),\234\ 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(G)(i), 
(G)(ii), (G)(iii), and (G)(iv), pursuant to section 102 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1102, 22 CFR 41.21(d);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ Includes the following categories: G-1--Principal Resident 
Representative of Recognized Foreign Government to International 
Organization, Staff, or Immediate Family; G-2--Other Representative 
of Recognized Foreign Member Government to International 
Organization, or Immediate Family; G-3--Representative of Non-
recognized or Nonmember Foreign Government to International 
Organization, or Immediate Family; G-4--International Organization 
Officer or Employee, or Immediate Family; G-5--Attendant, Servant, 
or Personal Employee of G-1 through G-4, or Immediate Family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A nonimmigrant classifiable as a NATO representative and 
related categories,\235\ pursuant to 22 CFR 41.21(d);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Includes the following categories: NATO 1--Principal 
Permanent Representative of Member State to NATO (including any of 
its Subsidiary Bodies) Resident in the U.S. and Resident Members of 
Official Staff; Secretary General, Assistant Secretaries General, 
and Executive Secretary of NATO; Other Permanent NATO Officials of 
Similar Rank, or Immediate Family; NATO 2--Other Representative of 
member state to NATO (including any of its Subsidiary Bodies) 
including Representatives, Advisers, and Technical Experts of 
Delegations, or Immediate Family; Dependents of Member of a Force 
Entering in Accordance with the Provisions of the NATO Status-of-
Forces Agreement or in Accordance with the provisions of the 
``Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters''; 
Members of Such a Force if Issued Visas; NATO 3--Official Clerical 
Staff Accompanying Representative of Member State to NATO (including 
any of its Subsidiary Bodies), or Immediate Family; NATO-4--Official 
of NATO (Other Than Those Classifiable as NATO-1), or Immediate 
Family; NATO-5--Experts, Other Than NATO Officials Classifiable 
Under NATO-4, Employed in Missions on Behalf of NATO, and their 
Dependents; NATO 6--Member of a Civilian Component Accompanying a 
Force Entering in Accordance with the Provisions of the NATO Status-
of-Forces Agreement; Member of a Civilian Component Attached to or 
Employed by an Allied Headquarters Under the ``Protocol on the 
Status of International Military Headquarters'' Set Up Pursuant to 
the North Atlantic Treaty; and their Dependents; NATO-7--Attendant, 
Servant, or Personal Employee of NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, 
NATO-5, and NATO-6 Classes, or Immediate Family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51157]]

     A nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(T) of the 
Act (Victim of Severe Form of Trafficking), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), 
pursuant to section 212(d)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(13)(A), 
at time of admission;
     An applicant for, or who is granted, nonimmigrant status 
under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) (Victim 
of Criminal Activity), pursuant to section 212(a)(4)(E)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(E)(ii);
     Nonimmigrants who were admitted under section 
101(a)(15)(U) (Victim of Criminal Activity) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(U), at the time of their adjustment of status under section 
245(m) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1155(m), and 8 CFR 245.24;
     An alien who is a VAWA self-petitioner as defined in 
section 101(a)(51) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, pursuant to section 
212(a)(4)(E)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(E)(i);
     A qualified alien described in section 431(c) of the 
PRWORA of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) (certain battered aliens as qualified 
aliens), pursuant to section 212(a)(4)(E)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(E)(iii);
     Applicants adjusting status under section National Defense 
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, 117 Stat. 
1392 (Nov. 24, 2003) (posthumous benefits to surviving spouses, 
children, and parents);
     American Indians Born in Canada, pursuant to section 289 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1359; and
     Nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos adjusting status, 
pursuant to section 586 of Public Law 106-429 (Nov. 1, 2000).
    In general, the aforementioned classes of aliens are vulnerable 
populations of immigrants and nonimmigrants. Some have been persecuted 
or victimized and others have little to no private support network in 
the United States. These individuals tend to require government 
protection and support. Admission of these aliens also serves distinct 
public policy goals separate from the general immigration system. Other 
legal provisions may permit waivers of public charge provisions under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
5. Waivers
    The proposed regulation at 8 CFR 212.23(b) lists the categories of 
applicants Congress has authorized to apply for waivers of the public 
charge inadmissibility ground, as follows:
     Nonimmigrants who were admitted under section 
101(a)(15)(T) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) (Victims of Severe 
Form of Tracking in Persons) at the time of their adjustment of status 
under section 245(l)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(2)(A);
     S (alien witness or informant) nonimmigrants described in 
section 101(a)(15)(S), of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(S);
     Applicants for admission and adjustment of status under 
section 245(j) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(j) (alien witness or 
informant); and
     Other waivers of the public charge inadmissibility 
provisions in section 212(a)(4) of the Act permissible under the law.

B. Definitions of Public Charge and Related Terms

    DHS proposes to add several definitions that apply to public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.
1. Public Charge
    The term ``public charge,'' as used in section 212(a)(4) of the 
Act, is not defined.\236\ DHS is proposing to define a public charge as 
an alien who receives one or more public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 
212.21(b).\237\ DHS believes that its proposed definition of public 
charge is consistent with legislative history, case law, and the 
ordinary meaning of public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
    \237\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.21(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the public charge inadmissibility statute \238\ and 
Congressional objectives announced in PRWORA, DHS proposes that aliens 
subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground \239\ should ``not 
depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on 
their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their 
sponsors, and private organizations.'' \240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) (emphasis 
added). The alien is inadmissible if he or she ``is likely at any 
time to become a public charge.''
    \239\ Aliens subject to the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility are aliens outside the United States seeking 
admission to the country, seeking a visa to permit them to apply for 
admission as a nonimmigrant or immigrant to the United States, or in 
the United States seeking to adjust status to that of lawful 
permanent residents.
    \240\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a scarcity of legislative guidance and case law defining 
public charge. Legislative history, however, suggests a link between 
public charge and the receipt of public benefits. According to a 1950 
Senate Judiciary Committee report, which preceded the passage of the 
1952 Act, a Senate subcommittee highlighted concerns raised by an 
immigration inspector about aliens receiving old age assistance. The 
Senate subcommittee recommended against establishing a strict 
definition of the term public charge by law. Because the elements that 
could constitute any given individual's likelihood of becoming a public 
charge vary, the subcommittee instead recommended that the 
determination of whether an alien is likely to become a public charge 
should rest within the discretion of consular officers and the 
Commissioner.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ See The 1950 Omnibus Report of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, S. Rep. No. 81-1515, at 349 (1950); see also Matter of 
Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before Congress passed IIRIRA in 1996, debates on public charge 
exclusion and deportation grounds considered the significance of an 
alien's use of public benefits and self-sufficiency.\242\ One Senator 
opined that immigrants, upon seeking admission, make a ``promise to the 
American people that they will not become a burden on the taxpayers,'' 
\243\ and expressed that it is not ``unreasonable for the taxpayers of 
this country to require recently arrived immigrants to depend on their 
sponsors for the first 5 years under all circumstances if the sponsor 
has the assets.'' \244\ Congress through PRWORA \245\ further 
emphasized that ``the availability of public benefits not constitute an 
incentive for immigration to the United States.'' \246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ See 142 Cong. Rec. S4609 (May 2, 1996) (statement of Sen. 
Byrd) (``[S]elf-sufficiency will be the watchword for those coming 
to the United States. By making noncitizens ineligible for Federal 
means-tested programs, and by `deeming' a sponsor's income 
attributable to an immigrant, the American taxpayer will no longer 
be financially responsible for new arrivals.''), available at 
https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/05/02/CREC-1996-05-02-pt1-PgS4592.pdf.
    \243\ 142 Cong. Rec. S4495 (May 1, 1996) (statement of Sen. 
Simon), available at https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/05/01/CREC-1996-05-01-pt1-PgS4457.pdf.
    \244\ 142 Cong. Rec. S4495 (May 1, 1996) (statement of Sen. 
Simon), available at https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/05/01/CREC-1996-05-01-pt1-PgS4457.pdf.
    \245\ 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A).
    \246\ 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent a clear statutory definition, some courts and administrative 
authorities have tied public charge to receipt of public benefits 
without quantifying the level of public support or the type of public 
support required. For example, in analyzing the term public charge in 
the context of deportability under section 19 of the

[[Page 51158]]

Immigration Act of 1917,\247\ the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California in Ex parte Kichmiriantz explained that public 
charge should be interpreted as ``a money charge upon, or an expense 
to, the public for support and care.'' \248\ The court made clear that 
the money charge or expense must be upon the public, rather than 
relatives, but did not specifically identify how much public support 
renders a person a public charge. Similarly, the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of New York, in Ex parte Mitchell and In re 
Keshishian respectively, indicated that a public charge is one who is 
supported at public expense without qualifying or quantifying the level 
of support at public expense necessary.\249\ Furthermore, when the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered criminal misconduct and 
imprisonment within the context of public charge in Coykendall v. 
Skrmetta, the court opined: ``It cannot well be supposed that the words 
in question were intended to refer to anything other than a condition 
of dependence on the public for support.'' \250\ The Second Circuit 
Court of Appeals, in Iorio v. Day, likewise stated: ``The language 
(sic) itself, `public charge,' suggests rather dependency than 
imprisonment.'' \251\ Neither circuit court elaborated on the degree of 
dependence required to sustain a public charge finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 addresses aliens 
who are deportable within five years of entry.
    \248\ 283 F. 697, 698 (N.D. Cal. 1922).
    \249\ See Ex parte Mitchell 256 F. 230, 234 (N.D. NY 1919) and 
In re Keshishian 299 F. 804 (S.D. NY 1924).
    \250\ See Coykendall v. Skrmetta 22 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1927).
    \251\ See Iorio v. Day 34 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1929).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Matter of Martinez-Lopez, the Attorney General indicated that 
public support or the burden of supporting the alien being cast on the 
public was a fundamental consideration in public charge inadmissibility 
determinations.\252\ While an alien's past receipt of welfare alone 
does not establish that he or she is likely to become a public charge, 
case law strongly suggests that an alien's ability or inability to 
remedy his or her past or current reliance on public welfare for 
financial support plays a critical role in the outcome of a public 
charge inadmissibility determination.\253\ For example, in Matter of 
Perez, the BIA acknowledged the respondent's ability to remedy her 
reliance on welfare in determining that she may be able to overcome the 
public charge ground inadmissibility ground in a prospective 
application for a visa.\254\ On the other hand, in Matter of Harutunian 
and Matter of Vindman, the respondents failed to show a capacity to 
overcome their dependence on public support.\255\ INS expected them to 
continue receiving public support and determined that they were 
inadmissible as public charges.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ See Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421 (Att'y 
Gen. 1964)
    \253\ See, e.g., Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 1974); Matter of 
Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
    \254\ See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. at 137.
    \255\ See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. at 590 and Matter of 
Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. at 132.
    \256\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bearing in mind the operative legislative history and case law 
examined above, DHS is proposing a new definition of public 
charge.\257\ The definitions cited in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance 
and proposed rule indicates that a person becomes a public charge when 
he or she is committed to the care, custody, management, or support of 
the public, but DHS does not believe that these definitions suggest or 
require a primary dependence on the government in order for someone to 
be a public charge.\258\ DHS believes that a person should be 
considered a public charge based on the receipt of financial support 
from the general public through government funding (i.e., public 
benefits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ See, e.g., Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 
560, 566 (2012) (``When a term goes undefined in statute, we give 
the term its ordinary meaning.'').
    \258\ DHS acknowledges the importance of increasing access to 
health care and helping people to become self-sufficient in certain 
contexts (such as with respect to other agencies' administration of 
government assistance programs). The INA, however, does not dictate 
advancement of those goals in the context of public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is consistent with various dictionary definitions of public 
charge and ``charge'' also support a definition that involves the 
receipt of public benefits. The current edition of the Merriam-Webster 
Dictionary defines public charge simply as ``one that is supported at 
public expense.'' \259\ Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) further 
defines public charge as ``an indigent; a person whom it is necessary 
to support at public expense by reason of poverty alone or illness and 
poverty.'' \260\ In addition, the term ``charge'' is defined in 
Merriam-Webster Dictionary as ``a person or thing committed into the 
care of another'' \261\ and Black's Law Dictionary defines charge as 
``a person or thing entrusted to another's care,'' e.g., ``a charge of 
the estate.'' \262\ These definitions generally suggest that an 
impoverished or ill individual who receives public benefits for a 
substantial component of their support and care can be reasonably 
viewed as being a public charge. The proposed definition of public 
charge is also consistent with the concept of an indigent, which is 
defined as ``one who is needy and poor . . . and ordinarily indicates 
one who is destitute of means of comfortable subsistence so as to be in 
want.'' \263\ DHS believes its proposed definition reflects Congress's 
intent in having aliens be self-sufficient and not reliant on the 
government (i.e., public benefits) for assistance to meet their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Definition of Public 
Charge, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public%20charge 
(last visited Sept. 4, 2018).
    \260\ Black's Law Dictionary 233 (6th ed. 1990), available at 
http://www.republicsg.info/dictionaries/1990_black's-law-dictionary-
edition-6.pdf.
    \261\ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Definition of Charge, 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge (last updated 
Sept. 5, 2018).
    \262\ Black's Law Dictionary Charge (10th ed. 2014).
    \263\ Black's Law Dictionary 773 (6th ed. 1990), available at 
http://www.republicsg.info/dictionaries/1990_black's-law-dictionary-
edition-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Public Benefit
    DHS proposes to define public benefit \264\ to include a specific 
list of cash aid and noncash medical care, housing, and food benefit 
programs where either (1) the cumulative value of one or more such 
benefits that can be monetized (i.e., where DHS can determine the cash 
value of such benefit) exceeds 15 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines (FPG) for a household of one within a period of 12 
consecutive months based on the per-month FPG for the months during 
which the benefits are received (hereafter referred to as the 15 
percent of FPG or the proposed 15 percent standard or threshold); or 
(2) for benefits that cannot be monetized, the benefits are received 
for more than 12 months in the aggregate within a 36-month period. The 
proposed definition also addresses circumstances where an alien 
receives a combination of monetizable benefits equal to or below the 15 
percent threshold together with one or more benefits that cannot be 
monetized. In such cases, DHS proposes that the threshold for duration 
of receipt of the non-monetizable benefits would be 9 months in the 
aggregate within a 36-month period.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b).
    \265\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in this rule, DHS would consider the following public 
benefits:

[[Page 51159]]

     Monetizable benefits:
    [cir] Any Federal, State, local, or tribal cash assistance \266\ 
for income maintenance, including: Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI),\267\ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),\268\ and 
Federal, State or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance 
(often called ``General Assistance'' in the State context, but which 
may exist under other names);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ Cash assistance would include any government assistance in 
the form of cash, checks or other forms of money transfers, or 
instruments.
    \267\ See 42 U.S.C. 1381-1383f
    \268\ See 42 U.S.C. 601-619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Benefits that can be monetized in accordance with proposed 8 
CFR 212.24:
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or 
formerly called ``Food Stamps''), 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036c;
     Public housing defined as Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 
Program; \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ See 24 CFR part 984; 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 1437u.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including 
Moderate Rehabilitation); \270\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ See 24 CFR parts 5, 402, 880-884 and 886.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Non-cash benefits that cannot be monetized:
    [cir] Benefits paid for by Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., except 
for emergency medical conditions as prescribed in in section 1903(v) of 
Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v), 42 CFR 
440.255(c), and for services or benefits funded by Medicaid but 
provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 
and benefits provided to foreign-born children of U.S. citizen parents;
    [cir] Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Part D; \271\ 
Benefits provided for institutionalization for long-term care at 
government expense;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ See 42 U.S.C. 1395w-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Subsidized Housing under the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 
1437 et seq.
(a) Types of Public Benefits
    In formulating the proposed definition of public benefits, DHS 
contemplated pertinent case law, the definition of public benefits in 
PRWORA, and the treatment of certain public benefits under the current 
public charge policy. The cases examined draw a distinction between the 
types of public benefits that are appropriately considered in public 
charge determinations, and the types that are not. In Matter of 
Harutunian, an INS Regional Commissioner noted a fundamental difference 
between consideration of ``individualized public support to the needy'' 
and ``essentially supplementary benefits directed to the general 
welfare of the public as a whole.'' \272\ The BIA similarly observed a 
distinction between individualized receipt of welfare benefits and 
``the countless municipal and State services which are provided to all 
residents, alien and citizen alike, without specific charge of the 
municipality or the State, and which are paid out of the general tax 
fund'' in assessing the relevance of receipt of a government benefit or 
service to public charge determinations.\273\ Specific public benefits 
considered relevant to public charge determinations have included old 
age assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and receipt of 
``public funds from the New York Department of Social Services.'' \274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1974).
    \273\ See Matter of B --, 3 I&N Dec. 323, 324-25 (BIA 1948).
    \274\ See Matter of Harutunian 14 I&N Dec. 583, 590 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1974) (considering old age assistance for public charge 
excludability purposes); Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1977) (receipt of public funds from the New York 
Department of Social Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRWORA, with certain exceptions, defined Federal public benefits as 
``any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial 
license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated 
funds of the United States; and . . . any retirement, welfare, health, 
disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food 
assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for 
which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, 
or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by 
appropriated funds of the United States.'' \275\ DHS believes the 
definition of public benefits used in PRWORA is in some respects too 
broad for public charge inadmissibility determinations. The principal 
reason PRWORA's definition does not work in the public charge 
inadmissibility determination is that it includes grants, contracts, 
and licensures that are transactional in nature and may involve the 
exchange of government resources for value provided by the alien.\276\ 
Because they are value-exchanged benefits and do not evidence a lack of 
self-sufficiency, DHS does not believe that grants, contracts, and 
licensures are appropriate for consideration in public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(1) and (2).
    \276\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain cash aid and non-cash benefits directed toward food, 
housing, and healthcare, on the other hand, are directly relevant to 
public charge inadmissibility determinations. Food, shelter, and 
necessary medical treatment are basic necessities of life. A person who 
needs the public's assistance to provide for these basic necessities is 
not self-sufficient.
    DHS proposes to consider specific public benefit programs as part 
of the public charge inadmissibility analysis. Consistent with the 1999 
Interim Field Guidance, DHS is proposing to consider all federal, 
state, local, and tribal cash assistance for income maintenance as part 
of the public benefits definition. The receipt of these public benefits 
indicates that the recipient, rather than being self-sufficient, needs 
the government's assistance to meet basic living requirements such as 
housing, food, and medical care. Therefore, DHS believes that 
continuing to consider these benefits in the public charge 
inadmissibility consideration is appropriate.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ Not all cash assistance would qualify as cash assistance 
for income maintenance under the proposed rule. For instance, DHS 
would not consider Stafford Act disaster assistance, including 
financial assistance provided to individuals and households under 
Individual Assistance under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Individuals and Households Program (42 U.S.C. 5174) as cash 
assistance for income maintenance. The same would hold true for 
comparable disaster assistance provided by State, local, or tribal 
governments. Other categories of cash assistance that are not 
intended to maintain a person at a minimum level of income would 
similarly not fall within the definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also proposes consideration of certain non-cash benefits, 
because receipt of such benefits is relevant to determining whether an 
alien is self-sufficient. DHS recognizes that the universe of non-cash 
benefits is quite large, and that some benefits are more commonly used, 
at greater taxpayer expense, than others. In addition, incorporating 
specific non-cash benefit programs into the public charge 
inadmissibility determination entails certain indirect costs--for 
instance, as a result of a final rule, the benefits-granting agency may 
make changes to forms or to enrollment or disenrollment procedures. In 
light of these considerations, and to provide consistency in 
adjudications and appropriate certainty for aliens and benefits-
granting agencies, DHS proposes to incorporate consideration of a 
limited list of non-cash benefits in the public charge inadmissibility 
determination context. Specifically, as indicated above, DHS would 
consider the following non-cash benefits: Nonemergency Medicaid, 
Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Part D; the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); benefits provided for 
institutionalization for

[[Page 51160]]

long-term care at government expense; and housing programs, including 
Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate 
Rehabilitation), and Subsidized Public Housing.
    Cash aid and non-cash benefits directed toward food, housing, and 
healthcare account for significant federal expenditure on low-income 
individuals and bear directly on self-sufficiency. Table 10 illustrates 
the estimated average annual public benefits payments and average 
annual benefit for each assistance program under consideration in this 
rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.026

    In addition to federal expenditure impact, participation rates in 
these cash and non-cash benefits programs are significant. In fact, 
participation rates in some non-cash programs are far higher than 
participation rates in some cash programs, regardless of a person's 
immigration status or citizenship. Using the 2014 Panel of the Survey 
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), DHS analyzed data detailing 
the participation rates for various cash and non-cash federal public 
benefits programs.\286\ The results suggest that receipt of non-cash 
public benefits is more prevalent than receipt of cash benefits.\287\ 
When analyzed by nativity and citizenship status, the results also 
suggest comparable levels of program participation by native-born 
individuals, foreign-born individuals, and noncitizens.\288\ DHS 
recognizes that the SIPP Panel includes respondent-provided data on 
nativity, citizenship status, and initial immigration status, but does 
not provide data on current immigration classification. Additionally, 
the categories represented in the SIPP immigration status item do not 
align precisely with the populations covered by this rule--for 
instance, the results include refugees, asylees, and other populations 
that may access public benefits but are not subject to the public 
charge ground of inadmissibility. The SIPP data and DHS's analysis of 
this data do not examine whether the receipt of public benefits was 
authorized, and DHS did not examine program payment rate error 
information

[[Page 51161]]

for this purpose. Notwithstanding these limitations, DHS believes the 
SIPP data on noncitizen participation is instructive with respect to 
the receipt of non-cash benefits by the noncitizen population on the 
whole. DHS welcomes comments on its use of this data, and whether 
alternative reliable data sources are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ For a list of federal expenditures by program, see fiscal 
year 2016 data from table 2 of Gene Falk et al., Cong. Research 
Serv., R45097, Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People 
with Low Income: In Brief (2018), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf.
    \279\ See Table 50: Estimated Average Annual Benefit per Person, 
by Public Benefit Program, unless otherwise noted.
    \280\ Ibid.
    \281\ Note that per enrollee Medicaid costs will vary by 
eligibility group and State.
    \282\ Note that ``Federal Rental Assistance'' includes HUD 
Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance, HUD Section 8 Housing 
Choice Vouchers, HUD Public Housing, HUD Section 202/811, and USDA 
Section 521.
    \283\ Note that spending on LIS beneficiaries varies by 
individual.
    \284\ See U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs. (HHS), Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS), Expenditure Reports from MBES/CBES. 
Available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/finance/state-expenditure-reporting/expenditure-reports/index.html. (Accessed Aug. 
2, 2018).
    \285\ The estimated CHIP enrollment is 6,464,117, which is shown 
in the Medicaid & CHIP Enrollment Data Highlights, available at 
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html (last visited Aug. 
23, 2018).
    \286\ The 2014 Panel represents the most recent full year of 
data, and may not represent current participation rates.
    \287\ The SIPP is a longitudinal survey providing detailed 
information about public benefit receipt and the economic status of 
the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population residing in 
households or group quarters. See U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of 
Income and Program Participation: 2014 Panel Users' Guide (2016), 
available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/sipp//-SIPP-Panel-Users-Guide.pdf. In this proposed rule, 
estimates of income, poverty, and program participation by 
immigration status are produced from the September 27, 2017 re-
release of Wave 1 of the SIPP. See U.S. Census Bureau, Release 
Notes: 2014 SIPP Wave 1, available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/tech-documentation/2014/2014-wave1-releasenotes.pdf. The 2014 Panel may be used for estimates 
representative of any month in calendar year 2013. In the tables 
presenting SIPP data throughout this preamble, annual averages are 
presented, which are averages across the 12 monthly estimates for 
the calendar year. Estimates represent persons residing in the 
household at the time of the interview, and exclude those who lived 
in the household during the month but not at the time of interview 
(referred to as ``Type 2'' people in SIPP documentation). See id.; 
see also Memorandum from James B. Treat, Chief, Demographic 
Statistical Methods Div., to Jason Fields, Survey Director, Source 
and Accuracy Statement for Wave 1 Public Use Files (S&A-20) (Apr. 7, 
2017), available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/tech-documentation/source-accuracy-statements/2014/sipp-2014-source-and-accuracy-statement.pdf [hereinafter Source and Accuracy 
Statement].
    \288\ For this study, the foreign-born include those who were 
not born in the U.S. and were either noncitizens or became citizens 
through naturalization, military service, or adoption. Noncitizens 
are identified by self-responses to the question of whether they are 
citizens of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11 shows public benefit participation, by nativity and 
citizenship status, in 2013. The total population studied was 
310,867,000. The data shows that the rate of receipt for either cash or 
non-cash public benefits was approximately 20 percent among the native-
born and foreign-born, including noncitizens. The rate of receipt of 
cash benefits was only 2 to 4 percent for these populations, with 
receipt of non-cash benefits dominating the overall rate.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ In the discussion of SIPP data in this proposed rule, the 
estimates provided are based on a sample, which may not be identical 
to the totals and rates if all households and group quarters in the 
population were interviewed. The standard errors provided in the 
tables give an indication of the accuracy of the estimates. Any 
estimate for which the estimate divided by its standard error (the 
relative standard error) is greater than 30 percent is considered 
unreliable. The standard errors themselves are estimates, and were 
calculated using design effects described in the Source and Accuracy 
Statement. Participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and 
General Assistance (GA) for a given month is identified by the 
monthly coverage variables for those benefits. These variables 
identify household members who were eligible for the benefit and 
were reported as being covered in the given month. Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid receipt are defined by the 
coverage spell; if a given month is contained in the range of months 
of coverage, then the individual is identified as a recipient of the 
benefit for that month. The rent subsidy benefit for a given month 
indicates the respondent reported that their rent was lower because 
of a federal, state, or local government housing program, and the 
housing voucher benefit furthermore indicates that the renter was 
able to choose where to live. Finally, the 2014 Panel of SIPP does 
not distinguish between Medicaid, CHIP, and other types of 
comprehensive medical assistance for low-income people. For a number 
of reasons, DHS anticipates that CHIP enrollees represent a 
relatively small portion of the ``Medicaid/CHIP'' population. 
Typically, only persons below age 20 are eligible for CHIP, which 
reduces its impact on the overall estimates of Medicaid/CHIP. 
Furthermore, using data from the 2008 Panel of SIPP (Wave 13, 
reference month 1, representing September through December, 2012), 
it was found that 0.7 percent of noncitizen respondents reported 
receiving CHIP, and 23% of noncitizen Medicaid/CHIP recipients below 
age 20 overall reported receiving CHIP. For general reference, see 
the following publications, in addition to the cited sources in the 
preceding footnotes: Carmen DeNavas-Walt & Bernadette D. Proctor, 
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports: Income and Poverty 
in the United States: 2013 (Sept. 2014), available at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demographics/p60-249.pdf; 
Kayla Fontenot et al., U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly and Average 
Monthly Poverty Rates by Selected Demographic Characteristics: 2013 
(Mar. 2017), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p70br-145.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 11 also shows Medicaid participation rates were 16.1 percent 
(43,301,000) among native-born individuals and 15.1 percent (6,272,000) 
among foreign-born persons, while rates among noncitizens were 15.5 
percent (3,130,000). Participation rates in SNAP among native-born, 
foreign-born, and noncitizen populations are 11.6 percent (31,308,000), 
8.7 percent (3,605,000), and 9.1 percent (1,828,000), respectively. The 
rate of receipt of cash benefits was 3.5 percent among the native-born 
and foreign-born, and about 2 percent among noncitizens. Although these 
results do not precisely align with the categories of aliens subject to 
this rule, they support the general proposition that non-cash public 
benefits play a significant role in the Nation's social safety net, 
including with respect to noncitizens generally.

[[Page 51162]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.027

    Table 12 reflects that noncitizens showed comparable rates of 
program participation regardless of whether their status at admission 
to the U.S. was as a lawful permanent resident or not. For example, 
approximately 20 percent of noncitizens who were lawful permanent 
residents at admission to the U.S., as well as noncitizens who were not 
lawful permanent residents at admission, received non-cash benefits, 
and approximately 2 percent of these populations receive cash benefits. 
Among the cash benefits considered, about 1 percent of noncitizens who 
were lawful permanent residents at admission, as well as those who were 
not, received SSI while less than 1 percent received either TANF or 
General Assistance.

[[Page 51163]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.028

    In sum, the data from Tables 11 and 12 show that for native-born 
and foreign-born populations alike, non-cash public benefits play a 
significant role in many peoples' lives. DHS does not believe it is 
appropriate to ignore the receipt of non-cash benefits in its public 
charge inadmissibility analysis. Further, we note that certain non-cash 
benefits, just like cash benefits, provide assistance to those who are 
not self-sufficient. DHS, therefore, proposes to consider cash benefits 
and non-cash public benefits. DHS believes that consideration of cash 
and non-cash benefit receipt represents an appropriately comprehensive 
and also readily administrable application of the public charge ground 
of inadmissibility.
(b) Consideration of Monetizable and Non-Monetizable Public Benefits
    While an alien's receipt of one or more of these benefits alone 
would not establish that he or she is likely at any time in the future 
to become a public charge, as explained above, case law strongly 
suggests that an alien's self-sufficiency, i.e., the alien's ability to 
meet his or her needs without depending on public resources, plays a 
critical role in the outcome of a public charge inadmissibility 
determination.\290\ DHS recognizes the challenges of quantifying or 
qualifying reliance or dependence on public benefits. Indeed, in the 
course of evaluating welfare dependence or dependence on public 
benefits, HHS acknowledges that ``welfare dependence, like poverty, is 
a continuum, with variations in degree and in duration.'' \291\ As 
discussed below, DHS believes that its proposed monetizable, non-
monetizable, and combined standards appropriately capture sufficient 
levels of dependence on public benefits in degree and duration to 
sustain a finding of public charge or likelihood of becoming a public 
charge. In arriving at these thresholds, DHS considered the current 
policy's ``primarily dependent'' standard, other agencies' definitions 
of dependence, and the Federal Poverty Guidelines. DHS notes, as 
discussed elsewhere in the rule, that for admissibility and adjustment 
of status purposes, the receipt of such benefits would be determined on 
a prospective basis, i.e., likely at any time to receive benefits above 
the proposed threshold(s). For extension of stay and change of status 
applicants, the determination regarding the receipt of such benefits 
above the proposed threshold is not exclusively prospective and is 
instead based on whether an alien has received since obtaining the 
nonimmigrant status that the alien seeks to end or from which the alien 
seeks to change, is receiving, or is likely at any time to receive 
benefits above the proposed threshold(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ See, e.g., Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 137 (BIA 1974); Matter of 
Harutunian 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
    \291\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Welfare 
Indicators and Risk Factors, at I-2 (2015), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/welfare-indicators-and-risk-factors-fourteenth-report-congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. ``Primarily Dependent'' Standard and Its Limitations
    The proposed 15 percent of FPG threshold would represent a change 
from the standard set forth in the 1999 INS proposed rule and Interim 
Field Guidance, which generally define a public charge as a person who 
is ``primarily dependent'' on public benefits, i.e., a person for whom 
public benefits represent more than half of their income and support. 
INS stated that the primary dependence model of public assistance 
provided context to the development of public charge exclusion in 
immigration in the late 19th century, because individuals who became 
dependent on the Government were institutionalized in asylums or placed 
in ``almshouses'' for the poor. At the time, the wide array of limited-
purpose public benefits now available did not yet exist. After 
consulting with SSA, HHS, and USDA, INS suggested that the best 
evidence of primary dependence on the government was the receipt of 
cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for

[[Page 51164]]

long-term care at government expense. INS further argued that non-cash 
public benefits generally provide only ``supplementary'' support in the 
form of vouchers or direct services to support nutrition, health, and 
living condition needs.
    The current policy's definition is consistent, in some respects, 
with how other agencies have defined dependence in certain contexts. 
For example, in certain congressional reports, HHS has defined welfare 
dependence as ``the proportion of individuals who receive more than 
half of their total family income in one year from the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and/or the Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) program.'' \292\ The IRS has also defined a qualifying 
dependent child as one who cannot have provided more than half of his 
or her own support for the year and a qualifying dependent relative as 
generally someone who depends on another for more than half of his or 
her total support during the calendar year.\293\ Within the context of 
preparing reports to Congress on welfare dependence or constructing 
certain tax rules, a ``primary dependence'' approach may be 
appropriate. As HHS has noted, ``using a single point--in this case 50 
percent--yields a relatively straightforward measure that can be 
tracked easily over time, and is likely to be associated with any large 
changes in total dependence.'' \294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires HHS to submit 
annual welfare dependence indicators reports to Congress. See U.S. 
Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors 
1 (2018), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/welfare-indicators-and-risk-factors-seventeenth-report-congress.
    \293\ See IRS Publication 501 (Jan. 2, 2018), available at 
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf.
    \294\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Welfare 
Indicators and Risk Factors, at I-2 (2015), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/welfare-indicators-and-risk-factors-fourteenth-report-congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS agrees with HHS that although a 50 percent threshold creates a 
bright line that may be useful for certain purposes, it is possible and 
likely probable that individuals below such threshold will lack self-
sufficiency and be dependent on the public for support. Because of the 
nature of the public benefits that would be considered under this 
rule--which are generally means-tested and provide cash for income 
maintenance and for basic living needs such as food, medical care, and 
housing--DHS believes that receipt of such benefits even in a 
relatively small amount or for a relatively short duration would in 
many cases be sufficient to render a person a public charge. This is 
because a person with limited means to satisfy basic living needs who 
uses government assistance to fulfill such needs frequently will be 
dependent on such assistance to such an extent that the person is not 
self-sufficient.
    In addition, as noted above, DHS considers the current policy's 
focus on cash benefits to be insufficiently protective of the public 
budget, particularly in light of significant public expenditures on 
non-cash benefits. Therefore, the DHS proposal takes into account a 
finite list of non-cash benefits, including some that can be monetized 
and some that cannot. DHS proposes to apply the aforementioned 15 
percent threshold for the cumulative value of benefits only to the 
former, and to apply a standard tied to the duration of receipt of 
public benefits to the latter, as discussed in more detail below.
    In sum, DHS does not believe that the plain text of section 
212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), requires an alien to be 
``primarily'' (50 percent or more) dependent on the government or rely 
on only cash assistance to be considered a public charge. Nor does DHS 
believe that such limitations are mandated by the principles of PRWORA 
or the century-plus of case law regarding the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility. As discussed above, the term public charge is 
ambiguous as to how much government assistance an individual must 
receive or the type of assistance an individual must receive to be 
considered a public charge. The statute and case law do not prescribe 
the degree to which an alien must be receiving public benefits to be 
considered a public charge. Given that neither the statute nor the case 
law prescribe the degree to which an alien must be dependent on public 
benefits to be considered a public charge, DHS has determined that it 
is permissible and reasonable to propose a different approach.
ii. Fifteen Percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) Standard for 
Monetizable Benefits
    DHS proposes to consider receipt of monetizable public benefits as 
listed in 8 CFR 212.21(b)(1), where the cumulative value of one or more 
of the listed benefits exceeds 15 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines (FPG) for a household of one within any period of 12 
consecutive months, based on the per-month average FPG for the months 
during which the benefits are received. This proposed threshold is most 
straightforward to calculate within the context of a 12-month period 
that spans a single calendar year (January through December). For 
example, this 15 percent of FPG threshold would exclude up to $1,821 
worth of monetizable public benefits for a household of one if the 
monetizable public benefits are received from January 2018 through 
December 2018.\295\ On the other hand, the threshold requires a 
slightly more complex calculation when evaluating 12 consecutive months 
spanning two calendar years. To illustrate, an alien receives 
monetizable public benefits between April 2017 and March 2018. DHS 
would compare the amount received for the 12 consecutive month period 
against 15 percent of FPG applicable to each month in question. Fifteen 
percent of FPG is $150.75 per month for April through December 2017 and 
$151.75 per month for January through March 2018 based on the 
respective poverty guidelines in effect for calendar years 2017 and 
2018, which would equal $1,812 for this 12 month consecutive period. In 
evaluating likely receipt of future monetizable public benefits, DHS 
would use the FPG in effect on the date of adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ The calculation is an FPG of $12,140 for a household of 
one, multiplied by 0.15. See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 
HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2018, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited Feb. 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In formulating this 15 percent of FPG threshold, DHS proposes to 
use FPG as the baseline for the percentage of monetizable public 
benefits receipt being considered in the totality of the circumstances 
because the poverty guidelines are authoritative and transparent. The 
poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the Census Bureau's 
poverty thresholds, which Census uses to prepare its estimates of the 
number of individuals and families in poverty.\296\ HHS updates and 
adjusts the FPG annually based on the Consumer Price Index for All 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U).\297\ As HHS notes, a number of federal 
programs use the poverty guidelines as an eligibility criterion.\298\ 
``Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines 
(for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines)'' to 
determine public benefit eligibility.\299\ In the immigration context, 
DHS uses the FPG as a standard for purposes of the affidavit of support 
requirement under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C.

[[Page 51165]]

1183a.\300\ DOS also uses FPG to evaluate immigrant visa applicants who 
are not subject to the requirements of 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, 
and who are relying solely on personal income to establish eligibility 
under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.\301\ The poverty 
guidelines thus provides a proven, useful, and easily administrable 
measure of the level of income and resources below which a person 
becomes increasingly likely to need public benefits to satisfy basic 
living (and other) needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 
2642 (Jan. 18, 2018).
    \297\ See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 
2642 (Jan. 18, 2018).
    \298\ See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 
2642 (Jan. 18, 2018).
    \299\ See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 
2642 (Jan. 18, 2018).
    \300\ See INA section 213A(f)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)(1)(E).
    \301\ See 22 CFR 40.41(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS believes that the 15 percent threshold is a reasonable 
approach. The threshold would not lead to unintended consequences, as 
could be the case if there was no threshold or the threshold was much 
smaller. Indeed, DHS recognizes that individuals may receive public 
benefits for in relatively small amounts to supplement their ability to 
meet their needs and the needs of their household without seriously 
calling into question their self-sufficiency.
    At the same time, DHS believes that an individual who receives 
monetizable public benefits in excess of 15 percent of FPG is neither 
self-sufficient nor on the road to achieving self-sufficiency. Receipt 
of monetizable public benefits above the 15 percent threshold exceeds 
what could reasonably be defined as a nominal level of support that 
merely supplements an alien's independent ability to meet his or her 
basic living needs; individuals who receive the designated benefits in 
such an amount are not self-sufficient and so would be considered 
public charges under this rule.
    DHS believes the proposed 15 percent threshold is consistent with 
DHS's interpretation of the term public charge and would achieve the 
policy aims of this proposed rulemaking. The proposed threshold is 
consistent with the self-sufficiency policy objective set forth in 
PRWORA that aliens should be able to financially support themselves 
with their own resources or by relying on the aid of family members, 
without depending on government's assistance.\302\ Though not defined 
in PRWORA, self-sufficiency, as used in PRWORA, is tied to an alien's 
ability to support him or herself without depending on public 
benefits.\303\ DHS seeks public comments on whether the proposed 15 
percent threshold applicable to monetizable public benefits is an 
appropriate threshold in light of the stated goals of the rule. For 
instance, DHS welcomes the submission of views and data regarding 
whether the proposed standard is appropriate, too low, or too high for 
assessing reliance on public benefits (and why), and whether there is a 
more appropriate basis for a monetizable threshold, other than value as 
a percentage of the FPG or duration of receipt, that indicates whether 
an alien is a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \302\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(a)(2).
    \303\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also seeks public comments on whether DHS should consider the 
receipt of designated monetizable public benefits at or below the 15 
percent threshold as evidence in the totality of the circumstances. For 
instance, DHS could revise the rule to allow adjudicators to assign 
some weight to past or current receipt of designated monetized public 
benefits in an amount equal to 10 percent of FPG, and less weight to 
past or current receipt of such benefits in an amount equal to 5 
percent of FPG. The ultimate inquiry would remain whether the alien is 
likely in the totality of the circumstances to become a public charge, 
i.e., to receive the designated public benefits above the applicable 
threshold(s), either in terms of dollar value or duration of receipt.
iii. Twelve Month Standard for Non-Monetizable Benefits
    In addition to proposing a 15 percent threshold for assessing the 
alien's likelihood to remain or become self-sufficient in the context 
of receipt of monetizable public benefits (e.g., cash assistance and 
SNAP), DHS is proposing to consider the receipt of certain non-
monetizable public benefits (e.g., Medicaid) if received for more than 
12 cumulative months during a 36-month period. As indicated above, DHS 
believes that it is appropriate to expand the list of previously 
included public benefits (under the 1999 INS Interim Field Guidance) to 
include certain non-cash benefits based on the Federal government's 
expenditures and non-citizen participation rates in those programs. 
However, following consultation with interagency partners such as HHS 
and HUD, DHS lacks an easily administrable standard for assessing the 
monetary value of an alien's receipt of some non-cash benefits. DHS 
believes that, like the 15 percent of FPG threshold described above, 
the duration of the alien's receipt of these benefits over a period of 
time is also reasonable proxy for assessing an alien's reliance on 
public benefits.
    The duration of receipt is a relevant factor under the existing 
guidance with respect to covered benefits and is specifically accounted 
for in the guidance's inclusion of long-term institutionalization at 
government's expense.\304\ Additionally, in the context of both state 
welfare reform efforts and the 1990s Federal welfare reform, Federal 
government and state governments imposed various limits on the duration 
of benefit receipt as an effort to foster self-sufficiency among 
recipients and prevent long-term or indefinite dependence. States have 
developed widely varying approaches to time limits. Currently, 40 
states have time limits that can result in the termination of families' 
welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 
months.\305\ Similarly, on the Federal level, PRWORA established a 60-
month time limit on the receipt of TANF.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ In assessing the probative value of past receipt of public 
benefits, ``the length of time . . . is a significant factor.'' 64 
FR 28689, 28690 (May 26, 1999) (internal quotation marks and 
citation omitted).
    \305\ See, e.g., MDRC, formerly Manpower Demonstration Research 
Corporation, Welfare Time Limits State Policies, Implementation, and 
Effects on Families. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_607.pdf (last visited Sep. 12, 2018).
    \306\ See Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program 
(TANF), Final Rule; 64 FR 17720, 17723 (Apr. 12, 1999) (``The 
[Welfare to Work (WtW)] provisions in this rule include the 
amendments to the TANF provisions at sections 5001(d) and 5001(g)(1) 
of Pub. L. 105-33. Section 5001(d) allows a State to provide WtW 
assistance to a family that has received 60 months of federally 
funded TANF assistance . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the proposed 15 percent of FPG standard, DHS believes that 
an individual who receives monetizable public benefits for more than 12 
cumulative months during a 36-month period is neither self-sufficient 
nor on the road to achieving self-sufficiency. Receipt of public 
benefits for such a duration exceeds what could reasonably be defined 
as a nominal level of support that merely supplements an alien's 
independent ability to meet his or basic living needs. In DHS's view, 
individuals who receive the non-monetizable public benefits covered by 
this rule for more than 12 months are unable to meet their basic needs 
without government help; they therefore are not self-sufficient and so 
would be considered public charges under this rule.
    By way of illustration, under the proposed policy, an alien's 
receipt of Medicaid for 9 months and receipt of public housing for 6 
months, if both occurred within the same 36-month period, would amount 
to 15 months of receipt of non-monetizable benefits, regardless of 
whether these periods of time overlapped, were consecutive, or occurred 
at different points in time during the 36-month period. As such, the 
receipt of those benefits would be considered for purposes of this 
rule.

[[Page 51166]]

    DHS seeks public comments on this proposed approach, including any 
alternatives for assessing self-sufficiency based on the receipt of 
non-monetizable benefits. DHS seeks public comments on whether the 
proposed 12-month threshold applicable to non-monetizable public 
benefits is an appropriate threshold in light of the stated goals of 
the rule. For instance, DHS welcomes the submission of views and data 
regarding whether the proposed standard is appropriate, too low, or too 
high for assessing reliance on public benefits (and why), and whether 
there is a more appropriate basis for a non-monetizable threshold, 
other than duration of receipt, that indicates whether an alien is a 
public charge.
    DHS also seeks public comments on whether DHS should consider the 
receipt of one or more designated non-monetizable public benefits for 
any period less of than 12 months in the aggregate as part of the 
public charge inadmissibility determination. For instance, similar to 
the potential alternative described in the call for comment in the 
preceding section, DHS could revise the rule to allow adjudicators to 
assign some weight to past or current receipt of 2 designated non-
monetized benefits for a total of 8 months, and less weight to past or 
current receipt of such benefits for a total of 4 months. The ultimate 
inquiry would remain whether the alien is likely in the totality of the 
circumstances to become a public charge, i.e., to receive the 
designated public benefits above the applicable threshold(s), either in 
terms of dollar value or duration of receipt.
    DHS is also considering whether there are other potential 
approaches to monetizing these benefits, and seeks comments on any such 
alternatives. In addition, DHS seeks comments on the proposed 
timeframes, including, if applicable, any studies or data that would 
provide a basis for an alternative duration.
iv. Combination of Monetizable Benefits Under 15 Percent of FPG and One 
or More Non-Monetizable Benefits
    DHS is proposing a separate approach when an alien receives a 
combination of monetizable benefits in an amount that is equal to or 
less than the proposed 15 percent threshold while also receiving one or 
more non-monetizable public benefits. This approach is intended to 
address circumstances where an alien's self-sufficiency is in question 
by virtue of a combination of receipt of both monetizable and non-
monetizable benefits, even if his or her receipt of monetizable 
designated public benefits does not reach the 15 percent threshold and 
his or her receipt of non-monetizable benefits does not surpass the 12-
month duration threshold. Under this proposal, if an alien receives a 
combination of monetizable benefits equal to or below the 15 percent 
threshold together with one or more benefits that cannot be monetized, 
the threshold for duration of receipt of the non-monetizable benefits 
would be 9 months in the aggregate (rather than 12 months) within a 36-
month period (e.g, receipt of two different non-monetizable benefits in 
one month counts as two months, as would receipt of one non-monetizable 
benefit for one month in January 2018 and another such benefit for one 
month in June 2018).
    DHS believes that reducing the 12-month timeframe by 3 months to 
account for use of monetizable benefits is a reasonable and easily 
administrable guideline for determining whether an individual who 
receives both monetizable and non-monetizable public benefits is self-
sufficient or on the road to achieving self-sufficiency. In line with 
the other thresholds described above, receipt of a designated non-
monetizable public benefits for three-quarters of a year, compounded by 
receipt of a designated monetizable public benefit, exceeds what could 
reasonably be defined as a nominal level of support that merely 
supplements an alien's independent ability to meet his or basic living 
needs. In DHS's view, individuals who receive public benefits in these 
combinations are unable to meet their basic needs without government 
help, consequently are not self-sufficient, and therefore would be 
considered public charges under this rule.
    DHS seeks public comments on this approach, including any 
alternatives for addressing receipt of a combination of public 
benefits, some of which can be monetized and others which cannot to 
ensure a consistent methodology for treating recipients of these two 
types of benefits.
(c) Monetizable Public Benefits
i. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    SSI, which is monetizable public benefit, provides monthly income 
payments intended to help ensure that a disabled, blind, or aged person 
with limited income and resources has a minimum level of income.\307\ 
Unlike Social Security retirement benefits, which are financed through 
payroll taxes, SSI is financed by general revenues.\308\ According to 
one analysis, SSI expenditures totaled approximately $54.7 billion in 
fiscal year 2017, and represented one of the largest Federal 
expenditures for low-income people.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ See U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., Social Security Handbook, Ch. 
21, section 2102.1, available at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home%2Fhandbook/handbook.21/handbook-2102.html (last updated Feb. 
24, 2009); U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., Social Security, Understanding 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Overview--2018 Edition, available 
at https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-over-ussi.htm (last visited July 27, 
2018).
    \308\ See U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., Office of Research, Statistics, 
& Policy Analysis, Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income 
Program 46 tbl.IV.B9, 47 tbl.IV.C1 (2017), available at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI17/ssi2017.pdf (last visited July 31, 
2018); see also U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., Office of Research, 
Statistics, & Policy Analysis, SSI Monthly Statistics, January 2018, 
available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_monthly/2018-01/table01.html (last visited July 31, 2018).
    \309\ See Gene Falk et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45097, 
Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low 
Income: In Brief (2018), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) \310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ See 42 U.S.C. 601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TANF, which is a monetizable public benefit, provides monthly 
income assistance payments to low-income families and is intended to 
foster self-sufficiency, economic security, and stability for families 
with children.\311\ According to one analysis, TANF cash assistance 
expenditures totaled approximately $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2016, 
and represented one of the largest Federal expenditures out of all 
Federal programs for low-income people.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Admin. for 
Children & Families, Office of Family Assistance, About TANF, 
available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/tanf/about (last 
visited February 23, 2018); U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 
Admin. for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, TANF 
12th Report to Congress.
    \312\ See Gene Falk et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45097, 
Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low 
Income: In Brief (2018), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf; U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of Family 
Assistance. TANF Financial Data--FY 2016, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2016 (last 
visited June 11, 2018). Note that the latter link shows fiscal year 
2016 TANF financial data, but links to financial data for other 
fiscal years can also be accessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. General Assistance Cash Benefits
    Federal, State, local, and tribal cash benefit programs for income 
maintenance (often called ``General Assistance'' in the State context, 
but sometimes given other names), is a term used to describe ``aid 
provided by State and local governments to needy individuals or 
families who do not qualify for major assistance programs and to those 
whose benefits from other

[[Page 51167]]

assistance programs are insufficient to meet basic needs. General 
assistance is often the only resource for individuals who cannot 
qualify for unemployment insurance, or whose benefits are inadequate or 
exhausted. Help may either be in cash or in kind, including such 
assistance as groceries and rent.'' \313\ To the extent that such aid 
is in the form of cash, check, or money instrument (as compared to in-
kind goods or services through vouchers and similar means) and intended 
for income maintenance, it would qualify as a cash public benefit under 
this rule. For example, in Minnesota, the ``General Assistance (GA) 
program helps people without children pay for basic needs. It provides 
money to people who can[no]t work enough to support themselves, and 
whose income and resources are very low.'' \314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ See U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., Social Security Programs in the 
United States--General Assistance, available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/sspus/genasist.pdf (last visited June 24, 
2018).
    \314\ See Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., General Assistance (GA), 
available at https://mn.gov/dhs/people-we-serve/adults/economic-assistance/income/programs-and-services/ga.jsp (last visited June 
24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
    DHS proposes to consider SNAP \315\ benefits, because the program 
is among the largest Federal expenditures for low-income people, and 
because receipt of SNAP benefits indicates a lack of self-sufficiency 
in satisfying a basic living need, i.e., food and nutrition. SNAP, 
which is a non-cash, monetizable public benefit, provides nutrition 
assistance to low-income individuals and households \316\ who must meet 
certain income and resource limitations to be eligible. An eligible 
person or household receives SNAP benefits on an Electronic Benefit 
Transfer (EBT) card on which the dollar amount of benefits are 
automatically available each month. The household can then purchase 
eligible food at authorized retail food stores.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ Formerly called ``Food Stamps.'' See 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036c.
    \316\ See USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap 
(last visited Feb. 24, 2018).
    \317\ The listing of SNAP would not include Disaster SNAP, which 
is provided under a separate legal authority, under different 
circumstances. See 42 U.S.C. 5179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Housing Programs
    DHS is also proposing to include certain high-expenditure housing-
related benefits. As noted in Table 10 above, the Federal government 
expends significant resources on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, 
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing. These 
programs impose a significant expense upon multiple levels of 
government, and because these benefits relate to a basic living need 
(i.e., shelter), receipt of these benefits suggests a lack of self-
sufficiency. At the same time, DHS recognizes that these programs do 
not involve the same level of expenditure as the other programs listed 
in this proposed rule, and that noncitizen participation in these 
programs is currently relatively low.\318\ DHS nonetheless proposes to 
consider these programs as part of public charge determinations, for 
the above-stated reasons and because the total Federal expenditure for 
the programs overall remains significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ An analysis of Wave 13 of the 2008 Panel of the Survey of 
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) suggests that 0.2% of 
noncitizens lived in Section 8 housing, while 0.4% lived in housing 
subsidized through some other government program. Similarly, 0.7 
percent of noncitizens reported receiving CHIP benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also numerous programs that provide incentives for 
private-sector affordable housing preservation and development.\319\ 
The Housing Act of 1961 \320\ provides housing to low- and moderate-
income households through the private sector.\321\ U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees and administers the 
various programs. There are various programs within the public housing 
program which provide payment for rent or housing either to the person 
or the housing unit or owner on behalf of the person (privately owned 
subsidized housing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ See Public Law 86-372, 73 Stat. 654. See also Maggie 
McCarty et al., Cong. Research Serv., RL34591, Overview of Federal 
Housing Assistance Programs and Policy 3 (2014), available at 
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=752738.
    \320\ See Public Law 87-70, 75 Stat. 149.
    \321\ See Maggie McCarty et al., Cong. Research Serv., RL34591, 
Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy 4 (2014), 
available at https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=752738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These programs provide low-income individuals and families with 
housing at below-market rent or rent subsidies for market-rate housing. 
While there are important variations between these programs, they all 
use the same or similar standard when establishing income eligibility 
and contribution towards rent. Specific to aliens, DHS notes that 
Section 214 of the HCD Act of 1980 requires that HUD may not make 
financial assistance available for the benefit of any alien, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless that alien is a 
resident of the United States and fits into one of the clearly 
enumerated 7 categories.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ See section 214 of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 1436a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
    The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program,\323\ which is a non-
cash public benefit that can be monetized, provides assistance to very 
low-income families to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing.\324\ 
The Housing Choice Vouchers are administered locally by Public Housing 
Agencies. The participant is responsible for finding their own suitable 
housing unit, where the owner agrees to rent under the program. Once an 
owner has been identified, the public housing agency enters into a 
housing assistance payment contract with the landlord. The PHA pays the 
landlord housing subsidies based on a payment standard established by 
HUD and the participant is responsible for paying the difference 
between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the 
program.\325\ Under certain circumstances, housing vouchers may also be 
used to purchase homes.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ See 24 CFR part 982; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 1437u.
    \324\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Housing Choice 
Vouchers Fact Sheet, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 (last visited Feb. 24, 
2018).
    \325\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Housing Choice 
Vouchers Fact Sheet, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 (last visited Feb. 24, 
2018).
    \326\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Housing Choice 
Vouchers Fact Sheet, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 (last visited July 11, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
    The Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Program (including 
Moderate Rehabilitation), which is a non-cash but monetizable public 
benefit, provides rental assistance for extremely low- to low-income 
households in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing in private 
accommodations.\327\ This program refers to a category of federally 
assisted housing produced through a public-private partnership to build 
and maintain affordable rental housing for low-income households. HUD 
provides subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing to lower 
rental costs for low-income families and help offset construction, 
rehabilitation, and

[[Page 51168]]

preservation costs. The rental assistance is the difference between 
what the household can afford and the approved rent for the housing 
unit in the multifamily project. Authority to use project-based rental 
assistance for new construction or substantial rehabilitation was 
repealed in 1983. Therefore, HUD renews Section 8 project-based housing 
assistance payments (``HAP'') contracts for units already assisted with 
project-based Section 8 renewal assistance. \328\ The contracts are 
with private owners of multifamily rental housing including both 
profit-motivated and nonprofit or cooperative organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Moderate 
Rehabilitation, available at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/modrehab (last visited July 3, 
2018).
    \328\ U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., Moderate 
Rehabilitation, available at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/modrehab (last visited July 3, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Non-Monetizable Public Benefits
i. Medicaid
a. Description of Program
    Medicaid, which is a non-cash, non-monetizable public benefit, is a 
joint Federal and state program that provides health coverage to 
individuals in the United States.\329\ Medicaid is generally available 
to needy persons who meet specific income and resource requirements. 
Certain individuals are generally covered under Medicaid, including 
low-income families, qualified pregnant women and children, and people 
already receiving SSI.\330\ In addition, a State may opt to cover other 
groups.\331\ Medicaid provides continuous coverage, services, and 
funding for medical treatment and can impose substantial costs on 
multiple levels of government, and a person's participation generally 
indicates a lack of ability to be self-sufficient in satisfying a basic 
living need, i.e., medical care. As indicated in Table 10 above, the 
total Federal expenditure for the Medicaid program overall is larger by 
far than any other programmatic Federal expenditure for low-income 
people.\332\ Table 13 below highlights average costs per enrollee by 
eligibility group as a percentage of FPG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Eligibility, 
available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html (last visited Feb. 23, 2018).
    \330\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Eligibility, 
available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html (last visited Feb. 23, 2018).
    \331\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Eligibility, 
available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html (last visited Feb. 23, 2018).
    \332\ See Table 26-1 Policy, Net Budget Authority by Function, 
Category, and Program, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/26-1-fy2019.pdf (last visited Aug. 8, 2018). 
Expenditure amounts are net outlays unless otherwise noted. See also 
Gene Falk et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45097, Federal Spending on 
Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief (2018), 
available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf. Note however 
that neither HHS nor DHS are able to disaggregate emergency and non-
emergency Medicaid expenditures. Therefore, this rule considers 
overall Medicaid expenditures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.029

    On the whole, Medicaid expenditures per enrollee by enrollment 
group are significant and are particularly pronounced among persons 
with disabilities and the aged. In its 2016 report, HHS observes that 
these average costs reflect the relatively healthier status of children 
and adults enrolled in the program as compared to aged

[[Page 51169]]

enrollees and persons with disabilities, who represent the smallest 
enrollment groups in Medicaid but account for the majority of 
expenditures.\333\ Despite the high level of Medicaid expenditure in 
aggregate and per enrollee by enrollment group, Medicaid is one of the 
most daunting public benefits to monetize on an individual basis. 
Medicaid eligibility, enrollment, and receipt vary state-by-state and 
receipt of goods and services vary enrollee-to-enrollee. Therefore, DHS 
does not propose a methodology to monetize Medicaid benefits for 
purposes of the 15 percent of FPG standard. Rather, DHS Medicaid would 
be categorized as a non-monetizable benefit under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ See United States Department of Health & Human Services, 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, 
2016 Actuarial Reports on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid, pp. 7-
8, at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/MedicaidReport2016.pdf. (Site 
last checked 9-11-2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Exceptions for Certain Medicaid Services
    Notwithstanding DHS's proposal to consider benefits under Medicaid, 
DHS proposes to exclude two main types of Medicaid services from 
consideration. First, DHS proposes to except consideration of 
assistance for an ``emergency medical condition'' as provided under 
section 1903(v) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1396b(v) and in implementing regulations at 42 CFR 440.255(c). These 
provisions specifically indicate that payment may be made to a State 
for medical assistance furnished to an alien under certain specific 
emergency circumstances.\334\ Under 42 CFR 440.255(c), `` `emergency 
medical condition' means a medical condition (including emergency labor 
and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient 
severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate 
medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the 
patient's health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily 
functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.'' States 
determine whether an illness or injury is an ``emergency medical 
condition'' and provide payment to the healthcare provider as 
appropriate. Under this proposed rule, DHS would exclude receipt of 
Medicaid if the State determines that the relevant treatment falls 
under 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v) and 42 CFR 440.255(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ See 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v); 42 CFR 440.255(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 8 U.S.C. 1611(b), Congress specifically excluded emergency 
medical conditions from the definition of Federal public benefits, and 
States are required to provide Medicaid payments for ``emergency 
medical conditions'' regardless of the alien's status. PRWORA sets 
apart treatment for emergency medical conditions and makes funds 
available for the reimbursement of states regardless of an alien's 
immigration status, and regardless of whether or not an alien would be 
subject to INA section 212(a)(4) or other grounds of 
inadmissibility.\335\ Congress intended that PRWORA exceptions 
generally, and treatment of emergency medical conditions in particular, 
be narrowly construed. To qualify for emergency medical condition 
exclusion, medical conditions must be of an emergency nature, such as 
medical treatment administered in an emergency room, critical care 
unit, or intensive care unit. The same principle applies to pre-natal 
or delivery care assistance; it was intended to be of emergency nature. 
Similarly, treatment for mental health disorders was intended to be 
limited to circumstances in which the alien's condition is such that he 
is a danger to himself or to others and has therefore been judged 
incompetent by a court of appropriate jurisdiction.\336\ Over the years 
since the enactment of PRWORA, courts have refined the definition of 
emergency medical condition. Depending on the state, and the medical 
condition, categorization as an ``emergency medical condition'' for 
purposes of Medicaid reimbursement may not be limited to hospital 
emergency room visits. For example, in Szewczyk v. Department of Social 
Services,\337\ the Supreme Court of Connecticut indicated that coverage 
for an ``emergency medical condition'' did not limit an alien patient 
to treatment rendered in the emergency room, but applied to treatment 
for leukemia that had ``reached a crisis stage'' and required 
``immediate medical treatment, without which the patient's physical 
well-being would likely be put in jeopardy or serious physical 
impairment or dysfunction would result.'' However, in Diaz v. Division 
of Social Services and Div. of Medical Assistance, North Carolina Dept. 
of Health and Human Services,\338\ the Supreme Court of North Carolina 
indicated that an alien's acute lymphocytic leukemia was not an 
``emergency medical condition'' where there was is nothing to indicate 
that the prolonged chemotherapy treatments must have been ``immediate'' 
to prevent placing the alien's health in serious jeopardy, or causing 
serious impairment or dysfunction.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \335\ H.R. Rep. No. 104-469 (VI), at 263-64 (1996) (``This 
section provides that sections 601 and 602 shall not apply to the 
provision of emergency medical services, public health 
immunizations, short-term emergency relief, school lunch programs, 
child nutrition programs, and family violence services. Section 601 
restricted unauthorized aliens from receiving public assistance, 
contracts, and licenses, and section 602 made unauthorized aliens 
ineligible for employment benefits.'')
    \336\ H.R. Rept. 104-469 (VI), at 264-65 (1996). This report 
also discusses treatment of communicable diseases and indicates that 
such treatment is intended ``to only apply where absolutely 
necessary to prevent the spread of such diseases. This is only a 
short term measure until the deportation of an alien who is 
unlawfully present in the U.S. It is not intended to provide 
authority for continued long-term treatment of such diseases as a 
means for illegal aliens to delay their removal from the country.''
    \337\ See 881 A.2d 259, 273 (Conn. 2005) (quoting Greenery 
Rehab. Grp., Inc. v. Hammon, 150 F.3d 226, 233 (2d Cir.1998)).
    \338\ See 628 S.E.2d 1, 5 (N.C. 2006).
    \339\ See also Greenery Rehab. Grp., Inc. v. Hammon, 150 F.3d 
226, 233 (2d Cir. 1998) (aliens who suffered serious traumatic head 
injuries initially satisfied the plain meaning of Sec. 1902(v)(3), 
but the continuous and regimented care subsequently provided to them 
did not constitute emergency medical treatment pursuant to the 
statute); Luna ex rel. Johnson v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 589 S.E.2d 
917, 920 (N.C. 2004) (the absence of the continued medical services 
could be expected to result in one of the three consequences 
outlined in the Medicaid statute for cancer patient that underwent 
surgery after presenting at hospital's emergency room with weakness 
and numbness in the lower extremities); Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. 
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 75 P.3d 91, 98 
(Ariz. 2003) (medical conditions had not ceased when patients' 
conditions had been stabilized and they had been transferred from an 
acute ward to a rehabilitative type ward after initial injury); 
Spring Creek Mgmt., L.P. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 45 A.3d 474, 483-
84 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012) (alien's condition as result of stroke, 
which had sent her to emergency room, was not ``emergency medical 
condition'' when alien received medical services from rehabilitation 
and health care center even though alien could eventually, suffer 
another stroke or other medical problem; coverage was not being 
sought for an acute condition, but for long term or open-ended 
nursing care); Quiceno v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 728 A.2d 553, 554 
(Conn. Super. Ct. 1999) (permanent dialysis treatment was not for 
``emergency medical condition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DHS believes that preservation of life from an 
immediate threat is an important policy consideration. ``Emergency 
medical services'' are often involuntary and must be provided by 
doctors and hospitals regardless of the ability to pay,\340\ such as 
medical services at a hospital after a car accident. Further, Congress 
did not authorize any consideration of an alien's immigration status 
for purposes of eligibility for these benefits or to allow for 
continuous services/treatment relating to them. Therefore, DHS will not 
consider treatment for emergency medical

[[Page 51170]]

conditions funded by Medicaid in the context of a public charge 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ See Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 
U.S. Code 1395dd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second proposed exclusion is for services or benefits under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) \341\ and school-
based benefits provided to children who are at or below the oldest age 
of children eligible for secondary education as determined under State 
law. The IDEA protects educational opportunities for all students with 
disabilities and requires schools to provide certain services to all 
children with disabilities. States and school districts may bill and 
receive reimbursement for the cost of providing special education and 
health care related services from a State's public insurance program 
(e.g., Medicaid). Benefits or services under these laws generally are 
not based on income eligibility, and where a reimbursement is 
available, it is provided to the school or eligible entity. For 
example, under the statutory framework created by Congress for Part B 
of IDEA, school districts, in meeting their obligation to make a free 
appropriate public education available to all children with 
disabilities, may receive reimbursement for the cost of providing 
special education and related services if parents provide consent for 
the school districts to release their personally identifiable 
information to a State public insurance program (e.g., Medicaid) for 
billing purposes. Subject to parental consent, schools, and not 
individual parents or students, may obtain reimbursement for the cost 
of providing certain health-related services included in a child's 
individualized education program (IEP) that are considered covered 
services under such subsidized health insurance programs. The IDEA 
provides in 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(12)(B) that, when a non-educational 
public agency, such as a State Medicaid agency, is assigned 
responsibility under State or Federal law to provide or pay for any 
services that are also considered special education and related 
services, the financial responsibility of the State Medicaid agency or 
other public insurer of children with disabilities must precede that of 
the LEA or State agency responsible for developing a child's IEP. Also, 
20 U.S.C. 1412(e) reinforces that Part B of the IDEA may not be 
construed to permit a State to reduce medical or other assistance 
available, or to alter eligibility, under the Social Security Act. 
There are no restrictions on how school districts and schools are 
permitted to spend any funds that Medicaid or other public insurance 
program reimburses for the provision of IDEA services. By excluding 
services provided under IDEA that may be funded in whole or in part by 
Medicaid, DHS would better ensure that schools continue to receive 
financial resources to cover the cost of special education and related 
services, which they would be legally required to provide at no cost to 
the parents regardless of the outcome of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ See 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Exception for Receipt of Medicaid by Foreign-Born Children of U.S. 
Citizens
    DHS proposes to exclude consideration of the receipt of all 
Medicaid benefits by foreign-born children as defined in section 101(c) 
of the Act who either have U.S. citizen parents, who have been adopted 
by U.S. citizens, or who are coming to the United States to be adopted 
by U.S. citizens, where such children will automatically acquire U.S. 
citizenship under section 320 of the Act or be eligible to naturalize 
under section 322 of the Act upon or after being admitted to the United 
States. In some cases, these children will acquire citizenship upon 
finalization of their adoption in the United States, under section 320 
of the Act, or the children will naturalize upon taking the Oath of 
Allegiance (or having it waived) under section 322 of the Act. In other 
cases, the children will acquire citizenship upon taking up residence 
in United States in the legal and physical custody of their U.S. 
citizen parent as a lawful permanent resident.
    Alien children of U.S. citizens, who must first establish 
eligibility for admission, are subject to section 212(a)(4) even though 
they may automatically acquire U.S. citizenship upon taking up 
residence in the United States after admission as lawful permanent 
residents.\342\ Children of U.S. citizens eligible for acquisition of 
citizenship under section 320 of the Act, however, are exempt from the 
affidavit of support requirement.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ Note that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents may 
also acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under certain circumstances, 
such as where both parents are U.S. citizens and one parent had 
resided in the United States prior to the child's birth, or where 
one parent is a U.S. citizen who was physically present in the 
United States for at least five years, two of which were after age 
14. Such children would enter the United States as U.S. citizens and 
would not be subject to an admissibility determination. See INA 
sections 301 and 309, 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 1409. DOS would issue a 
Consular Report of Birth Abroad upon request. See Dep't of State, 
Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html (last visited Aug. 28, 2018).
    \343\ See Child Citizenship Act, Public Law 106-395, 114 Stat. 
1631 (Oct. 30, 2000); 8 CFR 213a.2(a)(2)(ii)(E). Stepchildren of 
U.S. citizens are not eligible for acquisition of citizenship under 
section 320 of the Act or naturalization under section 322 of the 
Act unless the child is adopted by the U.S. citizen step-parent. See 
INA section 101(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Children of U.S. citizens, including those adopted abroad, 
typically receive one of several types of immigrant visas as listed 
below and are admitted to the United States as lawful permanent 
residents. Such children may become U.S. citizens (1) automatically, 
(2) following their admission to the United States and upon the 
finalization of their adoption, or (3) upon meeting other eligibility 
criteria.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ International adoptions vary depending on the laws of the 
country of origin, the laws of the U.S. state of residence, and 
multiple other factors. In the majority of cases, adoptions are 
finalized in the country of origin before the child enters the 
United States and the child automatically acquires U.S. citizenship. 
A minority of children whose adoptions are not finalized until after 
their admission do not automatically acquire citizenship after 
admission, but may acquire it upon being readopted, and are eligible 
to naturalize after they have been finally adopted in the United 
States or had the foreign adoption recognized by the state where 
they are permanently residing. See U.S. Dep't of State, 2017 Annual 
Report on Intercountry Adoptions, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/NEWadoptionassets/pdfs/Annual%20Report%20on%20Intercountry%20Adoptions%20FY2017%20(release%2
0date%20March%2023%2020.._.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following categories of children acquire citizenship upon 
admission as lawful permanent residents and beginning to reside in the 
legal and physical custody of their U.S. citizen parent(s):
     IR-2/IR-7 (Child of a U.S. citizen)--requires an approval 
of a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative). These children are 
generally admitted as lawful permanent residents or their status is 
adjusted to that of lawful permanent resident. The child must then file 
a Form N-600 (Application for Certificate of Citizenship) to receive 
the Certificate of Citizenship. The certificate generally would be 
dated as of the date the child was admitted as a lawful permanent 
resident.
     IR-3/IR-8 (Orphan adopted abroad by a U.S. citizen)--
requires an approval of the Form I-600 (Petition to Classify Orphan as 
an Immediate Relative). These children are generally admitted as lawful 
permanent residents, and USCIS will send a Certificate of Citizenship 
to the child without a Form N-600 being filed or adjudicated.
     IH-3 (Hague Convention orphan adopted abroad by a U.S. 
citizen)--requires an approval of the Form I-800 (Petition to Classify 
Convention Adoptee as an Immediate Relative). These children are 
generally admitted as lawful permanent residents and USCIS will send a 
Certificate of Citizenship to

[[Page 51171]]

the child without a Form N-600 being filed or adjudicated.

The following categories of children are admitted as lawful permanent 
residents for finalization of adoption:
     IR-4/IR-9 (Orphan to be adopted by a U.S. citizen). 
Generally, the parent(s) must complete the adoption in the United 
States. However, the child will also be admitted as an IR-4 if the 
foreign adoption was obtained without either parent having seen the 
child, or when the parent(s) must establish that they have either 
``readopted'' the child or obtained recognition of the foreign adoption 
in the State of residence (this requirement can be waived if there is a 
statute or precedent decision that clearly shows that the foreign 
adoption is recognized in the State of residence).\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ See 8 CFR 320.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     IH-4 (Hague Convention Adoptee to be adopted by a U.S. 
citizen). These children are admitted as lawful permanent residents and 
the parent(s) must complete the adoption in the United States.\346\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ See INA section 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, children of U.S. citizens, who are residing outside of 
the United States and are eligible to naturalize under section 322 of 
the Act,\347\ must apply for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to enter 
the U.S. before they naturalize. These children are generally issued a 
B-2 nonimmigrant visa in order to complete the process for 
naturalization through an interview and taking the Oath of Allegiance 
under section 322 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \347\ These children would file the N-600K, Application for 
Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 and then 
receive an interview notice to in come into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has enacted numerous laws over the last two decades to 
ensure that foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are not subject to 
adverse immigration consequences in the United States on account of 
their foreign birth. Most notably, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 
\348\ provides that children, including adopted children, of U.S. 
citizen parents automatically acquire U.S. citizenship if certain 
conditions are met.\349\ The same year, Congress passed the 
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) \350\ to implement the Hague 
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of 
Intercountry Adoption,\351\ which established international standards 
of practices for intercountry adoptions. The IAA protects the rights of 
children, birth families, and adoptive parents, and improves the 
Government's ability to assist U.S. citizens seeking to adopt children 
from abroad.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ Public Law 106-395, section 101(a), 114 Stat. 1631, 1631 
(codified at INA section 320(a)-(b), 8 U.S.C. 1431(a)-(b)); see also 
Children Born Outside the United States; Applications for 
Certificate of Citizenship, 66 FR 32138 (June 13, 2001). The CCA 
applies to children who were under 18 as of February 27, 2001. The 
law was passed after several high-profile cases in which children 
who were adopted abroad were subject to deportation despite having 
grown up in the United States and having believed that they were 
United States citizens.
    \349\ See 8 CFR part 320; see also Dep't of State, FAQ: Child 
Citizenship Act of 2000, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/adoption-FAQs/child-citizenship-act-of-2000.html (last visited Aug. 16, 2018).
    \350\ Public Law 106-279, 114 Stat. 1631 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 
14901-14954); see also Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption; 
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000; Accreditation of Agencies; 
Approval of Persons, 71 FR 8064 (Feb. 15, 2006).
    \351\ The United States signed the Convention in 1994, and the 
Convention entered into force for the United States on April 1, 
2008. Deposit of Instrument of Ratification by the United States of 
the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in 
Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 72 FR 71730 (Dec. 18, 2007). The 
full text of the Convention is available at https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69 (last visited Aug. 16, 
2018).
    \352\ IAA Sec.  2, 42 U.S.C. 14901(a); see also 146 Cong. Rec. 
S8938-01, S8938 (daily ed. Sept. 21, 2000) (statement by Sen. 
Landrieu) (``I have said it before and I believe it rings true here, 
adoption brings people, whether they are Republican, Democrat, 
conservative, liberal, American, Russian or Chinese, together. 
United by the belief that all children deserve to grow in the love 
of a permanent family. Adoption breaks down barriers and helps build 
families.''). A year earlier, Congress passed Public Law 106-139, 
113 Stat. 1696 (1999), to amend the definition of ``child'' in 
section 101(b)(1)(E) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E), a change 
that allowed children adopted abroad to maintain their familial 
relationship with their natural siblings, making it easier for 
siblings to be adopted together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOS has advised DHS that many U.S. citizens seek to adopt children 
with disabilities or serious medical conditions, and that a significant 
proportion of children adopted abroad have special medical needs. U.S. 
citizens seeking to adopt foreign-born children abroad generally must 
undergo a rigorous home study that includes a detailed assessment of 
finances, emotional, mental, and physical health, and other factors to 
determine their eligibility and suitability as prospective adoptive 
parents.\353\ Accordingly, such parents generally will have sufficient 
financial resources to provide for the child.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \353\ See 8 CFR 204.3(e), 204.311(g)(3).
    \354\ See 8 CFR 204.311(h) (financial considerations); see also 
USCIS, Home Study Information, available at https://www.uscis.gov/adoption/home-study-information (last visited Aug. 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, many U.S. citizens who have foreign-born children 
with special medical needs may seek Medicaid for their children.\355\ 
Medicaid programs vary by state, and may be based on the child's 
disability alone rather than financial means of the parents. Excluding 
consideration of the receipt of public benefits by such children would 
be consistent with Congress' strong interest in supporting U.S. 
citizens seeking to welcome foreign-born children into their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \355\ See Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because the children are being brought to the United 
States by their U.S. citizen parents (including adoptive parents) and 
will generally become U.S. citizens upon or after admission, and 
because their families have been found to have the resources to care 
for them, such a reading is not at odds with Congress' concerns in 
enacting PRWORA, or as reflected in its concurrent enactment of the 
public charge grounds of inadmissibility, that aliens should rely on 
their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their 
sponsors, and private organizations; and that the availability of 
public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to 
the United States.\356\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ See Public Law 104-193, section 400, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 
(codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DHS proposes to exclude from consideration for 
purposes of the public charge inadmissibility determination receipt of 
Medicaid benefits by children of U.S. citizen parents:
     Whose lawful admission for permanent residence and 
subsequent residence in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. 
citizen parent will result automatically in the child's acquisition of 
citizenship or whose lawful admission for permanent residence will 
result automatically in the child's acquisition of citizenship upon 
finalization of the adoption in the United States by the U.S. citizen 
parent(s) or upon meeting other eligibility criteria pursuant to the 
Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Public Law 106-395 (section 320(a)-(b) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1431(a)-(b)), in accordance with 8 CFR part 320; 
or
     Who are entering the United States for the primary purpose 
of attending an interview under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, 
Public Law 106-395 (section 322 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1433)), in 
accordance with 8 CFR part 322.
ii. Institutionalization for Long-Term Care
    Consistent with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, DHS proposes to 
consider institutionalization for long-term care at government 
expense--at any level of government--as a form of government assistance 
included in the definition of public benefit.

[[Page 51172]]

Institutionalization for long-term care at government expense is a non-
cash, non-monetizable public benefit. The U.S. government subsidizes 
health insurance, which pays for expenses associated with 
institutionalization of individuals in the United States for both long-
term care; therefore, the receipt of benefits to provide for the costs 
of institutionalization indicates a lack of self-sufficiency in 
satisfying a basic living need, i.e., cost of medical care, housing, 
and food. There are certain inpatient, comprehensive services provided 
by institutions which may be covered under Medicaid or the Social 
Security Act, including hospital services, Intermediate Care Facilities 
for People with Intellectual disability (ICF/ID), Nursing Facility 
(NF), Preadmission Screening & Resident Review (PASRR), Inpatient 
Psychiatric Services for Individuals Under Age 21, and Services for 
Individuals Age 65 or Older in an Institution for Mental Diseases.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \357\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Institutional 
Long Term Care, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/institutional/index.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Institutions are residential facilities, and assume total care of 
the basic living requirements of individuals who are admitted, 
including room and board.\358\ Benefits provided by Medicaid for 
institutions may depend on the person's need and institutional level of 
care.\359\ In general, DHS would not assume that a child or a person 
who is severely disabled or has severe medical conditions that may need 
institutionalization would be inadmissible under the public charge 
ground. Instead, DHS would, in the totality of the circumstances, take 
into account the assets, resources, and financial status of the alien's 
parents or legal guardians to determine whether there is sufficient 
income and resources to provide for his or her care. Parents and legal 
guardians at the time of adjudication of a petition may have sufficient 
sources to provide for the alien in the future and may also have the 
ability to gather assets and resources for the alien's future care 
(i.e. long-term care insurance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \358\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Institutional 
Long Term Care, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/institutional/index.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
    \359\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Institutional 
Long Term Care, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/institutional/index.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies Under Medicare Part D
    Like Medicaid, Medicare helps an individual satisfy a basic living 
need, i.e., medical care. Medicare provides health insurance for people 
65 or older, certain people under 65 with disabilities, and people of 
any age with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure 
requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant).\360\ Medicare has four 
parts. Medicare Part A is for hospital coverage and is mandatory for 
eligible participants; Part B provides optional medical coverage; Part 
C provides a managed care option through contracts with commercial 
insurers; and Part D is the optional Prescription Drug Plan.\361\ In 
general, people over age 65 or young people with disabilities are 
eligible for Medicare \362\ if the person or his or her spouse worked 
and paid Medicare taxes for at least 10 years.\363\ People who did not 
pay Medicare taxes, are age 65 or older, and are U.S. citizens or 
lawful permanent residents may also be able to buy Medicare.\364\ 
Generally, DHS does not propose to consider all of Medicare as part of 
the definition of public benefits. DHS is only proposing to consider 
Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies (i.e., low-income subsidies) for 
Medicare Part D as part of the definition of public benefits, for the 
reasons stated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ See Ctrs. for Medicare and Medicaid Servs., A Quick Look 
at Medicare (October 2017), available at https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11514-A-Quick-Look-at-Medicare.pdf. Medicare may also be 
subsidized if he or she qualifies for both Medicare and Medicaid. 
Medicare.gov, Are Medicare Advantage Plans Subsidized?, available at 
https://medicare.com/medicare-advantage/are-medicare-advantage-plans-subsidized (last visited Feb. 27, 2018).
    \361\ See id.
    \362\ See HHS, Who is Eligible for Medicare?, available at 
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-and-medicaid/who-is-elibible-for-medicare/index.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2018).
    \363\ See HHS, Who is Eligible for Medicare?, available at 
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-and-medicaid/who-is-elibible-for-medicare/index.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2018).
    \364\ See HHS, Who is Eligible for Medicare?, available at 
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-and-medicaid/who-is-elibible-for-medicare/index.html (last visited Feb. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 
of 2003 (MMA), provides subsidies for prescription drugs for eligible 
individuals whose income and resources are limited.\365\ Beneficiaries 
may apply for the Low-Income Subsidy with the Social Security 
Administration (SSA) or with their State Medicaid agency.\366\ The 
provision of a Part D low-income subsidy to an individual can impose 
substantial costs on multiple levels of government and generally 
indicates a lack of ability to be self-sufficient in satisfying a basic 
living need, i.e., medical care. As noted above, by at least one 
measure, this program entails one of the most largest Federal 
expenditures for low-income people.\367\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \365\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Guidance to 
States on the Low Income Subsidy Guidance 5 (Feb. 2009), available 
at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Eligibility-and-Enrollment/LowIncSubMedicarePresCov/Downloads/StateLISGuidance021009.pdf.
    \366\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Guidance to 
States on the Low Income Subsidy Guidance 5 (Feb. 2009), available 
at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Eligibility-and-Enrollment/LowIncSubMedicarePresCov/Downloads/StateLISGuidance021009.pdf.
    \367\ See Table 26-1 Policy, Net Budget Authority by Function, 
Category, and Program, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/26-1-fy2019.pdf (last visited Aug. 8, 2018). 
Expenditure amounts are net outlays unless otherwise noted. See also 
Gene Falk et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45097, Federal Spending on 
Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief (Feb. 6, 
2018), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Subsidized Public Housing
    The considerations leading to inclusion of high-expenditure 
housing-related benefits, generally, including subsidized public 
housing, are outlined above. Subsidized public housing is available to 
low-income individuals in certain areas. Public housing was 
``established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible 
low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities by 
entering into Annual Contributions Contracts (ACC) with Public Housing 
Agencies, which are state-created agencies with jurisdiction to operate 
within a clearly delineated area.'' \368\ Public housing may include 
single-family houses or high-rise apartments.\369\ HUD administers 
``[f]ederal aid to local housing agencies (HAs) that manage the housing 
for low-income residents at rents they can afford.'' \370\ HUD uses the 
median income of the county or metropolitan area of where the person 
chooses to live to determine the income eligibility standards.\371\ 
Specially, HUD sets the ``lower income limits at 80% and very low 
income limits at 50% of the median income.'' \372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \368\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., HUD's Public 
Housing Program, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited July 3, 2018).
    \369\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., HUD's Public 
Housing Program, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited July 3, 2018).
    \370\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., HUD's Public 
Housing Program, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited July 3, 2018).
    \371\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., HUD's Public 
Housing Program, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited July 3, 2018).
    \372\ See U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., HUD's Public 
Housing Program, available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/rental_assistance/phprog (last visited July 3, 2018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51173]]

(e) Receipt of Public Benefits by Active Duty and Reserve 
Servicemembers and Their Families
    DHS proposes to exclude consideration of the receipt of any public 
benefits by active duty servicemembers, including those in the Ready 
Reserve of the U.S. Armed Forces, and their families. The United States 
Government is profoundly grateful for the unparalleled sacrifices of 
the members of our armed services and their families. Servicemembers 
who, during their service, receive public benefits, in no way burden 
the public; indeed, their sacrifices are vital to the public's safety 
and security. The Department of Defense (DOD) has advised DHS that many 
of the aliens who enlist in the military are early in their careers, 
and therefore, consistent with statutory pay authorities, earn 
relatively low salaries that are supplemented by certain allowances and 
tax advantages.\373\ Although data limitations exist, evidence suggests 
that as a consequence of the unique compensation and tax structure 
afforded by Congress to aliens enlisting for military service, some 
active duty alien servicemembers, as well as their spouses and 
children, as defined in section 101(b) of the Act, may rely on SNAP 
\374\ and other listed public benefits. As a result, the general 
standard proposed in this rule could result in a finding of 
inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) when such aliens apply for 
adjustment of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \373\ See, e.g., 37 U.S.C. 201-212, 401-439 (Basic Pay and 
Allowances Other than Travel and Transportation Allowances, 
respectively); Lawrence Kapp, Cong. Research Serv., Defense Primer: 
Regular Military Compensation 2 tbl.1 (Jan. 2, 2018), available at 
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10532.pdf (reporting average 
regular military compensation of $41,384 at the E-1 level in 2017, 
comprised of $19,199 in average annual basic pay, plus allowances 
and tax advantage); Lawrence Kapp et al., Cong. Research Serv., 
RL33446, Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers 6-9 (2018), 
available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33446.pdf (describing 
types of military compensation and federal tax advantages).
    \374\ See U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-16-561, Military 
Personnel: DOD Needs More Complete Data on Active-Duty 
Servicemembers' Use of Food Assistance Programs (July 2016), 
available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678474.pdf (reporting 
estimates ranging from 2,000 active duty servicemembers receiving 
SNAP to 22,000 such servicemembers receiving SNAP). Effective FY16, 
Congress implemented a recommendation by the Military Compensation 
and Retirement Modernization Commission to sunset DOD's Family 
Subsistence Supplemental Allowance Program within the United States, 
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam; SNAP reliance may 
have increased somewhat following termination of the program. See 
Public Law 114-92, div. A, Sec.  602, 129 Stat. 726, 836 (2015); 
Military Comp. & Ret. Modernization Comm'n, Final Report 187 (Jan. 
2015) (``The [Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance Program] 
should be sunset in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other 
U.S. territories where SNAP or similar programs exist, thereby 
reducing the administrative costs of a duplicative program.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following consultation with DOD, DHS has concluded that such an 
outcome may give rise to concerns about servicemembers' immigration 
status or the immigration status of servicemembers' spouses and 
children as defined in section 101(b) of the Act, which would reduce 
troop readiness and interfere significantly with U.S. armed forces 
recruitment efforts. This exclusion is consistent with DHS's 
longstanding policy of ensuring support for our military personnel who 
serve and sacrifice for our nation, and their families, as well as 
supporting military readiness and recruitment.
    Accordingly, DHS proposes to exclude the consideration of the 
receipt of all benefits listed in 8 CFR 212.21(b) from the public 
charge inadmissibility determination, when received by active duty 
servicemembers, including those in the Ready Reserve and their spouses 
and children. Applicants that fall under this exclusion would be 
required to submit proof that the servicemember is serving in active 
duty or the Ready Reserve.
(f) Unenumerated Benefits
    The definition of the term ``public charge'' would not include 
receipt of any non-cash public benefit not listed under the proposed 8 
CFR 212.21(b). Benefits such as Social Security retirement benefits, 
general Medicare, and a wide range of Veteran's benefits would not be 
included in the definition. Similarly, the proposed definition would 
not include social insurance programs such as worker's compensation and 
non-cash benefits that provide education, child development, and 
employment and job training. Furthermore, DHS believes that exclusion 
of education-related benefits is justifiable in the interest of 
administrability (e.g., many such benefits are received indirectly 
through schools). In sum, under this proposal, any exclusively state, 
local or tribal public benefit that is not cash assistance for income 
maintenance, institutionalization for long-term care at government 
expense, or another public benefit program not specifically listed in 
the regulation, would not be included in the definition of the term 
``public charge.''
    As noted above, the definition of public charge is based on DHS's 
preference to prioritize those programs that impose the greatest cost 
on the Federal government as well as those programs that assist an 
individual with satisfying basic living needs. DHS welcomes comment 
regarding whether it should expand the list of designated public 
benefits in a final rule, to include specific public benefits that 
recipients are generally aware they receive and must opt into receipt 
and otherwise similar in nature to the benefits currently designated 
under the proposed rule, i.e., other benefits intended to help low-
income people meet basic living needs. Consistent with the proposal 
described in the section of this preamble entitled ``Previously 
Excluded Benefits'', any such expansion would be prospective in nature 
(i.e., not effective until following publication of a final rule).
    In addition, DHS seeks public comments on whether an alien's 
receipt of benefits other than those proposed to be included in this 
rule as public benefits should nonetheless be considered in the 
totality of circumstances, either above the thresholds set forth in the 
proposed rule for public monetizable and non-monetizable public 
benefits, or at some other threshold. DHS could construct a process 
under which it provides appropriate notice for consideration of such 
benefits to the extent that they have a bearing on the public charge 
inquiry, i.e., whether the alien is likely in the totality of the 
circumstances to receive the designated public benefits above the 
applicable threshold(s), either in terms of dollar value or duration of 
receipt. DHS welcomes comments and data on this potential alternative.
(g) Request for Comment Regarding the Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP)
    In addition to the public benefits listed in proposed 8 CFR 
212.21(b), DHS is considering adding to the list of included benefits. 
The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP),\375\ formerly known as 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),\376\ provides 
low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much 
money to qualify for Medicaid but still need assistance to pay for 
healthcare.\377\ CHIP is administered by states in accordance with 
federal requirements. Eligibility for CHIP is based on income

[[Page 51174]]

levels and the upper income level varies by state. According to the 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 46 States and the District of 
Columbia cover children up to or above 200 percent the Federal Poverty 
Level (FPL), and 24 of these states offer coverage to children in 
families with income at 250 percent of the FPL or higher. States may 
get the CHIP enhanced match for coverage up to 300 percent of the 
FPL.\378\ While coverage differs from state to state, all states 
provide comprehensive coverage, like routine check-ups, immunizations, 
doctor visits, and prescriptions. The program is funded jointly by 
states and the federal government.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \375\ See 42 U.S.C. 1397aa to 1397mm.
    \376\ Beginning with the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), SCHIP was referred to simply 
as CHIP. Older references to SCHIP were not changed, and any 
statutory or regulatory reference to one applies interchangeably to 
the other. See Public Law 111-3, 123 Stat. 8.
    \377\ See HealthCare.gov, The Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP), available at https://www.healthcare.gov/medicaid-chip/childrens-health-insurance-program (last visited Feb. 23, 
2018).
    \378\ See Medicaid.gov, Eligibility, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/eligibility-standards/index.html (last visited 
Feb. 23, 2018).
    \379\ See Benefits.gov, State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, available at https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/607 (last visited July 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Table 10, the Federal government expends significant 
resources on CHIP.\380\ CHIP imposes a significant expense upon 
multiple levels of government, and because these benefits relate to a 
basic living need (i.e., medical care), receipt of these benefits 
suggests a lack of self-sufficiency. At the same time, DHS recognizes 
that this program does not involve the same level of expenditure as 
most of the other programs listed in this proposed rule, and that 
noncitizen participation in these programs is currently relatively 
low.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \380\ DHS would not consider services or benefits funded by CHIP 
but provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482, nor would DHS consider school-based 
services provided to children who are at or below the oldest age of 
children eligible for secondary education as determined under State 
law.
    \381\ An analysis of Wave 13 of the 2008 Panel of the Survey of 
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) suggests that 0.7 percent of 
noncitizens reported receiving CHIP benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is nonetheless considering including this program in a final 
rule, because the total Federal expenditure for the program remains 
significant, and because it does provide for basic living needs (i.e., 
medical care), similar to Medicaid (elements of which are included on 
the proposed list of public benefits). DHS specifically requests public 
comments on whether to include CHIP in the final rule.
(h) Request for Comment Regarding Public Benefit Receipt by Certain 
Alien Children
    The language of the public charge statute under section 
212(a)(4)(B)(i) of the Act states that an alien's ``age'' shall be one 
of several minimum enumerated considerations in a public charge 
determination, alongside ``health,'' ``family status,'' ``assets, 
resources, and financial status,'' and ``education and skills.'' Each 
of these factors must be taken into account in determining whether an 
alien will be a charge on the federal taxpayer. The United States has 
separate immigration programs, such as refugee admissions and asylum, 
where aliens regardless of age and financial circumstance are exempted 
from public charge inadmissibility. Alien children who are not asylees, 
refugees, or otherwise exempt from the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility are subject to it, just as adult aliens are. However, 
because the public charge inadmissibility determination is a 
prospective determination in the totality of the circumstances, the 
circumstances surrounding an alien's receipt of public benefits as a 
child, including the age at which such benefits were received, are a 
relevant consideration. For instance, as alien children approach or 
reach adulthood, they may age out of eligibility for certain benefits, 
choose to disenroll from such benefits (for which their parents may 
have enrolled them), or modify their chances of becoming self-
sufficient depending upon whether they acquire education and skills, 
secure employment, and accumulate assets and resources. Therefore, DHS 
seeks public comment on the best mechanism to administer public charge 
inadmissibility determinations for those aliens who receive benefits 
while under the age of majority (frequently 18) or while still children 
under section 101(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b). DHS is particularly 
interested in views and data that would inform whether and to what 
extent DHS should weigh past or current receipt of benefits by such an 
alien in the totality of the circumstances as a potential indicator of 
likely future receipt of public benefits.
(i) Request for Comment Regarding Potential Modifications by Public 
Benefit Granting Agencies
    DHS recognizes that as a result of a future final rule, some 
benefit-granting agencies may decide to modify enrollment processes and 
program documentation for designated benefits programs. For instance, 
agencies may choose to advise potential beneficiaries of the potential 
immigration consequences of receiving certain public benefits. DHS 
requests public comments regarding such potential modifications, 
including information regarding how long it would take to make such 
modifications, and the resources required to make such modifications. 
DHS may use this information to determine the appropriate effective 
date for a final rule, among other purposes. DHS seeks comments and 
recommendations from potentially affected state, local and tribal 
governments and from the public generally.
3. Likely at Any Time To Become a Public Charge
    DHS proposes to define ``likely at any time to become a public 
charge'' to mean likely at any time in the future to receive one or 
more public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), based on the 
totality of the alien's circumstances. Under this proposed definition, 
DHS would find an alien inadmissible as a public charge if DHS finds 
the alien is likely at any time in the future to receive one or more 
public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), in an amount or for a 
duration exceeding the thresholds described above.
    DHS proposes to distinguish between an alien who is a public charge 
based on current receipt of public benefits and an alien who is likely 
to become a public charge at any time in the future. This distinction 
is consistent with the prospective nature of the statute. DHS 
understands that its proposed definition of public charge may suggest 
that DHS would automatically find an alien who is currently receiving 
public benefits, as defined in this proposed rule, to be inadmissible 
as likely to become a public charge. But DHS does not propose to 
establish a per se policy whereby an alien is likely at any time to 
become a public charge if the alien is receiving public benefits at the 
time of the application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status. 
Under the ``likely at any time to become a public charge'' definition, 
an alien who is currently receiving public benefits is not necessarily 
inadmissible, because current receipt of public benefits does not 
automatically mean that the alien is likely to receive public benefits 
at any time in the future.
    As discussed above and explained further below, receiving public 
benefits by itself does not establish that an alien is likely to become 
a public charge; rather, as set forth in the statute, a public charge 
inadmissibility determination requires a determination predicated on an 
opinion as to the likelihood of future events.\382\ Accordingly, as set 
forth in proposed 8 CFR 212.21, DHS proposes that an alien who is 
currently receiving public benefits is not necessarily inadmissible, 
because such current receipt of public benefits does not necessarily 
mean that

[[Page 51175]]

the alien will continue to receive public benefits at any time in the 
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Household
    For purposes of public charge inadmissibility determinations under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), DHS proposes to 
consider the alien's household size as part of the family status 
factor, as well as the assets, resources, and financial status factor. 
The number of people in the alien's household has an effect on the 
alien's assets and resources, and in many cases may influence the 
likelihood that an alien will become a public charge. Household size 
would be used to determine whether the alien's household income is at 
least 125 percent of the FPG in the public charge inadmissibility 
determination, because the alien is either a head of household who has 
responsibilities to the household or is a member of a household who is 
supported by other members of the household beyond the sponsor. DHS 
notes that while the number of children, including U.S. citizen 
children, may count towards an alien's household size for purposes of 
determining inadmissibility on the public charge ground, the direct 
receipt of public benefits by those children would not factor into the 
public charge inadmissibility determination.
    As discussed in greater detail below, in developing the proposed 
definition of an alien's household, DHS reviewed the individuals that 
public benefit granting agencies include as part of a household and/or 
as dependents in determining eligibility for a public benefit, as well 
as how USCIS determines household size and income in the affidavit of 
support context. The individuals identified as part of the alien's 
household are intended to include individuals who are financially 
interdependent with the alien, either legally or otherwise.
(a) Definition of Household in Public Charge Inadmissibility Context
    DHS proposes to define an alien's household for the purposes of 
making a public charge inadmissibility determination as follows. First, 
if the alien is 21 years of age or older, or under the age of 21 and 
married, and therefore not a child as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), the alien's household would include:
     The alien;
     The alien's spouse, if physically residing with the alien;
     The alien's children, as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), physically residing with the alien;
     The alien's other children, as defined in section 
101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), not physically residing with 
the alien for whom the alien provides or is required to provide at 
least 50 percent of financial support, as evidenced by a child support 
order or agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any other order or 
agreement specifying the amount of financial support to be provided to 
the alien;
     Any other individuals (including a spouse not physically 
residing with the alien) to whom the alien provides, or is required to 
provide, at least 50 percent of the individual's financial support, or 
who are listed as a dependent on the alien's federal income tax return; 
and
     Any individual who provides to the alien at least 50 
percent of the alien's financial support, or who lists the alien as a 
dependent on his or her federal income tax return.
    Thus, for example, the applicant's household size would include the 
applicant, her children, and her parents, if:
     The applicant is an unmarried 23 year-old applicant for 
adjustment of status;
     The applicant lives with two children and her parents, who 
provide 53 percent of financial support to the applicant; and
     The applicant has no other individuals for whom she 
provides or is required to provide (or from whom she receives) 
financial support or who list her on their tax return.

DHS would consider the income, assets, and resources of all of these 
household members (total of 5) in determining whether the applicant has 
income at or above 125 percent of the FPG.

    Second, if the alien is a child as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), the alien's household would include:
     The alien;
     The alien's children, as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), physically residing with the alien;
     The alien's other children, as defined in section 
101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), not physically residing with 
the alien, for whom the alien provides or is required to provide at 
least 50 percent of the children's financial support, as evidenced by a 
child support order or agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any 
other order or agreement specifying the amount of financial support to 
be provided by the alien;
     The alien's parents, legal guardians, or any other 
individuals providing or required to provide at least 50 percent of 
financial support to the alien as evidenced by a child support order or 
agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any other order or 
agreement specifying the amount of financial support to be provided by 
the alien;
     The parents' or legal guardians' other children, as 
defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), 
physically residing with the alien;
     The parents' or legal guardians' other children, as 
defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), not 
physically residing with the alien for whom the parent or legal 
guardian provides or is required to provide at least 50 percent of the 
other children's financial support, as evidenced by a child support 
order or agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any other order or 
agreement specifying the amount of financial support to be provided by 
the parents or legal guardians; and
     Any other individuals to whom the alien's parents or legal 
guardians provide or are required to provide at least at least 50 
percent of the individuals' financial support, or who are listed as a 
dependent on the parents' or legal guardians' federal income tax 
return.
    For example, if a five year old is applying for adjustment of 
status, the applicant's household would include the applicant, the 
applicant's mother and father, the applicant's two siblings, and the 
applicant's maternal grandparents, if:
     The applicant lives with his mother, father, and two 
siblings and has no other siblings;
     The mother and father provide 52 percent of the financial 
support to the mother's parents (i.e., the alien's maternal 
grandparents) and do not and are not required to provide financial 
support to anyone else;
     Nobody else provides financial support to the applicant;
     Neither the mother or the father have any other children 
and have no other dependents listed on their tax return; and
     The mother and father do not receive financial support 
from anyone else.

DHS would consider the income of all of the above individuals in 
determining whether the alien can meet 125 percent of the FPG.

    As another example, if an 18 year old is applying for adjustment of 
status, the alien's household would only include the alien and the 
alien's daughter, if:

[[Page 51176]]

     The 18 year old lives in her own apartment with only her 1 
year old daughter;
     The applicant has no other children or siblings;
     The applicant does not receive any financial support from 
his or her parents or any other individual and has no legal guardian;
     No individuals are required to provide the applicant with 
any financial support; and
     The applicant's parents and the applicant do not provide 
and are not required to provide any support to anyone else and list no 
one else as a dependent on their federal income tax returns.

The proposed household definition would not include any person employed 
by the household who is living in the home, such as a nanny, or an 
individual who is renting a part of the home from one of the household 
members, or a landlord, unless such individual otherwise meets one of 
the enumerated criteria.
(b) Definitions of ``Household'' and Similar Concepts in Other Public 
Benefits Contexts
    The poverty guidelines do not define who should be considered part 
of the household, and different agencies and programs have different 
requirements.\383\ Public benefit granting agencies generally consider 
an applicant's income for purposes of public benefit eligibility and 
either use the household size or family size to determine the income 
threshold needed to qualify for a public benefit. Each federal program 
or State determines the general eligibility requirements needed to 
qualify for the public benefits and how to define whose income is 
included for purposes of determining income based eligibility 
thresholds. For example, SNAP uses the term ``household'' and includes 
everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together. 
DHS is not proposing to incorporate the SNAP definition because an 
alien or an individual who is financially responsible for the alien's 
support may not have the legal responsibility to support each person 
living in the home. Instead, the proposed DHS definition would take 
into account individuals for whom the alien or the alien's parent(s) or 
legal guardian(s) or other individual is providing at least 50 percent 
of financial support because such expenditure would have significant 
bearing on whether the alien has sufficient assets and resources in the 
context of a public charge determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \383\ See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 
2642 (Jan. 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), per the 
1937 Act, uses the term ``families'' \384\ which includes: (i) Single 
persons in the case of an elderly person, a disabled person, a 
displaced person, the remaining member of a tenant family, and any 
other single persons; or (ii) families with children and in the cases 
of elderly families, near-elderly families, and disabled families 
respectively.\385\ The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (The 1937 Act) \386\ 
requires that dwelling units assisted under it must be rented only to 
families who are low-income \387\ at the time of their initial 
occupancy. Section 3 of the 1937 Act also defines income as income from 
all sources of each member of the household, excluding earned income of 
minors, as determined by the Secretary. Beyond the statutory framework 
defining families, and as provided by the 1937 Act, HUD allows public 
housing agencies the discretion to determine particularities related to 
family composition, as determined under each public housing agency's 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ See U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., Occupancy Handbook 
ch. 3 (June 2007), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35645.PDF.
    \385\ The term includes in cases of elderly, near-elderly, and 
disabled families, 2 or more elderly persons, near-elderly persons, 
or persons with disabilities living together, and 2 or more such 
persons living with 1 or more persons determined under the public 
housing agency plan to be essential to their care of well-being. See 
U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., Occupancy Handbook ch. 3 (June 
2007), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35645.PDF. HUD also makes their income determination based on 
Median Family Income estimates and Fair Market Rent area definitions 
for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and 
each non-metropolitan county. See U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 
Office of Policy Dev. & Research, Income Limits, available at 
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html (last visited June 
14, 2018). The 1937 Act also provides that the temporary absence of 
a child from the home due to placement in foster care shall not be 
considered in determining family composition and family size.
    \386\ See ch. 896, 50 Stat. 888 (codified as amended at 42 
U.S.C. 1437 to 1437zz-10).
    \387\ Section 3 of the 1937 Act defines ``low-income families'' 
as those families whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the 
median income for the area, as determined by the Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DHS's proposed definition does not precisely track HUD's 
definition, it would encompass many of the individuals identified in 
the HUD definition including spouses and children as defined under the 
Act.\388\ In addition, the DHS definition focuses on both individuals 
living in the alien's home, as well as individuals not living in the 
alien's home but for whom the alien and/or the alien's parent(s)/legal 
guardian(s) is providing or is required to provide at least 50 percent 
of financial support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \388\ The definition of child in INA section 101(b), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(b), generally includes unmarried persons under 21 years of age 
who are born in or out of wedlock, stepchildren, legitimated 
children, adopted children if adopted under the age of 16 or the age 
of 18 if natural siblings of another adopted child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IRS defines ``dependent'' to include a qualifying child (which 
has a 5-part test), or a qualifying relative (which has a 4-part 
test).\389\ These tests generally include some type of relationship to 
the person filing (including step and foster children and their 
children) whether or not the dependent is living with the person filing 
and the amount of support being provided by the person filing (over 50 
percent).\390\ In general, the dependent must also be a U.S. citizen or 
lawful permanent resident in order to qualify as a dependent for tax 
purposes.\391\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ See 26 U.S.C. 152; see also IRS Publication 501 (Jan 2, 
2018), available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf.
    \390\ See IRS Publication 501 (Jan 2, 2018), available at 
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf.
    \391\ See IRS Publication 501 (Jan 2, 2018), available at 
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the IRS definition of ``dependent'' would generally exclude 
alien dependents and the DHS definition would not, DHS's proposed 
definition of household results in a larger number of people being 
captured than if DHS simply tracked the IRS's definition of 
``dependent.'' DHS also proposes to consider those individuals who are 
supported by the alien and are themselves aliens, or those who may be 
contributing to the alien's income, in order to determine whether the 
alien's financial resources are sufficient to support the alien and 
other members of the alien's household. For example, if an alien is 
living with a younger sibling who is attending school and providing 51 
percent or more financial support for the younger sibling, that sibling 
is a part of the alien's household, even though the younger sibling may 
be earning some wages from a part-time job. Similarly, if the alien has 
an older sibling who is providing 51 percent of support to the alien, 
that older sibling would also be included in the alien's household and 
his/her income counted toward the requisite income threshold along with 
any income earned by the alien. DHS's definition would adopt the IRS 
consideration of the amount of support being provided to the 
individuals (50 percent) as the threshold for considering as an 
individual as part

[[Page 51177]]

of the household in the public charge determination, rather than 
consider any support being provided.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \392\ See Internal Revenue Serv., Dependency Exemptions, 
available at https://apps.irs.gov/app/vita/content/globalmedia/4491_dependency_exemptions.pdf (last visited Aug. 10, 2018); see 
also Internal Revenue Serv., Table 2: Dependency Exemption for 
Qualifying Relative, available at https://apps.irs.gov/app/vita/content/globalmedia/table_2_dependency_exemption_relative_4012.pdf 
(last visited Aug. 10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS believes that the ``at least 50 percent of financial support'' 
threshold as used by the IRS is reasonable to apply to the 
determination of who belongs in an alien's household, without regard to 
whether these individuals physically reside in the alien's home. This 
would include those individuals the alien may not have a legal 
responsibility to support but may nonetheless be supporting. For 
example, this may include a parent, legal guardian, sibling, or a 
grandparent living with the alien, or an adult child, sibling, or any 
other adult who the alien may be supporting or required to support or 
who contributes to the alien's financial support.
(c) Definitions of Household and Similar Concepts in Other Immigration 
Contexts
    DHS also considered how household size is determined in the 
affidavit of support context. There, USCIS defines the terms 
``household income'' and ``household size.'' \393\ ``Household income'' 
is used to determine whether a sponsor meets the minimum income 
requirements based on the FPG.\394\ The affidavit of support household 
income generally includes the income of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \393\ See 8 CFR 213a.1.
    \394\ See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The sponsor;
     The sponsor's spouse;
     Any other person included in determining the sponsor's 
household size who must also be over the age of 18 and must have signed 
the additional household member contract through the Form I-864A; and
     The intending immigrant only if he or she either is the 
sponsor's spouse or has the same principal residence as the sponsor and 
certain additional criteria.\395\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \395\ See 8 CFR 213a.1.

Also, in the affidavit of support context, the ``household size'' is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
generally defined as the total number of people including:

     The sponsor;
     The intending immigrant(s) being sponsored on the Form I-
864; \396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \396\ If a child, as defined in INA section 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(b)(1), or spouse of the principal intending immigrant is an 
alien who does not currently reside in the United States and who 
either is not seeking to immigrate at the same time as, or will not 
seek to immigrate within six months of the principal intending 
immigrant's immigration, the sponsor may exclude that child or 
spouse in calculating the sponsor's household size.

     The sponsor's spouse;
     All of the sponsor's children as defined in 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), (including a stepchild who meets the 
requirements of 101(b)(1)(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), unless 
the stepchild does not reside with the sponsor, is not claimed by the 
sponsor as a dependent for tax purposes, and is not seeking to 
immigrate based on the stepparent/stepchild relationship), except those 
children that have reached the age of majority or are emancipated under 
the law of the person's domicile and are not claimed as dependents on 
the sponsor's most recent tax return;
     Any other persons (whether related to the sponsor or not) 
whom the sponsor has claimed as dependents on the sponsor's federal 
income tax return for the most recent tax year, even if such persons do 
not have the same principal residence as the sponsor;
     Any aliens the sponsor has sponsored under any other 
affidavit of support for whom the sponsor's support obligation has not 
terminated; and
     If the sponsor elects, any siblings, parents, and/or adult 
children who have the same principal residence as the sponsor, and have 
combined their income with the sponsor's income by submitting Form I-
864A.\397\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \397\ See 8 CFR 213a.1, 213a.2(c)(2)(i)(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The affidavit of support is part of the public charge determination 
in that an alien who is required to submit an affidavit of support 
pursuant to sections 212(a)(4)(C) and (D) of the Actbut does not submit 
a sufficient affidavit of support is de facto deemed to be inadmissible 
as likely to become a public charge. In addition, because the affidavit 
of support serves as an agreement that the sponsor will use his or her 
resources to support the alien if necessary, DHS is proposing to 
consider the affidavit of support in the totality of the circumstances 
when determining whether the alien is likely at any time to become a 
public charge. However, the proposed definition of household in this 
rule does not specifically include or exclude the sponsor and the 
sponsor's household. Rather, DHS is only including those persons who 
rely upon or contribute to the alien's asserts and resources. 
Therefore, if the sponsor is already providing 50 percent or more of 
financial support to the alien, the sponsor would be included in the 
proposed definition of household. For example, when a child, as defined 
in section 101(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1), is filing for 
adjustment of status as the child of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
resident, the affidavit of support sponsor would also be the parent. 
Because the parent is part of the household, the parent's income would 
be included as part of the household income.\398\ The parent's income 
would be reviewed as part of the assets, resources, and financial 
status factor based on the total household size. However, for example, 
if there is a co-sponsor, who is the alien's cousin and who is not 
physically residing with the alien, then the cousin would not be 
counted as part of the household and his or her income would not be 
included as part of the assets, resources or financial status unless 
the sponsor is already contributing 50 percent or more of the alien's 
financial support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ See INA section 213A(3)(f), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(3)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, if the sponsor is a member of the alien's household 
and included in the calculation of the 125 percent of the FPG, DHS 
would only count the sponsor's income once for purposes of determining 
the alien's total household assets and resources. A sponsor's income as 
reported on the affidavit of support would be added to the income of 
the other members of the alien's household. The sponsor's income that 
is added to the alien's total household assets and resources would not 
be increased because the sponsor also submitted an affidavit of support 
promising to support the alien at least 125 percent of the FPG for the 
sponsor's household size. For example, assuming the alien and sponsor's 
household sizes are the same, if the sponsor's total income reported on 
the affidavit of support is 250 percent of the FPG for the household 
size, that income would be added to the alien's assets and resources; 
the alien's total household income would then be at least 250 percent 
of the FPG, which constitutes a heavily weighed positive factor.
    As discussed above, in proposing this definition of household, DHS 
aims to account for both (1) the persons whom the alien is supporting 
and (2) those persons who are contributing to the household, and thus 
the alien's assets and resources. DHS believes that an alien's ability 
to support a household is relevant to DHS's consideration of the 
alien's assets, resources, financial status, and family status. DHS 
recognizes that household circumstances can vary and expects the 
proposed definition could in certain circumstances be over- or under-
inclusive. DHS welcomes public comments on who should be counted as 
members of a household, and whose

[[Page 51178]]

income, assets and resources should be reviewed in the totality of the 
circumstances when USCIS makes a public charge inadmissibility 
determination.

C. Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination

    DHS proposes codifying the public charge inadmissibility 
determination as a prospective determination based on the totality of 
an alien's circumstances at the time of adjudication. As provided by 
statute, if an alien is required to provide an affidavit of support and 
the affidavit is insufficient, the alien will be found inadmissible 
based on public charge regardless of any other evidence the alien may 
submit.\399\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \399\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Absence of a Required Affidavit of Support
    Section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), permits DHS to 
consider any submitted affidavit of support under 213A of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1183a, in public charge inadmissibility determinations. The 
absence of a statutorily required affidavit of support under section 
213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, conclusively establishes an alien's 
inadmissibility on public charge grounds.\400\ Family-sponsored 
immigrants and employment-based immigrants petitioned by a relative (or 
by an entity in which a relative has a significant ownership interest) 
are subject to such a requirement.\401\ Other than failure to submit an 
affidavit of support when required under section 213A of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1183a, DHS would not make a public charge determination based on 
any single factor.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C); 8 
CFR 213a.2.
    \401\ See INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), 
1183a.
    \402\ See generally Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 
421-22 (Att'y Gen. 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Prospective Determination Based on Totality of Circumstances
    As noted above, section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), 
uses the words ``likely at any time.'' \403\ DHS's review is 
predictive: An assessment of an alien's likelihood at any time in the 
future to become a public charge.\404\ DHS would, as required by the 
statute, assess whether the alien is likely to become a public charge 
and not whether the alien is currently a public charge. While past or 
current receipt of public benefits may make an alien, at present, a 
public charge, the past or current receipt of public benefits, alone, 
is insufficient to sustain a finding that an alien is likely to become 
a public charge at any point in the future.\405\ Other than an absent 
or insufficient required affidavit of support,\406\ no single factor or 
circumstance that Congress mandated DHS to consider, or which DHS may 
otherwise determine to consider, would determine the outcome of a 
public charge inadmissibility determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \403\ The ``likely'' language in the public charge 
inadmissibility provision also appeared in the initial codification 
in the INA of 1952. See ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, 183.
    \404\ See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) 
(concluding that the determination of whether an alien is likely to 
become a public charge requires consideration of the totality of 
circumstances, including specific circumstances such as mental or 
physical disability, health, age, current reliance on welfare 
benefits, capacity to find employment, and friends or relatives in 
the United States willing and able to provide assistance); see also 
Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28689, 28689-93 (May, 26 1999) (in addition to the 
statutory factors, the public charge inadmissibility analysis also 
includes consideration of the alien's current and past receipt of 
cash public assistance for income maintenance, repayment of cash 
public assistance, current or past institutionalization for long-
term care at government expense, specific circumstances ``reasonably 
tending to show that the burden of supporting the alien is likely to 
be cast on the public,'' and whether the alien has a sponsor who is 
willing and able to assist).
    \405\ See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) 
(``The fact that an alien has been on welfare does not, by itself, 
establish that he or she is likely to become a public charge.'').
    \406\ See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the statute, DHS proposes to codify the totality of 
the circumstances standard,\407\ as follows: An alien's age; health; 
family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education 
and skills. In the Government's discretion, the determination can also 
account for an affidavit of support filed under section 213A of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. Courts previously considered similar factors when 
evaluating the likelihood of an alien to become a public charge.\408\ 
INS, the Board, and DHS have consistently reviewed the totality of the 
circumstances in determining whether an alien is likely to become a 
public charge.\409\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \407\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22.
    \408\ See, e.g., Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 
1974); see also Zambrano v. INS, 972 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1992), 
vacated on other grounds, 509 U.S. 918 (1993); Matter of Martinez-
Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-22 (Att'y Gen. 1964) (in determining 
whether a person is likely to become a public charge, factors to 
consider include age, health and physical condition, physical or 
mental defects which might affect earning capacity, vocation, past 
record of employment, current employment, offer of employment, 
number of dependents, existing conditions in the United States, 
sufficient funds or assurances of support by relatives or friends in 
the United States, bond or undertaking, or any ``specific 
circumstance . . . reasonably tending to show that the burden of 
supporting the alien is likely to be cast on the public''); Field 
Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999).
    \409\ See Matter of A--,19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988) 
(citing Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS's proposed totality of the circumstances standard would involve 
weighing all the positive and negative considerations related to an 
alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial 
status; education and skills; required affidavit of support; and any 
other factor or circumstance that may warrant consideration in the 
public charge inadmissibility determination.\410\ If the negative 
factors outweigh the positive factors, then the alien would be found to 
be inadmissible as likely to become a public charge; if the positive 
factors outweigh the negative factors, then the alien would not be 
found inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \410\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed totality of the circumstances approach is also 
consistent with the body of administrative case law that has developed 
over the past 50 years, which generally directs the agency to 
``consider[ ] all the factors bearing on the alien's ability or 
potential ability to be self-supporting . . . .'' \411\ On the whole, 
this case law strongly supports the forward-looking totality of the 
circumstances approach, considering the following factors, where no one 
factor is outcome-determinative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ See Matter of Vindman 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ability of the alien to earn a living, as evidenced or 
impacted by the alien's age, health, work history, current employment 
status, future employment prospects, and skills;
     The sufficiency of the alien's funds for self-support;
     The obligation and sufficiency of sponsorship to assure 
that the alien will not need public support; and
     The ability of the alien to remedy any current dependence 
on public benefits in the United States, as evidenced or impacted by 
the alien's age, health, ability to earn a living, funds, and 
sponsorship.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \412\ DHS derived this framework from its analysis of the 
statements and findings in Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409 
(Att'y Gen. 1964), Matter of Harutunian 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1974), Matter of Perez 15 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 1974), Matter of 
Vindman 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977), and Matter of A--, 19 
I&N Dec. 867 (Comm'r 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, in Matter of Martinez-Lopez,\413\ rather than 
concluding that the respondent was likely to become a public charge 
based solely on the fact that the respondent had no job offer in

[[Page 51179]]

the United States, the Attorney General considered the respondent's 
future ability to earn a living based on his 10-year work history in 
the United States, his age, and his health.\414\ The Attorney General 
also considered the fact that the respondent had a brother and other 
close family members who could provide financial support.\415\ In 
Matter of Perez,\416\ the Board made clear that the respondent's past 
and current receipt of welfare was not determinative as to whether she 
was likely to become a public charge in the future, instead looking to 
the totality of her circumstances, including her age, health, ability 
to find employment in the future, and the availability of family 
support.\417\ In Matter of A--,\418\ although the respondent and her 
husband had been unemployed for the 4 years prior to the filing of her 
application for temporary resident status, the INS Commissioner held 
that the respondent was not likely to become a public charge ``due to 
her age and ability to earn a living,'' as shown by her recent 
employment among other factors.\419\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ See 10 I&N Dec. 409 (Att'y Gen. 1964).
    \414\ See 10 I&N Dec. 409, 422-23 (Att'y Gen. 1964).
    \415\ See 10 I&N Dec. 409, 423 (Att'y Gen. 1964).
    \416\ 15 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 1974).
    \417\ 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974).
    \418\ 19 I&N Dec. 867 (Comm'r 1988). DHS notes, however, that 
this case involves the special public charge rule applicable only to 
applications under INA section 245A, 8 U.S.C. 1255a.
    \419\ See 19 I&N Dec. 867, 870 (Comm'r 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An INS Regional Commissioner took a similar totality of the 
circumstances approach in Matter of Harutunian \420\ and determined 
that the respondent in that case was inadmissible as likely to become a 
public charge because the respondent lacked the means to support 
herself, the ability to earn a living, and the presence of a sponsor to 
assure that she would not need public support.\421\ Furthermore, the 
alien was increasingly likely to become dependent, disabled, and sick 
because of her older age, and accordingly was expected to become 
dependent on old-age assistance for support.\422\ Similarly, an INS 
Regional Commissioner, in Matter of Vindman, held that a husband and 
wife were inadmissible as likely to become public charges, because they 
had been receiving public benefits for approximately three years, they 
were unemployed in the United States, and they presented no prospect of 
future employment.\423\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \420\ Matter of Harutunian 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
    \421\ See 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589-90 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
    \422\ See 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589-90 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974).
    \423\ See Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes that certain factors and circumstances would generally 
carry heavy weight, as discussed below. The weight given to an 
individual factor not designated as carrying heavy weight would depend 
on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and the 
relationship of the factor to other factors in the analysis. Some facts 
and circumstances may be positive while other facts and circumstances 
may be negative. Any factor or circumstance that decreases the 
likelihood of an applicant becoming a public charge is positive; any 
factor or circumstance that increases the likelihood of an applicant 
becoming a public charge is negative. Multiple factors operating 
together may be weighed more heavily since those factors in tandem may 
show that the alien is already a public charge or is or is not likely 
to become one.
    For example, an alien's assets, resources, and financial status 
together would frequently carry considerable positive weight, because 
they are the most tangible factors to consider in public charge 
determinations. An alien's assets, resources, and financial status 
examined together may show that the alien is not likely to be a public 
charge despite concerns about the alien's age, education, skills, and 
health. At the same time, an alien's assets, resources, and financial 
status examined together may be so limited that a finding that the 
alien is not likely to become a public charge would have to be based on 
positive attributes associated with the alien's education, skills, 
health, family status, age, or sponsorship.
    Ultimately, DHS recognizes that, as the Attorney General has noted, 
``the statute requires more than a showing of a possibility that the 
alien will require public support. Some specific circumstance, such as 
mental or physical disability, advanced age, or other fact reasonably 
tending to show that the burden of supporting the alien is likely to be 
cast on the public, must be present.'' \424\ Indeed, if DHS finds that 
the specific positive factors and circumstances outweigh the specific 
negative factors and circumstances in an alien's case, indicating that 
the alien is less likely than not to receive one or more public 
benefits at any time in the future as described in 8 CFR 212.21(b), 
then DHS would conclude that the alien is not likely to become a public 
charge. If DHS finds that the specific negative factors and 
circumstances outweigh the specific positive factors and circumstances 
in an alien's case indicating that the alien is more likely than not to 
receive public benefits as described in 8 CFR 212.21(b), at any time in 
the future, then DHS would conclude that the applicant is likely to 
become a public charge.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \424\ Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421 (Att'y Gen. 
1964).
    \425\ As explained, the proposed public charge policy is 
consistent with the totality of the circumstances approach 
undertaken by the former INS Commissioner in Matter of A--. We 
recognize the Commissioner, in that decision, cited an earlier 
decision of the Attorney General for the proposition that ``[a] 
healthy person in the prime of life cannot ordinarily be considered 
likely to become a public charge, especially where he has friends or 
relatives in the United States who have indicated their ability and 
willingness to come to his assistance in case of emergency.'' 19 I&N 
Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988) (quoting Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 
I&N Dec. 409, 421-22 (Att'y Gen. 1964)). In Matter of A-- and Matter 
of Martinez-Lopez, the INS Commissioner and the Attorney General, 
respectively, implicitly acknowledge that, although individuals in 
the prime of life will not ordinarily become public charges, they 
certainly may; otherwise, it would have been pointless to assert 
that what ordinarily is the case is especially true in certain 
instances. See Matter of A--, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988) 
(acknowledging that ``all factors should be considered in their 
totality'' in determining whether an individual is likely to become 
a public charge). Accordingly, adverse factors particular to a given 
circumstance may counterbalance what otherwise is ordinarily true in 
a vacuum, such that aliens may still be found inadmissible under INA 
section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) notwithstanding their being 
``in the prime of life.'' Also consistent with those decisions, 
which instruct that additional positive weight should be afforded 
where friends or relatives in the United States are willing and able 
to assist in emergencies, DHS would give positive weight to a Form 
I-864, Affidavit of Support, that satisfies statutory and regulatory 
requirements and to income and resources of certain household 
members, although the filing of the Form I-864 and shared resources 
likewise would not be determinative. To the extent this proposed 
rule may be viewed as inconsistent with Matter of A--, however, 
including because the scope of the public benefits covered by this 
proposed rule is broader than under the longstanding administration 
of the public charge ground, and the threshold for being considered 
a public charge under the definition of that term in this proposed 
rule is lower than it has been for at least the past two decades, 
that decision would be superseded if this rule is finalized as 
drafted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Age

    An alien's age is a mandatory factor that must be considered when 
determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge in the 
future.\426\ As discussed below, a person's age may impact his or her 
ability to legally or physically work and is therefore relevant to 
being self-sufficient, and the likelihood of becoming a public charge. 
Accordingly, DHS proposes to consider the alien's age primarily in 
relation to employment or employability, and secondarily to other

[[Page 51180]]

factors as relevant to determining whether someone is likely to become 
a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, DHS proposes to assess whether the alien is between 
18 and the minimum ``early retirement age'' for social security 
purposes (see 42 U.S.C. 416(l)(2)) (61 as of 2017), and whether the 
alien's age otherwise makes the alien more or less likely to become a 
public charge, such as by impacting the alien's ability to work. DHS 
would consider a person's age between 18 and 61 as a positive factor in 
the totality of the circumstances, and consider a person's age under 18 
or over 61 to be a negative factor in the totality of the circumstances 
when determining the likelihood of becoming a public charge. However, 
DHS acknowledges that people under the age of 18 and over the age of 61 
may be working or have adequate means of support, and would recognize 
such means as positive factors.
    The 18 through 61 age range is based on the age at which people are 
generally able to work full-time and the age at which people are 
generally able to retire with some social security retirement benefits 
under Federal law.\427\ At one end of the spectrum, children under the 
age of 18 generally face difficulties working full-time.\428\ In 
general, the Fair Labor Standards Act sets 14 years of age as the 
minimum age for employment, and limits the number of hours worked by 
children until the age of 16.\429\ States have varying laws addressing 
at what age and for how many hours children may work up to the age of 
18.\430\ Further, most States require children to attend school until a 
certain age, generally until the ages of 16 or 18.\431\ DHS notes that 
the Fair Labor Standards Act provides for certain exemptions for 
children under 16 to work,\432\ and children may be otherwise able to 
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \427\ See 29 U.S.C. 213(c), 42 U.S.C. 416(l)(2).
    \428\ See 29 U.S.C. 213(c); 29 CFR part 570; see also Dep't of 
Labor, Table of Employment/Age Certification Issuance Practice Under 
State Child Labor Laws, available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/certification.htm (last updated Jan. 1, 2018).
    \429\ See 29 U.S.C. 213(c); 29 CFR part 570; see also Dep't of 
Labor, Table of Employment/Age Certification Issuance Practice Under 
State Child Labor Laws, available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/certification.htm (last updated Jan. 1, 2018).
    \430\ See 29 U.S.C. 213(c); 29 CFR part 570; see also Dep't of 
Labor, Table of Employment/Age Certification Issuance Practice Under 
State Child Labor Laws, available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/certification.htm (last updated Jan. 1, 2018).
    \431\ See Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Table 5.1: Compulsory 
School Attendance Laws, Minimum and Maximum Age Limits for Required 
Free Education, by State: 2015, available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp (last visited Sept. 10, 2018).
    \432\ See 29 CFR 570.122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the other end of the age range, retirement is the age at which a 
person may begin receiving retirement benefits from Social 
Security.\433\ The minimum age for retirement for purposes of Social 
Security is generally 62.\434\ People who are at the minimum retirement 
age may stop working and start receiving retirement benefits such as 
Social Security. If a person does have access to Social Security 
benefits or a retirement pension, he or she may not need public 
benefits for income maintenance or other benefits to be self-sufficient 
as the income from Social Security or the pension may suffice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \433\ See 42 U.S.C. 416(l); see also U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., 
Retirement Planner: Benefits by Year of Birth, available at https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html (last visited Sept. 
10, 2018).
    \434\ See 42 U.S.C. 416(l); see also U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin., 
Retirement Planner: Benefits by Year of Birth, available at https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html (last visited Sept. 
10, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other age-related considerations may also be relevant to public 
charge inadmissibility determinations, in individual circumstances. 
Individuals under the age of 18 may be more likely to qualify for and 
receive public benefits. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 18 
percent of persons under the age of 18 (13,253,000) and 11.1 percent of 
persons aged 18 and over (27,363,000) lived below the poverty level in 
2016.\435\ The U.S. Census Bureau also reported that persons under the 
age of 18 were more likely to receive means-tested benefits than all 
other age groups.\436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \435\ See Jessica L. Semega et al., U.S. Census Bureau, Income 
and Poverty in the United States: 2016, at 13 tbl.3 (Sept. 2017), 
available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf. Statistics provided for those 
aged 18 and over were inferred.
    \436\ In an average month during 2012, 39.2 percent of children 
received some type of means-tested benefit. See Shelley K. Irving & 
Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census Bureau, Household Economic Studies, 
Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? 6 (May 2015), available at 
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf; see also U.S. Census Bureau, News Release, 21.3 
Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance 
Programs Each Month (May 28, 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, studies show a relationship between advanced age and 
receipt of public benefits. DHS's analysis of SIPP data in Tables 14 
and 15 shows noncitizens age 62 and older were more likely to receive 
cash and non-cash benefits than U.S. citizens in the same age group. Of 
noncitizens age 62 and older, 11.8 percent received SSI, TANF, or GA in 
2013 compared to 4.5 percent of U.S. citizens age 62 and older. The 
rate of receipt of either cash or non-cash benefits was about 40 
percent among U.S. citizens and noncitizens age 0 to 17. Among 
noncitizens, the receipt of non-cash benefits was much lower among 
individuals between age 18 and 61 (19.3 percent) than individuals under 
age 18 (40.2 percent), or individuals over age 61 (36.3 percent). Among 
U.S. citizens, the receipt of non-cash benefits was lower among 
individuals between age 18 and 61 (15.3 percent) than individuals under 
age 18 (39.7 percent), and higher among individuals over age 61 (11.4 
percent).
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.030

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
    Regardless of age, DHS recognizes that an alien may have financial 
assets, resources, benefits through employment, education or skills, 
family, or other means of support that decrease his or her likelihood 
of becoming a public charge. For example, the alien or the alien's 
spouse or parent may have sufficient income, or savings, investments, 
or other resources--including Social Security benefits and Medicare--to 
support him or herself and the household. In addition, as people age, 
they may become eligible for certain earned benefits including Social 
Security benefits, health insurance from Medicare, and benefits from an 
employer pension or retirement benefit.

E. Health

    An alien's health is a factor that must be considered when 
determining whether an alien is likely to become public charge in the 
future.\437\ Prior to Congress establishing health as a factor for the 
public charge determination, the

[[Page 51182]]

courts, the BIA and INS had also held that a person's physical and 
mental condition was of major significance to the public charge 
determination, generally in relation to the ability to earn a 
living.\438\ Accordingly, DHS proposes that when considering an alien's 
health, DHS will consider whether the alien has any physical or mental 
condition that, although not considered a condition or disorder that 
would render the alien inadmissible under the health-related ground of 
inadmissibility,\439\ is significant enough to interfere with the 
person's ability to care for him- or herself or to attend school or 
work, or that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
    \438\ See, e.g., Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-
23 (Att'y Gen. 1964); see also Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 
(Comm'r 1988) (citing Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1974); Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1977)).
    \439\ See INA section 212(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The mere presence of a medical condition would not render an alien 
inadmissible. Instead, DHS would consider the existence of a medical 
condition in light of the effect that such medical condition is likely 
to have on the alien's ability to attend school or work, and weigh such 
evidence in the totality of the circumstances. As part of the assets, 
resources and financial status factor, DHS would consider whether the 
alien has private health insurance, or the financial resources to pay 
for associated medical costs.
    Research and data establish that healthcare is costly, particularly 
for the government. In 2016, the National Health Expenditure (NHE) grew 
to $3.3 trillion, or $10,348 per person, which represents an increase 
of 4.3 percent from 2015.\440\ Medicaid spending, which is 17 percent 
of the total NHE, grew by 3.9 percent to $565.5 billion.\441\ The 
Federal Government (28.3 percent) and households (28.1 percent) paid 
the largest shares of total health spending.\442\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., NHE Fact Sheet, 
available at https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html (last visited Feb. 3, 2018).
    \441\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., NHE Fact Sheet, 
available at https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html (last visited Feb. 3, 2018).
    \442\ See Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., NHE Fact Sheet, 
available at https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html (last visited Feb. 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An alien's medical conditions may impose costs that a person is 
unable to afford, and may also reduce that person's ability to attend 
school, work, or financially support him or herself. Such medical 
conditions may also increase the likelihood that the alien could resort 
to Medicaid, or Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Part 
D.\443\ However, DHS recognizes that regardless of the alien's health 
status, the alien may have financial assets, resources, or support, 
including private health insurance or the means to purchase it, that 
allows him or her to be self-sufficient.\444\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \443\ See 42 U.S.C. 1395w-114.
    \444\ For example, a person may have savings, investments or 
trust funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, an alien's inability to work due to a medical 
condition, and failure to maintain health insurance or the financial 
resources to pay for the medical costs, could make it likely that such 
alien would become a public charge. In addition, long-term health care 
expenses to treat such a medical condition could decrease an 
individual's available financial resources.
1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements
    DHS proposes that USCIS' review of the health factor would include, 
but not be limited to, the consideration of the following types of 
evidence: (1) Any required Report of Medical Examination and 
Vaccination Record (Form I-693) or applicable DOS medical examination 
form \445\ submitted in support of the application for the diagnosis of 
any medical conditions; \446\ or (2) evidence of a medical condition 
that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization after arrival, or that will interfere with the 
alien's ability to care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to 
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ This is currently the Immigrant or Refugee Applicant (Form 
DS-2054).
    \446\ The medical examination documentation indicates whether 
the applicant has either a Class A or Class B medical condition. In 
addition, the alien must provide a vaccination record. Class A and 
Class B medical conditions are defined in the HHS regulations. See 
42 CFR 34.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific reference to the Form I-693 or similar form is 
intended to help standardize USCIS' assessment of health as a factor 
for public charge consideration and avoid multiple medical examinations 
for the alien. Most immigrant visa applicants applying with the DOS and 
those aliens applying for adjustment of status with USCIS are required 
to submit a medical examination.\447\ Nonimmigrants applying with DOS 
and nonimmigrants seeking a change of status or extension of stay with 
USCIS are generally not required to submit a medical examination with 
their applications. However, nonimmigrants seeking a change of status 
to that of a spouse of a legal permanent resident (V-1) or child (V-2) 
status must submit a medical examination.\448\ In addition, a consular 
officer may request a medical examination if the officer has concerns 
that the applicant may be inadmissible on health-related grounds.\449\ 
Likewise, a CBP officer at a port of entry may require a nonimmigrant 
to submit to a medical examination to determine medical 
inadmissibility.\450\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \447\ See INA section 212(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1).
    \448\ See INA section 101(a)(15)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(v); 
see also 8 CFR 214.15.
    \449\ See INA section 221(d), 8 U.S.C. 1201(d).
    \450\ See INA section 232, 8 U.S.C. 1222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Civil surgeons and panel physicians test for Class A \451\ and 
Class B \452\ medical conditions, and report the findings on the 
appropriate medical examination form. An alien is inadmissible on a 
health-related ground for being diagnosed with a Class A medical 
condition unless a waiver is available and authorized.\453\ Class A 
medical conditions, as defined in HHS regulations, include the 
following: \454\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \451\ The alien would be inadmissible for health-related grounds 
under INA section 212(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1).
    \452\ Class B medical conditions do not make an alien 
inadmissible on health-related grounds under INA section 212(a)(1), 
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1), but are relevant to the public charge 
determination.
    \453\ See INA section 212(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1).
    \454\ See 42 CFR 34.2(d). The alien with a Class A medical 
condition would be inadmissible based on health-related grounds 
under INA section 212(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). However, these 
medical conditions may also be considered as part of the public 
charge inadmissibility determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Communicable disease of public health significance, 
including gonorrhea, Hansen's Disease (infectious), syphilis 
(infectious stage), and active tuberculosis; \455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \455\ See 42 CFR 34.2(b) and (d)(1); see also INA section 
212(a)(1)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Failure to meet vaccination requirements; \456\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \456\ See 42 CFR 34.2(d); see also INA section 212(a)(1)(ii), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Present or past physical or mental disorders with 
associated harmful behavior or harmful behavior that is likely to 
recur; \457\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \457\ See 42 CFR 34.2(d); see also INA section 212(a)(1)(iii), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Drug abuse or addiction.\458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \458\ See 42 CFR 34.2(d), (h), (i); see also INA section 
212(a)(1)(iv), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In identifying a Class A medical condition, the HHS regulations 
direct physicians conducting the immigration medical examinations to 
explain on the medical report ``the nature and extent of the 
abnormality; the degree to which the alien is incapable of normal 
physical activity; and the extent to which the condition is remediable 
. . . [as well as] the likelihood, that because of the condition, the 
applicant will require

[[Page 51183]]

extensive medical care or institutionalization.'' \459\ A waiver of the 
health-related ground of inadmissibility is available for communicable 
diseases of public health significance, physical or mental disorder 
accompanied by harmful behavior, and lack of vaccinations.\460\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \459\ 42 CFR 34.4(b)(2).
    \460\ See INA section 212(g)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1182(g)(1). Although a 
waiver is unavailable for inadmissibility due to drug abuse or 
addiction, an applicant may still overcome this inadmissibility if 
his or her drug abuse or addiction is found to be in remission. See 
Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Technical Instructions for 
Panel Physicians and Civil Surgeons, Remission, available at https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/civil/mental-civil-technical-instructions.html (last updated Oct. 23, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Class B medical condition is defined as a physical or mental 
condition, disease, or disability serious in degree or permanent in 
nature.\461\ Currently, the CDC Technical Instructions for Medical 
Examinations of Aliens, which direct physicians to provide information 
about Class B conditions, describe a Class B condition as one that, 
although it does not ``constitute a specific excludable condition, 
represents a departure from normal health or well-being that is 
significant enough to possibly interfere with the person's ability to 
care for him- or herself, to attend school or work, or that may require 
extensive medical treatment or institutionalization in the future.'' 
\462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \461\ See 42 CFR 34.2(b)(2).
    \462\ See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Required 
Evaluations--Other Physical or Mental Abnormality, Disease, or 
Disability, Technical Instructions For Medical Examination Of 
Aliens, available at https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/panel/technical-instructions/panel-physicians/other-physical-mental.html (last updated Nov. 23, 2016); Ctrs. for Disease 
Control & Prevention, Required Evaluation Components Other Physical 
or Mental Abnormality, Disease or Disability, Technical Instructions 
for the Medical Examination of Aliens in the United States, 
available at https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/civil/technical-instructions/civil-surgeons/required-evaluation-components/other-disease-disability.html (last updated Aug. 3, 
2010). The HHS regulations require physicians conducting medical 
examinations for an alien to comply with the CDC's Technical 
Instructions for Medical Examinations of Aliens. 42 CFR 34.3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the physician conducting the immigration medical examination 
identifies a Class B medical condition that is ``a substantial 
departure from normal well-being,'' \463\ the HHS regulations direct 
the physician to explain in the medical notification \464\ ``the degree 
to which the alien is incapable of normal physical activity, and the 
extent to which the condition is remediable . . . [and] the likelihood, 
that because of the condition, the applicant will require extensive 
medical care or institutionalization.'' \465\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ See 42 CFR 34.4(c)(1).
    \464\ See 42 CFR 34.2(l) (defining a medical notification as 
``[a] medical examination document issued to a U.S. consular 
authority or DHS by a medical examiner'').
    \465\ 42 CFR 34.4(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS would consider any of the above-described conditions in the 
totality of the circumstances. Any such condition would not serve as 
the sole factor considered in whether an alien is likely to become a 
public charge. Absence of a diagnosis of such a condition would be a 
positive factor. DHS recognizes that some conditions that are Class A 
and Class B are treatable and the person may in the future be able to 
work or attend school. These circumstances, as identified by a civil 
surgeon or panel physician, would also be taken into consideration in 
the totality of the circumstances.
    In addition to the types of evidence described above, DHS would 
also take into consideration any additional medical records or related 
information provided by the alien to clarify any medical condition 
included on the medical form or other information that may outweigh any 
negative factors. Such documentation may include, for instance, a 
licensed doctor's attestation of prognosis and treatment of a medical 
condition.
    The presence or absence of a medical condition would only be 
considered a positive or negative factor as it pertains to the alien's 
likelihood of becoming a public charge; frequently, this would entail 
consideration of whether, in light of the alien's health, the alien 
will be able to adequately care for him- or herself, to attend school, 
or to work.\466\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \466\ Relatedly, as part of the assets, resources and financial 
status factor, DHS would consider whether the alien either has 
sufficient household assets and resources, including private health 
insurance, to cover any reasonably foreseeable medical costs related 
to a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical 
treatment or institutionalization or that will interfere with the 
alien's ability to provide care for him- or herself, to attend 
school, or to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Potential Effects for Aliens With a Disability, Depending on 
Individual Circumstances
    As noted above, DHS would consider any immigration medical 
examination submitted with the alien's application, as well as any 
other evidence demonstrating that the individual has a medical 
condition that will affect the alien's ability to work, attend school, 
or otherwise support himself or herself. As part of the immigration 
medical examination, when identifying a Class B medical condition, 
civil surgeons and panel physicians are required to report on certain 
disabilities, including the nature and severity of the disability, its 
impact on the alien's ability to work, attend school, or otherwise 
support himself or herself, and whether the disability will require 
hospitalization or institutionalization. Under the proposed rule, DHS 
would only consider disability as part of the health factor to the 
extent that such disability, in the context of the alien's individual 
circumstances, impacts the likelihood of the alien becoming a public 
charge. Frequently, this would entail consideration of the potential 
effects on the alien's ability to work, attend school or otherwise 
support him or herself.

[[Page 51184]]

    The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 \467\ and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 \468\ prohibit discrimination against 
individuals based on their disabilities.\469\ Both laws require, among 
other things, that employers provide reasonable accommodations for 
individuals with disabilities who need them to apply for a job, perform 
a job's essential functions, or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of 
employment, absent undue hardship (i.e., significant difficulty or 
expense). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) \470\ 
ensures equality of educational opportunity and assists States in 
providing special education and related services to children with 
disabilities. Further, DHS is specifically prohibited from 
discriminating against individuals with disabilities and otherwise 
preventing individuals with disabilities from participating in benefits 
programs.\471\ Congress has noted that ``[d]isability is a natural part 
of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of 
individuals to . . . contribute to society; pursue meaningful careers; 
and enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political, 
social, cultural, and educational mainstream of American society.'' 
\472\ Individuals with disabilities make substantial contributions to 
the American economy. For example, in 2010, 41.1 percent of people with 
disabilities between the ages of 21 to 64 were employed (27.5 percent 
of adults with severe disability and 71.2 percent of adults with non-
severe disabilities were employed) during a study conducted by the 
CDC.\473\ The ADA,\474\ the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,\475\ and the 
IDEA \476\ provide further protections for individuals with 
disabilities to better ensure that such individuals have the 
opportunity to make such contributions.\477\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \467\ Public Law 93-112, section 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 
(codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 794) (prohibiting discrimination 
solely on the basis of disability in Federal and federally-funded 
programs and activities).
    \468\ Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 
42 U.S.C. 12101-12213).
    \469\ See 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5); see also 29 CFR 1630.2(o), 
1630.9.
    \470\ Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat 2647 (2004) (codified as 
amended at 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482).
    \471\ See 6 CFR 15.30(b)(1)(i) (``The Department, in providing 
any aid, benefit, or service, may not directly or through 
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of 
disability . . . [d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the 
opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or 
service . . . .''); 6 CFR 15.30(b)(4) (``The Department may not, 
directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize 
criteria or methods of administration the purpose or effect of which 
would [s]ubject qualified individuals with a disability to 
discrimination on the basis of disability; or [d]efeat or 
substantially impair accomplishment of the objectives of a program 
or activity with respect to individuals with a disability.'').
    \472\ See 29 U.S.C. 701(3).
    \473\ See Mathew W. Brault, U.S. Census Bureau, Americans With 
Disabilities: 2010, at 10 (2012), available at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-131.pdf.
    \474\ See Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990) (codified as 
amended at 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213).
    \475\ See Public Law 93-112, section 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 
(codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 794).
    \476\ See Public Law 108-466, 118 Stat 2647 (2004) (codified as 
amended at 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482).
    \477\ See generally Dep't of Justice, Civil Rights Div., 
Disability Rights Sec., A Guide to Disability Rights Laws (July 
2009), https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ultimately, DHS has determined that considering, as part of the 
health factor, an applicant's disability diagnosis that, in the context 
of the alien's individual circumstances, affects his or her ability to 
work, attend school, or otherwise care for him or herself, is not 
inconsistent with federal statutes and regulations with respect to 
discrimination, as the alien's disability is treated just as any other 
medical condition that affects an alien's likelihood, in the totality 
of the circumstances, of becoming a public charge. Under the totality 
of the circumstances framework, an alien with a disability is not being 
treated differently, or singled out, and the disability itself would 
not be the sole basis for an inadmissibility finding. In other words, 
as with any other factor and consideration in the public charge 
inadmissibility determination, DHS would look at each of the mandatory 
factors, and the affidavit of support, if required, as well as all 
other factors in the totality of the circumstances.
    In sum, an applicant's disability could not be the sole basis for a 
public charge inadmissibility finding. In addition, as part of its 
totality of the circumstances determination, DHS would always recognize 
that the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, and other laws provide 
important protections for individuals with disabilities, including with 
respect to employment opportunities. Furthermore, as it relates to a 
determination of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 
DHS does not stand in the position of an employer vis-a-vis when the 
alien is applying for the immigration benefit. DHS is also not 
proposing to include employee benefits of any type in the definition of 
public benefit.

F. Family Status

    An applicant's family status is a factor that must be considered 
when determining whether the alien is likely to become a public charge 
in the future.\478\ When considering an alien's family status, DHS 
proposes to consider whether the alien has a household to support, or 
whether the alien is being supported by another household and whether 
the alien's household size makes the alien more or less likely to 
become a public charge. DHS notes that it would frequently view family 
status in connection with, among other things, the alien's assets and 
resources, because the amount of assets and resources necessary to 
support a larger number of people in a household is generally greater. 
Thus, as described in the Assets, Resources, and Financial Status 
section below, DHS's proposed standard for evaluating assets, resources 
and financial status requires DHS to consider whether the alien can 
support him or herself and the household as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(d), 
at the level of at least 125 percent of the most recent FPG based on 
the alien's household size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \478\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.2; see also INA section 212(a)(4), 
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the description above of the proposed definition of the 
``alien's household,'' an alien who has no dependents would have a 
household of one, and would only have to support him or herself. By 
contrast, a child alien who is part of a parent's household would be 
part of a larger household, and would have to demonstrate that his or 
her own assets, resources and financial status and his or her parent's 
or legal guardian's assets, resources, and financial status are 
sufficient to support the alien and the rest of the household.
    The research and data below discuss how the number of household 
members may affect the likelihood of receipt of public benefits. Table 
16 and Table 17 show that among both U.S. citizens and noncitizens, the 
receipt of non-cash benefits generally increased as family size 
increased. Among U.S. citizens, individuals in families with 3 or 4 
persons were more likely to receive non-cash benefits compared to 
families of 2, while individuals in families of 5 or more were about 
three times as likely to receive non-cash benefits as families of 2. 
Among noncitizens in families with 3 or 4 people, about 20 percent 
received non-cash assistance, while about 30 percent of noncitizens in 
families of 5 or more received non-cash benefits. Across family sizes, 
the rate of receipt of cash assistance ranged from about 3 to 5 percent 
among U.S. citizens, and about 1 to 3 percent among noncitizens. The 
rate of receipt of either TANF or GA

[[Page 51185]]

was about 1 percent or less regardless of family size or citizenship 
status.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.031


[[Page 51186]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.032

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
    In light of the above data on the relationship between family size 
and receipt of public benefits, DHS proposes that in evaluating family 
status for purposes of the public charge inadmissibility determination, 
DHS would consider the number of people in a household as defined in 
the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(d). As with the other factors, household 
size, on its own, would never dictate the outcome of a public charge 
inadmissibility determination. Regardless of household size, that an 
alien may present other factors (e.g., assets, resources, financial 
status, education, and skills) that weigh for or against a finding that 
the alien is likely to become a public charge. For instance, an alien 
who is part of a large household may have his or her own income or 
access to additional assets and resources that would assist in 
supporting the household and therefore would also be considered in the 
totality of the circumstances.

G. Assets, Resources, and Financial Status

    In addition to age, health, and family status, USCIS must consider 
an applicant's assets, resources, and financial status in making a 
public charge determination.\479\ The statute does not define these 
terms, but the agency has historically interpreted these terms to 
include information that would provide an overview of the alien's 
financial means and overall financial health. Since Legacy INS issued 
the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, the practical focus has been primarily 
on the sufficiency of an Affidavit of Support submitted on the alien's 
behalf. However, given that the statute sets out the Affidavit of 
Support as a separate

[[Page 51187]]

requirement and the statute includes the mandatory review of assets, 
resources and financial status as a factor,\480\ DHS is proposing to 
consider in the totality of the circumstances whether the alien can, 
taking into account both the alien's assets and liabilities, establish 
the ability to support himself or herself and the household as defined 
in the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \479\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
    \480\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All else being equal, the more assets and resources an alien has, 
the more self-sufficient the alien is likely to be, and the less likely 
the alien is to receive public benefits. On the other hand, an alien's 
lack of assets and resources, including income, makes an alien more 
likely to receive public benefits. Whether a person may be qualified 
for public benefits frequently depends on where the person's household 
income falls with respect to the FPG.\481\ Federal, State, and local 
public benefit granting agencies frequently use the FPG to determine 
eligibility for public benefits.\482\ Some major means-tested programs, 
however, rely on different income-related measurements for purposes of 
determining eligibility.\483\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \481\ The poverty guidelines are updated periodically in the 
Federal Register by HHS. The U.S. Census Bureau definition of family 
and family household can be found in U.S. Census Bureau, Current 
Population Survey 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) 
9-1 to 9-2, available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar17.pdf (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \482\ Different Federal programs use different percentages of 
the FPG such as 125 percent, 150 percent, or 185 percent. See U.S. 
Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the Assistant Sec'y for 
Planning & Evaluation, Frequently Asked Questions Related to the 
Poverty Guidelines and Poverty, What Programs Use the Federal 
Poverty Guidelines, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/frequently-asked-questions-related-poverty-guidelines-and-poverty#collapseExample9 (last visited Sept. 8, 2018).
    \483\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Frequently Asked 
Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines and Poverty, What 
Programs Use the Federal Poverty Guidelines, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/frequently-asked-questions-related-poverty-guidelines-and-poverty#collapseExample9 (last visited Sept. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because assets and resources include the employment income earned 
by an alien and the members of an alien's household, and are an 
important factor in determining whether the alien is likely to receive 
public benefits in the future, DHS proposes that when considering an 
alien's assets and resources, DHS will consider whether the alien has 
gross household income of at least 125 percent of the FPG based on the 
household size. If the alien's household income is less than 125 
percent of the FPG, the alien's other household assets and resources 
should be at least 5 times the difference between the household income 
and 125 of the FPG based on the household size.\484\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \484\ This is consistent with the provisions for assets under 
the affidavit of support in 8 CFR 213a.2(c)(2)(iii)(B)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS has chosen a household income of at least 125 percent of the 
FPG, which has long served as a touchpoint for public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.\485\ As of February 2018, within the 
contiguous United States, 125 percent of FPG ranges from approximately 
$20,300 for a family of two to $51,650 for a family of eight.\486\ 
Additionally, consistent with the affidavit of support context, if the 
alien's household income is under 125 percent of the FPG, the alien may 
use his or her assets, as well household members' assets, to meet the 
minimum income threshold to avoid the alien's household income being 
considered a negative factor in the totality of the circumstances 
review.\487\ If using household assets to demonstrate that the alien 
can meet the 125 percent of FPG threshold, the alien must present 
evidence that the assets total value is at least 5 times the difference 
between the household income and 125 percent of FPG for the household 
size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \485\ See INA section 213A(f)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)(1)(E).
    \486\ Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 83 FR 2642 
(Jan. 18, 2018).
    \487\ See INA section 213A(f)(1)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates how an applicant would be able to 
use his or her household assets and resources to demonstrate that he or 
she has financial support at 125 percent of the FPG. The applicant has 
filed an application for adjustment of status. The applicant has a 
household size of 4, where 125 percent of the FPG for that household 
size is $31,375. The applicant's household income is $24,000, which is 
$7,375 below 125 percent of the FPG for a household of 4. Therefore, in 
order to avoid DHS determining that the applicant's household income is 
a negative factor in the totality of the circumstances, the alien would 
need $36,875 in household assets and resources.
    An alien's financial status would also include the alien's 
liabilities as evidenced by the alien's credit report and score, as 
well as whether the alien has in the past, or is currently, receiving 
public benefits, among other considerations. Below, DHS describes the 
proposed rule's evidentiary requirements for this factor.
    DHS welcomes public comments on whether 125 percent of the FPG is 
an appropriate threshold in considering the alien's assets and 
resources or if there are other potential alternatives, including any 
studies or data that would provide a basis for a different measure or 
threshold.
1. Evidence of Assets and Resources
    DHS proposes that USCIS would consider certain types of evidence 
when reviewing this factor. USCIS consideration of an alien's assets 
and resources would include, but not be limited to, a review of such 
information as:
     The alien's annual gross household income (i.e., all 
sources of income before deductions), excluding any income from public 
benefits;
     Any additional income from individuals not included in the 
alien's household as defined in the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(d) who 
physically reside with the alien and whose income will be relied on by 
the alien to meet the proposed standard of household income at or above 
125 percent of FPG;
     Any additional income to the alien from another person or 
source not included in the alien's household on a continuing monthly or 
yearly basis for the most recent calendar year, excluding any income 
from public benefits;
     The household's cash assets and resources, including as 
reflected in checking and savings account statements in the last 12 
months;
     The household's non-cash assets and resources that can be 
converted into cash within 12 months, such as net cash value of real 
estate holdings minus the sum of all loans secured by a mortgage, trust 
deed, or other lien on the home; annuities; securities; retirement and 
educational accounts; and any other assets that can be converted into 
cash easily.
    All of this information is potentially relevant to a determination 
of the alien's assets and resources, and likelihood of becoming a 
public charge.
2. Evidence of Financial Status
    When reviewing whether the alien has any financial liabilities or 
past reliance on public benefits that make the alien more or less 
likely to become a public charge, DHS proposes to review the following 
evidence:
     Evidence that the alien has applied for or received any 
public benefit, as defined in the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), on or after 
the effective date of the final rule;
     Been certified or approved to receive public benefits, as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), on or after the effective date of the final 
rule;
     Evidence that the alien has applied for or received a fee 
waiver for

[[Page 51188]]

immigration benefits after the effective date of the final rule;
     Credit histories and credit scores; and
     Whether the alien has the private health insurance or the 
financial resources to pay for medical costs associated with a medical 
condition identified in 8 CFR 212.22(b)(2).
(a) Public Benefits
    Current or past applications for or receipt of public benefits, as 
defined in the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), suggests that the alien's 
overall financial status is so weak that he or she is or was unable to 
fully support him or herself without government assistance, i.e., that 
the alien will receive such benefits in the future. DHS, therefore, 
proposes to consider any current and past receipt of public benefits as 
set forth in 8 CFR 212.21(b) as a negative factor in the totality of 
the circumstances, because it is indicative of a weak financial status 
and increases the likelihood that the alien will become a public charge 
in the future. The weight given to this factor would depend on how 
recently the alien has received public benefits, and whether the person 
has received public benefits for an extended period of time (i.e., 
receives public benefits for multiple years) or at multiple different 
time periods (i.e., 3 times in the last two years).\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \488\ This proposed policy is generally consistent with 
longstanding policy affording less weight to benefits that were 
received longer ago in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS would also consider whether the alien has been certified or 
approved to receive public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), on 
or after the effective date of the final rule. For example, a person 
may be certified for SNAP benefits for a month or up to 24 months at 
one time and then receive the benefits from the EBT card on a monthly 
basis. In general, an alien who is certified or preapproved for 
benefits in the future is likely to continue to receive public benefits 
in the future. An alien nevertheless may otherwise establish that he or 
she has terminated the receipt of those benefits through documentation 
from the benefit-granting agency.
    DHS recognizes that a person who previously received public 
benefits may have changed circumstances and DHS would review those 
circumstances as part of the totality of the circumstances. For 
example, where an alien is currently unemployed and finishing a college 
education and received benefits, the alien may provide evidence that he 
or she has pending employment with benefits upon graduation from 
college and attaining a degree. It is possible that in the review of 
the totality of the circumstances, the alien would not be found likely 
to become a public charge.
    Review of past applications for or receipt of public benefits would 
include a review of both cash and non-cash public benefits as defined 
in the proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
in 2012, approximately 52.2 million people in the United States (or 
21.3 percent of the overall population) participated in major means-
tested government assistance programs each month.\489\ In addition, 
among those with family income below the poverty level \490\ an average 
of 61.3 percent participated in at least one major means tested 
benefit.\491\ Participation rates were highest for Medicaid (15.3 
percent) and SNAP (13.4 percent).\492\ The largest share of 
participants (43.0 percent) who benefited from one or more means-tested 
assistance programs between January 2009 and December 2012 stayed in 
the programs between 37 and 48 months.\493\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \489\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? (May 2015), available at 
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf; see also U.S. Census Bureau, News Release: 21.3 
Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance 
Programs Each Month (May 28, 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html. The U.S. 
Census Bureau included Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF), General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and 
housing assistance as major means-tested benefits as major means-
tested government benefits.
    \490\ See U.S. Census Bureau, News Release: 21.3 Percent of U.S. 
Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month 
(May 28, 2015), at 5, available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html. Note that the Census reports use 
the term income to poverty ratio.'' A ratio of less than 1 indicates 
a person's income is below the poverty level. The census report 
refers to average monthly participation rates.
    \491\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Household Economic Studies, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: 
Participation in Government Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets 
Assistance? 6 (May 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf. This 
report includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 
General Assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and 
housing assistance as major means-tested benefits.
    \492\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Household Economic Studies, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: 
Participation in Government Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets 
Assistance? 6 (May 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
    \493\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Household Economic Studies, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: 
Participation in Government Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets 
Assistance? 6 (May 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Fee Waivers for Immigration Benefits
    Under INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), USCIS collects fees at 
a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing 
adjudication and naturalization services, including the costs of 
providing similar services without charge to asylum applicants and 
other immigrants. USCIS may waive fees for specific immigration benefit 
forms if a person demonstrates ``inability to pay.'' \494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \494\ See 8 CFR 103.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes that USCIS would consider past receipt of a fee waiver 
as part of the financial status factor.\495\ Requesting or receiving a 
fee waiver for an immigration benefit suggests a weak financial status. 
Since fee waivers are based on an inability to pay, a fee waiver for an 
immigration benefit suggests an inability to be self-sufficient. In 
addition, the Senate Appropriations Report, which accompanied the 
fiscal year 2017 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act,\496\ expressed concern about the increased use of fee waivers, as 
those paying fees are forced to absorb costs for which they receive no 
benefit.\497\ The committee specifically expressed concern that those 
unable to pay fees are less likely to live in the United States 
independent of government assistance.\498\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \495\ This would be inclusive of fee exceptions where an 
applicant actively requests a fee waiver under 8 CFR 103.7(d).
    \496\ See Public Law 115-31, div. F, 131 Stat. 135, 404.
    \497\ See S. Rep. No. 114-264, at 125 (2016).
    \498\ See S. Rep. No. 114-264, at 125 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS would not consider a fee exemption as part of the determination 
of whether an alien is likely to become a public charge,\499\ as such 
exemption would have no bearing on whether an alien would be likely to 
become a public charge in the future. Fee exemptions are not fee 
waivers and are not affirmatively requested by an alien based on an 
inability to pay. Instead, fee exemptions are provided either to 
specific forms or immigrant categories based on statutory authority, 
regulations, or agency policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \499\ See 8 CFR 103.7(d); see also 22 CFR 41.107(c) (listing 
categories of aliens exempt from nonimmigrant visa fees); 9 FAM 
403.4-3 (same). Diplomats, UN visitors, U.S. Government employees, 
and those coming to perform charitable work are typical classes of 
aliens whose nonimmigrant visa fees are exempted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Credit Report and Score
    As also noted above, DHS also proposes that USCIS would consider an 
alien's liabilities and information of

[[Page 51189]]

such liabilities in a U.S. credit report and score as part of the 
financial status factor. Not everyone has a credit history in the 
United States. Nevertheless, a good credit score in the United States 
is a positive factor that indicates a person is likely to be self-
sufficient and support the household. Conversely, a lower credit score 
or negative credit history in the United States may indicate that a 
person's financial status is weak and that he or she may not be self-
sufficient. Credit reports contain information about a person's bill 
payment history, loans, current debt, and other financial 
information.\500\ Credit reports may also provide information about 
work and residences, lawsuits, arrests, and bankruptcies in the United 
States.\501\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \500\ See USA.gov, Credit Reports and Scores, available at 
https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports (last updated Mar. 8, 2018).
    \501\ See USA.gov, Credit Reports and Scores, available at 
https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports (last updated Mar. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A U.S. credit score is a number that rates a person's credit risk 
at a point in time.\502\ It can help creditors determine whether to 
give the person credit, affect the terms of credit the person is 
offered, or impact the rate the person will pay for a loan in the 
United States.\503\ U.S. banks and other entities use credit scoring to 
determine whether a person is likely to repay any loan or debt. A 
credit report takes into account a person's bill-paying history, the 
number and type of accounts with overdue payments, collection actions, 
outstanding debt, and the age of the accounts in the United 
States.\504\ Because credit reports and scores provide information on a 
person's financial status, DHS is proposing that USCIS would review any 
available U.S. credit reports as part of its public charge 
inadmissibility determinations. USCIS would generally consider a credit 
score characterized as ``good'' or better to be a positive factor as it 
demonstrates an applicant may be able to support him or herself and any 
dependents assuming all other financial records are sufficient. A 
``good'' credit report is generally near or slightly above the average 
of U.S. consumers,\505\ and therefore the person may be self-sufficient 
and less likely to become a public charge. A poor credit report is well 
below the average of U.S. consumers.\506\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \502\ See USA.gov, Credit Reports and Scores, available at 
https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports (last updated Mar. 8, 2018).
    \503\ See USA.gov, Credit Reports and Scores, available at 
https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports (last updated Mar. 8, 2018).
    \504\ See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Consumer Information: Credit Scores 
(Sept. 2013), available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0152-credit-scores#how.
    \505\ MyFICO, Understanding FICO Scores 5, available at https://www.myfico.com/Downloads/Files/myFICO_UYFS_Booklet.pdf (last visited 
Aug. 6, 2018).
    \506\ MyFICO, Understanding FICO Scores 5, available at https://www.myfico.com/Downloads/Files/myFICO_UYFS_Booklet.pdf (last visited 
Aug. 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS recognizes that not everyone has a credit report in the United 
States. The absence of an established U.S. credit history would not 
necessarily be a negative factor when evaluating public charge in the 
totality of the circumstances. Absent a U.S. credit report or score, 
USCIS may give positive weight to an alien who can show little to no 
debt and a history of paying bills timely. An alien may provide 
evidence of regular and timely payment of bills, and limited balances 
on credit cards and loans. In addition, USCIS would not consider any 
error on a credit score that has been verified by the credit agency in 
determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge in the 
future. DHS welcomes comments on whether DHS should also consider 
credit scores that are categorized less than ``good,'' the types of 
credit reports to be considered and the type of information from the 
credit history that should be reviewed.
(d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical Costs
    DHS also proposes that USCIS would consider evidence of whether an 
alien has the financial means for pay for certain reasonably 
foreseeable medical costs, including through private health insurance, 
as part of the financial factor for public charge inadmissibility 
determinations.
    Health insurance helps cover the cost of health care and being 
covered by health insurance programs, other than the ones included in 
the definition of public benefits under proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b). Some 
aliens currently obtain health insurance with government funding.\507\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \507\ See Jessica C. Barnett & Edward R. Berchick, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016 Current 
Population Reports (Sept. 2017), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-260.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having private health insurance would be a positive factor in the 
totality of the circumstances. DHS would not consider health insurance 
provided through government employment as a public benefit, but instead 
consider it a positive factor in the totality of the circumstances. By 
contrast, lack of health insurance or lack of the financial resources 
to pay for the medical costs would be a negative factor in the totality 
of the circumstances for any person.\508\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \508\ In 2016, 6,147,000 (26 percent) noncitizens and 1,726,000 
(8.4 percent) naturalized citizens did not have health insurance. 
See U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, available at 
https://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html (last visited 
Feb. 20, 2018) (Nativity and Health Insurance Coverage). In 2005, 
the estimated number of uninsured noncitizens was 45 percent (9.6 
million people); U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Estimating The Number Of 
Individuals in the U.S. Without Health Insurance, Table: Immigration 
Status (Apr. 8, 2005), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/dataset/table-1immigration-status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While having health insurance would generally be a positive factor 
in the totality of the circumstances, recent (within the past 36 
months) or current receipt of health insurance that constitutes a 
public benefit under proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), would generally be 
weighed heavily as a negative factor. Regardless of health status, DHS 
recognizes that an alien may have financial assets, resources, earned 
benefits, education or skills, or other support that may decrease his 
or her likelihood of becoming a public charge and would consider those 
factors in the totality of the circumstances.
I. Education and Skills
    An applicant's education and skills are mandatory statutory factors 
that must be considered when determining whether an alien is likely to 
become a public charge in the future.\509\ In general, an alien with 
educational credentials and skills is more employable and less likely 
to become a public charge. DHS, therefore, proposes that when 
considering this factor, DHS would consider whether the alien has 
adequate education and skills to either obtain or maintain employment 
sufficient to avoid becoming a public charge, if authorized for 
employment.\510\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \509\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
    \510\ The level of education may be an indicator for continued 
employment. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment 
Projections, Unemployment Rates and Earnings by Educational 
Attainment, 2016, available at https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm (last updated Mar. 27, 2018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51190]]

    Various studies and data support the concept that a person's 
education and skills are positive factors for self-sufficiency. The 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) observed in 2016 that there was a 
relationship between the educational level and unemployment rate.\511\ 
The unemployment rate for an individual with a doctoral degree was only 
1.6 percent compared to 7.4 percent for an individual with less than a 
high school diploma.\512\ According to the U.S. Census Bureau, lower 
educational attainment was associated with higher public benefit 
program participation rates for people over the age of 18.\513\ In 
2012, 37.3 percent of people who did not graduate from high school 
received means-tested benefits, compared with 21.6 percent of high 
school graduates and 9.6 percent of individuals with 1 or more years of 
college.\514\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \511\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment 
Projections, Unemployment Rates and Earnings by Educational 
Attainment, 2016, available at https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm (last updated Mar. 27, 2018).
    \512\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment 
Projections, Unemployment Rates and Earnings by Educational 
Attainment, 2016, available at https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm (last updated Mar. 27, 2018).
    \513\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? 10 (May 2015), available 
at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
    \514\ See Shelley K. Irving &Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? 10 (May 2015), available 
at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the data suggest that people who have lower education 
levels are not only more likely to receive public benefits but they 
tend to stay on them longer. For example, 49.4 percent of people with 
less than 4 years of high school who received public benefits from a 
major means-tested program between January 2009 and December 2012 
stayed on the benefit program for 37 to 48 months. In contrast, only 
39.3 percent of high school graduates and 29.0 percent of those with 1 
or more years of college who received public benefits during the same 
time period stayed on the public benefit program for 37 to 48 
months.\515\ The National Center for Education Statistics found that 
``[i]n 2015, the poverty rate for children under age 18 was highest for 
those whose parents had not completed high school (52 percent) and 
lowest for those whose parents had attained a bachelor's or higher 
degree (4 percent).'' \516\ The data suggests that a lack of education 
increases the likelihood of poverty and unemployment, which may in turn 
increase the likelihood to need public assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \515\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? 10 (May 2015), available 
at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
    \516\ See Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Characteristics of 
Children's Families, available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cce.asp# (last updated May 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of DHS's analysis of the SIPP data also show a 
relationship between education level and self-sufficiency. Tables 18 
and 19 indicate a relationship between education level and public 
benefit participation rates among both U.S. citizens and noncitizens in 
2013. U.S. citizens with less than a high school education were more 
likely to participate in either cash or non-cash welfare programs 
compared to U.S. citizens with any other education level. In 
particular, 37.2 percent of U.S. citizens with less than a high school 
education received either cash or non-cash benefits, while 19.2 percent 
of those with a high school degree and about 13.3 percent with some 
college received those benefits. When examining the cohort of U.S. 
citizens that have attained a college degree, only 5.5 percent with a 
Bachelor's degree, and 2.8 percent with a graduate degree received 
those benefits. For the noncitizen population, the rate of receipt of 
cash or non-cash benefits among those with less than a high school 
education was 28.2 percent, while among those with a diploma had a rate 
of receipt at 23.6 percent. Among those with some college the rate of 
receipt for cash and non-cash benefits was 18.0 percent, and with a 
Bachelor's or graduate degree, the rate was about 10 percent. For U.S. 
citizens and noncitizens alike, the rate of receipt of cash benefits 
was much higher among those without a high school education (12.2 
percent of U.S. citizens and 3.7 percent of noncitizens) than among any 
other education group (ranging from between 1 and 4 percent of U.S. 
citizens, and 1 percent or less of noncitizens).
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51191]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.033


[[Page 51192]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.034

    Moreover, according to the National Center for Education 
Statistics, increased education is associated with increased employment 
productivity and increased earnings.\517\ Unemployment decreases as 
skills gained through education increase.\518\ In 2013, only 27 percent 
of U.S. jobs required less than a high school degree, while 74 percent 
required skills associated with formal education (39 percent required a 
high school degree, 18 percent required a bachelor's degree, and 16 
percent required more than a bachelor's degree).\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \517\ See Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Education and the 
Economy: An Indicators Report (Mar. 1997), available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/web/97939.asp.
    \518\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment 
Projections, Unemployment Rates and Earnings by Educational 
Attainment, 2016, available at https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm (last updated Mar. 27, 2018).
    \519\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Education Level and 
Jobs: Opportunities by State (Sept. 2014), available at https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/article/education-level-and-jobs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 20 and 21 below show that among U.S. citizens and 
noncitizens, individuals holding professional certificates or licenses 
had lower rates of non-cash means-tested public benefits participation 
compared to their respective overall populations in 2013. In 
particular, 8.5 percent of U.S. citizens and 13.7 percent of 
noncitizens with professional certificates or licenses received non-
cash benefits compared to about 20 percent of the overall U.S. citizen 
and noncitizen populations. The rate of receipt of cash benefits among 
those with a professional certificate was 1.4 percent for U.S. citizens 
and 0.4 percent for noncitizens, compared to a rate of 3.6 percent 
among U.S. citizens

[[Page 51193]]

overall, and 1.8 percent among noncitizens overall.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.036

    Similar to those holding professional certificates or licenses, the 
rates of non-cash participation among the U.S. citizen and noncitizen 
populations were lower for those having an educational certificate 
compared to their respective overall populations in 2013, as 
highlighted in Tables 22 and 23. For example, among U.S. citizens, the 
participation rate for non-cash benefits was 12.7 percent for those 
having an educational certificate compared to 20.3 percent overall. 
Among noncitizens, the participation rate for non-cash benefits was 
very similar to that of U.S. citizens, with a rate of 13.1 percent 
among those having an educational certificate compared to 21.3 percent 
overall. The

[[Page 51194]]

rate of receipt of cash benefits among those having an educational 
certificate was about 2.4 percent among U.S. citizens and 0.8 percent 
among noncitizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \520\ The SIPP includes questions on professional certification 
and licenses developed by the Interagency Working Group on Expanded 
Measures of Enrollment and Attainment (GEMEnA). See Nat'l Ctr. for 
Educ. Statistics, Working Definitions of Non-Degree Credentials, 
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/gemena/definitions.asp (last visited 
Sept. 12, 2018); see also U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Adding 
Questions on Certifications and Licenses to the Current Population 
Survey (Nov. 2016), available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/adding-questions-on-certifications-and-licenses-to-the-current-population-survey.pdf. GEMEnA developed working definitions 
that categorize certification as a credential awarded by a non-
governmental body, and involve successfully passing an examination. 
A license is awarded by a government agency and provides legal 
authority to do a specific job. Both certifications and licenses are 
time-limited, so must be renewed periodically. Educational 
certificates are awarded by an educational institution and need not 
be renewed. See also See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Education 
Level and Jobs: Opportunities by State (Sept. 2014), available at 
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/article/education-level-and-jobs.htm.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.037


[[Page 51195]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.038

    Relatedly, English language proficiency is a skill that also is 
relevant in determining whether an alien is likely to become a public 
charge in the future. An inability to speak and understand English may 
adversely affect whether an alien can obtain employment.\522\ Aliens 
who cannot speak English may be unable to obtain employment in areas 
where only English is spoken. People with the lowest English speaking 
ability tend to have the lowest employment rate, lowest rate of full-
time employment, and lowest median earnings.\523\ According to U.S. 
Census Bureau data, people who spoke a language other than English at 
home were less likely to be employed, and less likely to find full-time 
work when employed.\524\ In a 2005 study, ``on average, workers who 
spoke only English earned $5,600 more than people who spoke another 
language,'' \525\ however, between the people who spoke English ``very 
well'' and people who spoke only English the difference was only 
$966.\526\ People who spoke English ``very well'' had higher earnings 
than people who spoke English ``well''--an earning differential of 
$7,000.\527\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \521\ See Nat'l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Working Definitions 
of Non-Degree Credentials, https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/gemena/definitions.asp (last visited Sept. 12, 2018).
    \522\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 2 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
    \523\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 6 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
    \524\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 6 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
    \525\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 6 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
    \526\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 6 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
    \527\ See Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Hyon B. Shin, U.S. Census 
Bureau, How Does Ability to Speak English Affect Earnings? 6 (2005), 
available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_AbilityandEarnings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 24 highlights a relationship between English language 
proficiency and public benefit participation in 2013. Among the 
noncitizen adults who speak a language other than English at home, the 
participation rates for both cash and non-cash benefits are higher 
among those who do not speak English well, or at all, than among those 
who speak the language well. The SIPP data indicate that the rate of 
coverage of non-cash benefits among those who spoke English either well 
or very well (about 15 to 20 percent) was significantly lower than the 
rate among those who either spoke English poorly or not at all (about 
25 to 30 percent). The rate of receipt of cash benefits for each of 
these groups ranged from about 1 to 5 percent.

[[Page 51196]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.039

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
    Additionally, numerous studies have shown that immigrants' English 
language proficiency or ability to acquire English proficiency directly 
correlate to a newcomer's economic assimilation into the United 
States.\528\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \528\ Barry R. Chiswick & Paul W. Miller, Immigrant Earnings: 
Language Skills, Linguistic Concentrations and the Business Cycle, 
15 J. Population Econ., 31, 31-57 (2002); Christian Dustmann, 
Fluency, Writing Fluency, and Earnings of Migrants, 7 J. Population 
Econ., 133, 133-156 (1994); Ingo E. Isphording, IZA Discussion Paper 
No. 7360, Disadvantages of Linguistic Origin: Evidence from 
Immigrant Literacy Scores (2013), available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp7360.pdf; Org. for Econ. Cooperation & Dev./European Union, 
Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In (2015), 
available at http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/Indicators-of-Immigrant-Integration-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS may also consider an applicant's proficiency in other languages 
in addition to English, with appropriate consideration given to market 
demand, when reviewing the education and skills factor.
1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements
    DHS proposes that USCIS would consider certain types of evidence 
when reviewing this factor. For the reasons expressed above, USCIS' 
review would include, but not be limited to:
     Evidence of the alien's recent history of employment;
     The alien's academic degree or certifications including a 
high school degree (or equivalent) or higher;
     The alien's occupational skills, certifications, or 
licenses; and
     The alien's proficiency in English or proficiencies in 
additional languages.

J. Prospective Immigration Status and Expected Period of Admission

    DHS would also take into consideration the immigration status and 
duration of admission sought by an alien, and the classification the 
alien is seeking, as part of this determination. The type of evidence 
generally required of an applicant for an immigrant visa,

[[Page 51197]]

admission as an immigrant, or adjustment of status would generally 
differ in scope from the evidence required of a bona fide applicant 
seeking a nonimmigrant visa or admission as a nonimmigrant. For 
example, an alien seeking permanent residence in the United States may 
be eligible for certain public benefits upon his or her entry as a 
permanent resident or after five years. As a result, there is a chance 
that he or she would avail him or herself of the available public 
benefit. USCIS would consider this possibility in the totality of the 
circumstances.
    On the other hand, aliens who are coming to the United States 
temporarily as a nonimmigrant may be less likely to avail themselves of 
public benefits, particularly if they are coming to the United States 
for a short period of time or if they are coming to the United States 
for employment purposes. For example, an alien coming to the United 
States on a nonimmigrant visitor (B-2) for a vacation in the United 
States for two weeks must establish he or she has sufficient funds to 
cover any expenses in the United States. Therefore, generally, a 
nonimmigrant visitor would be unlikely to avail him or herself of any 
public benefits for which he or she would be eligible based on being 
lawfully present in the United States. Therefore, such an alien, if 
otherwise entitled to a nonimmigrant visa and admission as a 
nonimmigrant, generally would not be subject to the public charge 
inadmissibility ground under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4), although it is possible that evidence may exist that gives 
rise to a public charge concern.

K. Affidavit of Support

    Failure to submit a required affidavit of support when required 
under section 212(a)(4)(C) or section 212(a)(4)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(C) or 1182(a)(4)(D), necessarily results in a determination 
of inadmissibility based on the public charge ground without review of 
any other statutory factors.\529\ For aliens who submit an affidavit of 
support, the statute allows DHS to consider the affidavit of support 
under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, in public charge 
inadmissibility determinations.\530\ DHS, therefore, proposes to 
consider any required affidavit of support \531\ as part of the 
totality of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \529\ Certain applicants are exempt from filing the affidavit of 
support under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
    \530\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(ii); see also proposed 8 CFR 212.22(b)(7).
    \531\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C) and (a)(4)(D), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(C) and 1182(a)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. General Consideration of Sponsorship and Affidavits of Support
    DHS would consider a sponsor's facially sufficient affidavit of 
support as a positive factor in the totality of the circumstances, but 
a sufficient affidavit of support alone would not result in a finding 
that an alien is unlikely at any time to become a public charge due the 
statute's requirement to consider the mandatory factors. Moreover, DHS 
has concerns about relying on sponsors to ensure that aliens will not 
become a public charge, as submitting a sufficient affidavit of support 
does not guarantee that the alien will not receive public benefits in 
the future.
    PRWORA and IIRIRA amended the INA by setting forth requirements for 
submitting what would be an enforceable affidavit of support, i.e., 
current Form I-864.\532\ Approximately 1 month after PRWORA was 
enacted, Congress amended the public charge inadmissibility ground, 
through passage of IIRIRA, to require certain applicants for lawful 
permanent resident status to submit an affidavit of support in 
accordance with section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.\533\ An 
Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864) \534\ 
is a contract between the sponsor and the U.S. Government that imposes 
on the sponsor a legally enforceable obligation to support the alien. 
The sponsor generally must demonstrate that he or she is able to 
maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income of not less than 125 
percent of the FPG.\535\ By creating these requirements in section 213A 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, Congress intended to ensure that affidavits 
of support were enforceable and that public benefit-granting agencies 
could be reimbursed for certain aid provided to the sponsored 
alien.\536\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \532\ See INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) 
and 1183a.
    \533\ See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 531(b), 
110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-675.
    \534\ The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, 
Form I-864EZ, may be used instead of Form I-864 in certain 
circumstances. References to the affidavit of support in this rule 
include Form I-864EZ.
    \535\ See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
    \536\ In explaining the provision, Congress continued to 
emphasize that the affidavits of support (before 1996) were 
previously unenforceable. Congress highlighted the difference 
between the situation at the time, before 1996, and the new law 
which would make the affidavits enforceable and permit benefit-
providing agencies to seek reimbursement. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-651, 
at 1449 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of PRWORA, benefit-granting agencies assess the combined 
income and resources of the sponsor (and his or her spouse) and the 
alien to determine whether the combined income and resources meet the 
eligibility requirements.\537\ This is called ``sponsor-to-alien 
deeming.'' Public benefits agencies, however, have encountered 
challenges obtaining information about the sponsor's income when 
determining the alien's eligibility for public benefits. A U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2009 report found that although 
the number of sponsored noncitizens potentially affected by such 
deeming is unknown, most recent information then available suggested 
that 11 percent (473,000) of sponsored aliens in 2007 applied for TANF, 
Medicaid, or SNAP during the course of 2007, and less than one percent 
applied for SSI.\538\ In addition, according to a 2002 study of the New 
York and Los Angeles areas by the Urban Institute for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of HHS, individuals who 
have become lawful permanent residents since the affidavit of support 
under section 213A of the Act was enacted in 1996 were poorer (with 
incomes below 100 percent of the FPL) than those who arrived 
earlier.\539\ ``Legal immigrants who entered the country since 1996 are 
poorer than those who arrived earlier, despite new policies requiring 
their sponsors to demonstrate incomes over 125 percent of the [FPL].'' 
\540\ The report also indicates that some immigrant families with 
incomes below twice the poverty level \541\ received SNAP, TANF or 
Medicaid from 1999-2000.\542\ For example, in Los Angeles 13 percent 
and in New York City 22 percent of noncitizen families

[[Page 51198]]

with income below twice the poverty level received food stamps 
(SNAP).\543\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \537\ See PRWORA, Public Law 104-193, section 423, 11 Stat. 
2105, 2271-74.
    \538\ See U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-09-375, 
Sponsored Noncitizens and Public Benefits (May 2009), available at 
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-375.
    \539\ See Randy Capps et al., How Are Immigrants Faring After 
Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York 
City ii (Mar. 4, 2002), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/72691/report.pdf.
    \540\ Randy Capps et al., How Are Immigrants Faring After 
Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York 
City ii (Mar. 4, 2002), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/72691/report.pdf.
    \541\ The report describes these families as low-income 
families.
    \542\ See Randy Capps et al., How Are Immigrants Faring After 
Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York 
City iv (Mar. 4, 2002), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/72691/report.pdf. Note that this report uses a household 
centered approach to evaluate data.
    \543\ See Randy Capps et al., How Are Immigrants Faring After 
Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York 
City iv (Mar. 4, 2002), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/72691/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposal To Consider Required Affidavits of Support
    Certain aliens are required to submit an affidavit of support.\544\ 
With certain exceptions, the requirement to submit an affidavit of 
support applies to immediate relatives (including orphans), family-
preference immigrants, and those employment-based immigrants whose 
petitioners are relatives or a firm in which a U.S. citizen or lawful 
permanent resident relative holds a significant ownership 
interest.\545\ Immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status in 
these categories are inadmissible under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D), unless an 
appropriate sponsor has completed and filed a sufficient affidavit of 
support.\546\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \544\ See INA section 212(a)(4).
    \545\ See INA sections 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(C) and (D); see also 8 CFR 213a.2(a)(2).
    \546\ Certain immigrant categories are exempt from the affidavit 
of support requirements including: Qualified battered spouses and 
children (and their eligible family members) and qualified 
widow(er)s of citizens, if these aliens have filed visa petitions on 
their own behalf. For more information on who must file an affidavit 
of support, see AFM Ch. 20.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A sufficient affidavit of support does not guarantee that the alien 
will not receive public benefits in the future and, therefore, DHS 
would only consider the affidavit of support as one factor in the 
totality of the circumstances. When determining the weight to give an 
affidavit of support in the totality of the circumstances, USCIS would 
assess the sponsor's annual income, assets, resources, and financial 
status, relationship to applicant, the likelihood that the sponsor 
would actually provide financial support to the alien, and any other 
related considerations.
    In order to assess the sponsor's likelihood of meeting his or her 
obligation to support the alien, DHS would look at how close of a 
relationship the sponsor has to the alien, as close family members 
would be more likely to financially support the alien if necessary. DHS 
would also look at whether the sponsor lives with this alien, as this 
could be indicative of the sponsor's willingness to support the alien 
if needed. Additionally, DHS would look at whether the sponsor has 
submitted affidavit of support with respect to other individuals, as 
this may be indicative of the sponsor's willingness or ability to 
financially support the alien.
    To the extent that the initial evidence submitted by the sponsor is 
insufficient to make this determination, USCIS would request additional 
information from the sponsor or interview the sponsor to determine 
whether the sponsor is willing and able to support the alien on a long-
term basis. The inability or unwillingness of the sponsor to 
financially support the alien may be viewed as a negative factor in the 
totality of the circumstances. DHS expects that a sponsor's sufficient 
affidavit of support would not be an outcome-determinative factor in 
most cases; the presence of a sufficient affidavit of support does not 
eliminate the need to consider all of the mandatory factors in the 
totality of the circumstances.\547\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \547\ However, the statute requires a finding of inadmissibility 
on public charge grounds if the alien is required to submit an 
affidavit of support and fails to do so. INA section 212(a)(4)(D), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Heavily Weighed Factors

    DHS proposes a number of factors or factual circumstances that it 
has determined would generally weigh heavily in determining whether an 
alien is likely to become a public charge in the future.\548\ The mere 
presence of any one enumerated circumstance would not, alone, be 
determinative. A heavily weighed factor could be outweighed by 
countervailing evidence in the totality of the circumstances. Other 
negative and positive factors, including factors not enumerated 
elsewhere in this rule, may also be weighed heavily in individual 
determinations, as circumstances warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \548\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Heavily Weighed Negative Factors
    DHS proposes to consider certain factors listed below as heavily 
negative because these factors are particularly indicative of a 
likelihood that the alien would become a public charge.
(a) Lack of Employability
    As long as an alien is not a full-time student and is authorized to 
work, DHS proposes that the absence of current employment, employment 
history, or reasonable prospect of future employment will be a heavily 
weighed negative factor.\549\ Self-sufficiency generally involves 
people being capable and willing to work and being able to maintain 
gainful employment. A person who is capable and able to work but does 
not work demonstrates a lack of self-sufficiency. As previously 
discussed, various studies and data support the concept that a person's 
education and skills may be positive factors for purposes of evidencing 
self-sufficiency, including the SIPP data reviewed in the Education and 
Skills section, and the U.S. Census Bureau report that indicates that 
lower educational attainment is associated with higher public benefit 
program participation rates for people over the age of 18.\550\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \549\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22(c)(1)(ii). While a full-time 
student must still demonstrate he or she is not likely to become a 
public charge, because the public charge determination is based on 
the totality of the circumstances under the proposed 8 CFR 212.22(d) 
that includes consideration of the alien's immigration status, the 
lack of employment or employment history is not counted as a heavily 
weighed negative factor when making public charge determinations 
regarding full-time students. The full-time student is working 
toward a degree, which makes the student more employable in the 
future, and as such, has a reasonable prospect of employment in the 
future.
    \550\ See Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. Loveless, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government 
Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance? 10 (May 2015), available 
at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the concept that a person's education and skills may 
be positive factors for purposes of evidencing self-sufficiency is 
supported by two Census Bureau studies covering 2004 to 2007 and 2009 
to 2012, showing that in each of the covered years, individuals with 
full-time work were less likely to receive means-tested benefits during 
the year (ranging from 4.5 percent to 5.1 percent) than those with 
either part-time work (ranging from 12.6 percent to 14.2 percent) or 
those who were unemployed (ranging from 24.8 percent to 31.2 
percent).\551\
    DHS recognizes however, that not everyone authorized to work needs 
to work. Some aliens may have sufficient assets and resources, 
including a household member's income and assets, which may overcome 
any negative factor related to lack of employment. DHS would review 
those considerations in the totality of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \551\ See Jeongsoo Kim, Shelley K. Irving, & Tracy A. Loveless, 
U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation 
in Government Programs, 2004 to 2007 and 2009--Who Gets Assistance? 
12 (July 2012), available at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-130.pdf; Shelley K. Irving & Tracy A. 
Loveless, U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: 
Participation in Government Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets 
Assistance? 10 (May 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Current Receipt of One or More Public Benefits
    DHS proposes that current receipt of one or more public benefits, 
as defined

[[Page 51199]]

in proposed 212.21(b), would be a heavily weighed negative factor in a 
public charge inadmissibility determination.\552\ Current receipt of 
public benefits, alone, would not justify a finding of inadmissibility 
on public charge grounds. However, an alien's current receipt of one or 
more public benefits means that the alien is currently a public charge 
as defined under proposed 8 CFR 212.21(a), and suggests that the alien 
may continue to receive public benefits in the future and be more 
likely to continue to be a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \552\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22(c)(1)(ii) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research indicates that the largest share of participants (43.0 
percent) who benefited from one or more means-tested assistance 
programs between January 2009 and December 2012 stayed in the programs 
between 37 and 48 months.\553\ DHS is also aware that a separate study 
showed that receipt of benefits across a two-year timespan is likely to 
occur in all months, suggesting relatively long welfare spell lengths. 
Between January 2004 and December 2005, a greater share of the 
population received one or more means-tested benefits for the entire 
24-month study period (10.2 percent) than for either one to 11 months 
(8.5 percent) or 12 to 23 months (6.5 percent).\554\ These studies, 
though, do not directly address the issue of individuals who stopped 
receiving benefits later returning to these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \553\ See U.S. Census Bureau, News Release: 21.3 Percent of U.S. 
Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month 
(May 28, 2015), available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html.
    \554\ See Jeongsoo Kim, Shelley K. Irving, & Tracy A. Loveless, 
U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation 
in Government Programs, 2004 to 2007 and 2009--Who Gets Assistance? 
4 fig.4 (July 2012), available at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2012/demo/p70-130.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some studies suggest that although most people who leave welfare 
programs are working after they leave those programs, people may come 
back to receive additional public benefits.\555\ In a research study 
funded by HHS, A Profile of Families Cycling On and Off Welfare, 
researchers conclude that people who left welfare (leavers) experienced 
``a fair amount of employment instability--the median proportion of 
people employed in all four post-exit quarters was 37 percent. Thus, 
job loss among welfare leavers may give rise to cycling back to 
welfare.'' \556\ Regarding Medicaid and food stamp participation among 
leavers, the authors found ``the proportion of leavers who receive 
these benefits at some point in the year after exit is much higher than 
the proportion who receives them in any given quarter, suggesting a 
fair amount of cycling into and out of these programs.'' \557\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \555\ See Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile 
of Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf.
    \556\ Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile of 
Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004) (citing Gregory 
Arcs & Pamela Loprest, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office 
of the Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Final Synthesis 
Report of Findings from ASPE ``Leavers'' Grants (2001)), available 
at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf. This 
study was based on the first and fourth quarter.
    \557\ Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile of 
Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HHS also funds various research projects on welfare. Across fifteen 
state and county welfare studies funded by HHS, it was found that the 
number of leavers who received food stamps within one year of exit was 
between 41 and 88 percent.\558\ Furthermore, TANF leavers returned to 
the program at a rate ranging between 17 and 38 percent within one year 
of exit.\559\ Twelve of these studies included household surveys, with 
some conducting interviews less than a year post-exit, and some as much 
as 34 months after exit.\560\ A review of these surveys found that 
among those who left Medicaid, the rate of re-enrollment at the time of 
interview was between 33 and 81 percent among adults, and between 51 
and 85 percent among children. Employment rates at the time of 
interview ranged between 57 and 71 percent.\561\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \558\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \559\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \560\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \561\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS thus would view current receipt of public benefits as a strong 
indicator that an alien will continue to receive public benefits, and 
is therefore likely to become a public charge. However, an alien may be 
able to establish circumstances indicating that the receipt of public 
benefits will stop in the near future and he or she will have 
sufficient income to support him or herself.
(c) Receipt of Public Benefits Within 36 Months of Filing Application
    Similarly, DHS proposes that an alien's past receipt of public 
benefits within the 36 months immediately preceding his or her 
application also carries significant weight in determining whether the 
alien is likely to become a public charge. The weight given to this 
factor will depend on how recently the alien has received public 
benefits, and whether the person has received public benefits for an 
extended period of time (i.e., receives public benefits for multiple 
years) or at multiple different time periods (i.e., 3 times in the last 
two years).\562\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \562\ This proposed policy is generally consistent with 
longstanding policy affording less weight to benefits that were 
received longer ago in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, some studies suggest that although most 
people who leave welfare programs are working after they leave those 
programs, people may come back to receive additional public 
benefits.\563\ In a research study funded by HHS, A Profile of Families 
Cycling On and Off Welfare, researchers conclude that people who left 
welfare (leavers) experienced ``a fair amount of employment 
instability--the median proportion of people employed in all four post-
exit quarters was 37 percent. Thus, job loss among welfare leavers may 
give rise to cycling back to welfare.'' \564\ Regarding Medicaid and 
food stamp participation among leavers, the authors found ``the 
proportion of leavers who receive these benefits at some point in the 
year after exit is much higher than the proportion who receives them in 
any given quarter, suggesting a fair amount of cycling into and out of 
these programs.'' \565\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \563\ See Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile 
of Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf.
    \564\ Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile of 
Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004) (citing Gregory 
Arcs & Pamela Loprest, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office 
of the Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Final Synthesis 
Report of Findings from ASPE ``Leavers'' Grants (2001)), available 
at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf. This 
study was based on the first and fourth quarter.
    \565\ Lashawn Richburg-Hayes & Stephen Freedman, A Profile of 
Families Cycling On and Off Welfare 4 (Apr. 2004), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/73451/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HHS also funds various research projects on welfare. Across fifteen 
state and county welfare studies funded by

[[Page 51200]]

HHS, it was found that the number of leavers who received food stamps 
within one year of exit was between 41 and 88 percent.\566\ 
Furthermore, TANF leavers returned to the program at a rate ranging 
between 17 and 38 percent within one year of exit.\567\ Twelve of these 
studies included household surveys, with some conducting interviews 
less than a year post-exit, and some as much as 34 months after 
exit.\568\ A review of these surveys found that among those who left 
Medicaid, the rate of re-enrollment at the time of interview was 
between 33 and 81 percent among adults, and between 51 and 85 percent 
among children. Employment rates at the time of interview ranged 
between 57 and 71 percent.\569\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \566\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \567\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \568\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
    \569\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of the 
Assistant Sec'y for Planning & Evaluation, Status Report on Research 
on the Outcomes of Welfare Reform app. B (Aug. 2001), available at 
https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/status-report-research-outcomes-welfare-reform-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS would view past receipt of public benefits within 36 months as 
a strong indicator that an alien will continue to receive public 
benefits, and therefore is likely to become a public charge. However, 
the weight given to public benefits will depend on whether the alien 
received multiple benefits, how long ago the benefits were received, 
and the amounts received.\570\ For example, the receipt of a public 
benefit 5 years ago would be a negative factor; however, a public 
benefit received six months before the adjustment of status application 
would be considered a heavily weighed negative factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \570\ This proposed policy is generally consistent with 
longstanding policy affording less weight to benefits that were 
received longer ago in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS welcomes public comments on the appropriate period of time to 
examine. DHS is particularly interested in data regarding how 
frequently individuals who previously used public benefits later do so 
again, and whether a 24-month or 48-month timeframe would be more 
appropriate.
(d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical Costs
    An alien is a high risk of becoming a public charge if he or she 
does not have private health insurance or the financial resources to 
pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to a medical 
condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien's ability to 
provide care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to work. 
However, the alien may provide evidence of the prospect of obtaining 
health insurance, such as pending employment that provides employer-
sponsored health insurance.
    DHS proposes this factual circumstance as a heavily weighed 
negative factor in 8 CFR 212.22(c)(1)(iv). Certain chronic medical 
conditions can be costly to treat.\571\ Certain conditions may 
adversely affect an applicant's ability and capacity to obtain and 
retain gainful employment. Other conditions could result in long-term 
institutionalization in a health care facility at government expense. 
According to the Multiple Chronic Conditions Chartbook 2010 Medical 
Expenditure Panel Survey Data,\572\ 86 percent of the nation's $2.7 
trillion annual health care expenditures were for individuals with 
chronic and mental health conditions.\573\ The Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) has listed the five most expensive health 
conditions as heart disease, cancer, trauma, mental disorders, and 
pulmonary conditions.\574\ These are all classified as costly medical 
conditions.\575\ In the United States, chronic diseases and conditions 
that cause them account for most of the health care costs.\576\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \571\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Research In 
Action, Issue #19: The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care 
Expenditures (June 2006), available at https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/expendria.pdf; see also 
Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., NHE Fact Sheet, available at 
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html 
(last modified Sept 13, 2018) (in 2016, NHE grew to $3.3 trillion). 
For a discussion of expenditures, see generally Ctrs. for Medicare & 
Medicaid Servs., National Health Expenditure Data, available at 
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData (last modified Sept 13, 
2018); see also Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Chronic Disease Data 
available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/data/index.htm (last 
visited Sept. 13, 2018). The CDC collects large amounts of data on 
numerous major chronic diseases. In addition, the CDC provides an 
overview of chronic diseases in the United States, including 
prevalence and cost. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 
About Chronic Diseases, Health and Economic Costs of Chronic 
Diseases, available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \572\ As cited by the CDC. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & 
Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and 
Health Promotion, About Chronic Diseases, Health and Economic Costs 
of Chronic Diseases, available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \573\ See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, National 
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, About 
Chronic Diseases, Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, 
available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \574\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Research In 
Action, Issue #19: The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care 
Expenditures (June 2006), available at https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/expendria.pdf; see also 
Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, About Chronic Diseases, 
Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 
13, 2018). See also generally the Ctrs. for Disease Control & 
Prevention, Statistics on Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 
Promotion, Chronic Disease Data available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/data/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \575\ See U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Research In 
Action, Issue #19: The High Concentration of U.S. Health Care 
Expenditures (June 2006), available at https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/expendria.pdf; see also 
Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, About Chronic Diseases, 
Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 
13, 2018). See also generally the Ctrs. for Disease Control & 
Prevention, Statistics on Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 
Promotion, Chronic Disease Data available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/data/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
    \576\ See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, National 
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, About 
Chronic Diseases, Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, 
available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From 2012 to 2013, the total annual direct medical costs 
for heart disease and strokes were $190 billion;\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \577\ See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, National 
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, About 
Chronic Diseases, Health and Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, 
available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cancer care cost $157 billion in 2010 dollars;\578\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \578\ See Nat'l Cancer Inst., Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care 
Projections, http://costprojections.cancer.gov/ (last visited Sept. 
13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In 2017, the total estimated direct medical cost for 
diagnosed diabetes was $237 billion.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \579\ See American Diabetes Association, The Cost of Diabetes, 
available at http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/news-events/cost-of-diabetes.html (last visted Sept. 13, 2018). See also Ctrs. for 
Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion, About Chronic Diseases, Health and 
Economic Costs of Chronic Diseases, available at https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm (last visited Sept. 
13, 2018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51201]]

    Individuals in poor to fair health are more likely to access public 
benefits to treat their medical condition. Tables 25 and 26 show a 
relationship between health and receipt of public benefits irrespective 
of citizenship status, with higher rates of participation in most 
programs among those who reported their health as fair or poor than 
those who reported their health as excellent, very good, or good.
    DHS also acknowledges that the health of certain individuals may 
have improved because of their access to these subsidized health 
insurance and other public benefits. In other cases, individuals may 
have needed the public benefits because of their compromised health. 
About 40 percent of U.S. citizens and 50 percent of noncitizens \580\ 
who described their health as poor received some form of cash or non-
cash public benefit. Moreover, about 20 percent of U.S. citizens and 
noncitizens who reported their health as excellent participated in at 
least one type of cash or non-cash benefit program in 2013. The rate of 
receipt of cash or non-cash benefits was about 20 percent among U.S. 
citizens who reported their health as excellent, very good, or good; 
and the rate was 30 to 40 percent among U.S. citizens who reported 
their health as fair or poor. Among noncitizens, the rate of receipt of 
these benefits among those who reported their health as excellent, very 
good, or good was similarly about 20 percent, while among those who 
reported their health as fair or poor, the rate was 30 to 50 percent. 
About 1 to 2 percent of both U.S. citizens and noncitizens who reported 
their health as excellent or good received at least one of SSI, TANF, 
or GA, which was a rate much lower than those who reported their health 
as either good (10.0 percent of U.S. citizens and 7.1 percent of 
noncitizens) or excellent (17.3 percent of citizens and 12.8 percent of 
noncitizens).\581\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \580\ The difference in rates between citizens and noncitizens 
who describe their health as poor is not statistically significant.
    \581\ See Amy Finkelstein et al., Nat'l Bureau of Econ. 
Research, Working Paper 17190, The Oregon Health Insurance 
Experiment: Evidence from the First Year (July 2011), available at 
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17190.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.040


[[Page 51203]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.041

    As noted in the discussion of the health factor above, USCIS would 
rely on panel physician and civil surgeon medical examination for 
purposes of whether an individual's circumstances gives rise to this 
heavily weighted negative factor. USCIS would consider it a heavily 
weighed negative factor if the panel physician or civil surgeon reports 
a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical 
treatment or institutionalization, or that will interfere with the 
alien's ability to provide for him- or herself, attend school, or work; 
and the alien is uninsured or has health insurance that constitutes a 
public benefit under 212.21(b), or the alien has no prospect of 
obtaining private health insurance, or other non-governmental means of 
paying for medical treatment.
(e) Alien Previously Found Inadmissible or Deportable Based on Public 
Charge
    DHS is proposing to consider an alien previously found inadmissible 
or deportable based on public charge grounds to be a high risk of 
becoming a public charge in the future.\582\ Absent countervailing 
positive factors and evidence to show that current

[[Page 51204]]

circumstances outweigh the conditions that supported the finding of 
inadmissibility, the previous finding will carry heavy weight in 
determining that an alien is likely to be a public charge again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \582\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.22(c)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Heavily Weighed Positive Factors
    Significant income, assets, and resources play a major role in 
whether an individual is likely to become a public charge. In addition, 
as described above, Tables 27 and 28 show a relationship between the 
FPG and welfare participation rates among both U.S. citizens and 
noncitizens in receipt of non-cash benefits in 2013. The percentage of 
people receiving these public benefits generally goes down as the 
income percentage increases. Specifically, 52.0 percent of U.S. 
citizens living below 125 percent of the FPG received non-cash benefits 
compared to 42.4 percent of those living between 125 and 250 percent of 
the FPG, 36.9 percent of those living between 250 and 400 percent of 
the FPG, and 13.5 percent of those above 400 percent of the FPL. 
Noncitizen participation rates in non-cash benefit programs among those 
living below 125 percent of the FPG was about 40 percent, compared to 
about 35 percent of those either between 125 and 250 percent of the FPG 
or 250 and 400 percent of the FPG.\583\ Among noncitizens living above 
400 percent of the FPG, the rate of receipt was 17.1 percent. Among 
U.S. citizens, the rate of receipt of cash benefits among those living 
below 125 percent of the FPG was 12.9 percent, compared to a rate of 
10.3 percent among those living between 125 and 250 percent of the FPG, 
5.5 percent among those living between 250 and 400 percent of the FPG, 
and 1.9 percent of those living above 400 percent of the FPG. Among 
noncitizens, the rates of receipt were 6.7 percent among those living 
below 125 percent of the FPG, about 2 to 3 percent among those either 
living between 125 to 250 percent of the FPG or living between 250 to 
400 percent of the FPG, and 1.1 percent among those living above 400 
percent of the FPG. Because many public benefit programs determine 
eligibility based on the FPG, individuals living above 250 percent of 
the FPG are less likely to receive public benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \583\ The difference in rates between noncitizens living below 
125 percent of the FPG and those living either between 125 and 250 
percent of the FPG, or 250 and 400 percent of the FPG, was not 
statistically significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, and based on the data that follows, DHS proposes 
to consider it a heavily weighed positive factor if the alien has 
financial assets, resources, support, or annual income of at least 250 
percent of the FPG in the totality of the circumstances.\584\ However, 
DHS notes that an alien with an annual income of less than 250 percent 
of FPG would not automatically be inadmissible based on public charge. 
Instead, all the factors as discussed above would be considered in the 
totality of the circumstances, which may be favorable to be person 
regardless of whether the income is below 250 percent of the FPG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \584\ Income between 125 and 250 percent of the FPL is 
considered a positive factor in the public charge inadmissibility 
analysis.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.042


[[Page 51206]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.043

(f) Previously Excluded Benefits
    DHS would not consider public benefits under the proposed 8 CFR 
212.21(b) that were previously excluded under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance if received before effective date of the final rule. DHS, 
however, would continue to consider cash benefits for income 
maintenance SSI, TANF and benefits for long-term institutionalization 
(i.e. those previously considered under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance) that an alien received before the effective date of the final 
rule.\585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \585\ Under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, DHS would consider 
the current receipt of cash benefits for income maintenance or long-
term institutionalization at government expense in the totality of 
the circumstances. See Field Guidance on Deportability and 
Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 
26, 1999) (``If at the time of application for admission or 
adjustment an alien is receiving a cash public assistance for income 
maintenance or is institutionalized for long-term care (as discussed 
in section 6, below), that benefit should be taken into account 
under the totality of the circumstances test, along with the other 
statutory factors under section 212(a)(4)(B)(i) and any [adjustment 
of status].''). DHS would also consider past receipt of cash 
benefits for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at 
government expense in the totality of the circumstances. See Field 
Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge 
Grounds, 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 26, 1999) (``[P]ast receipt of cash 
income-maintenance benefits does not automatically make an alien 
inadmissible as likely to become a public charge, nor does past 
institutionalization for long-term care at government expense. 
Rather this history would be one of many factors to be considered in 
applying the totality of the circumstances test.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public benefits previously considered under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance and received prior to the effective date of this rule would be 
considered as a negative factor in the totality of the circumstances 
analysis when determining whether an alien is inadmissible as likely at 
any time to become a public charge. However, the

[[Page 51207]]

receipt of such benefits would not be considered as a heavily weighed 
negative factor.
    Table 29 provides a summary of how benefits received prior to and 
after the effective date of this proposed rule would be considered 
under the proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.044

Examples
    The following examples illustrate how DHS will consider benefits 
received prior to the effective date of the rule for the purposes of 
making public charge inadmissibility determinations. These examples are 
for illustrative purposes only and assume a closed universe of facts 
for purposes of simplicity. The examples are not intended to represent 
actual possible outcomes, as each case is reviewed individually on its 
own merits. Under the proposed rule, benefits received prior to the 
effective date of the rule would be excluded from consideration unless 
such benefits would have been considered under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance.\588\ However, benefits received after the effective date of 
the rule would be considered to the extent that they are a public 
benefit, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \586\ SNAP benefits received after the effective date of the 
proposed rule will be valued as set forth in proposed 8 CFR 
212.24(a).
    \587\ The 1999 Interim Field Guidance suggests that any past or 
current receipt of the type of public benefits included for 
consideration will be included in the public charge inadmissibility 
determination. See Field Guidance on Deportability and 
Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 
26, 1999) (``If at the time of application for admission or 
adjustment an alien is receiving a cash public assistance for income 
maintenance or is institutionalized for long-term care (as discussed 
in section 6, below), that benefit should be taken into account 
under the totality of the circumstances test, along with the other 
statutory factors under section 212(a)(4)(B)(i) and any AOS . . . . 
Past receipt of cash income-maintenance benefits does not 
automatically make an alien inadmissible as likely to become a 
public charge, nor does past institutionalization for long-term care 
at government expense. Rather this history would be one of many 
factors to be considered in applying the totality of the 
circumstances test. In the case of an alien who has received cash 
income-maintenance benefits in the past or who has been 
institutionalized for long-term care at government expense, a 
Service officer determining admissibility should assess the totality 
of the alien's circumstances at the time of the application for 
admission or adjustment and make a forward-looking determination 
regarding the likelihood that the alien will become a public charge 
after admission or adjustment.'' (emphasis added)).
    \588\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1: Benefits Excluded Under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance
    Example 1 is based on the following scenario: The DHS rule on 
public charge inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), goes into effect on January 1, 2019. The alien is 
the only member of the household, has been paroled into the United 
States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act for over five years, 
and is seeking to adjust status based on a visa category subject to 
public charge inadmissibility. The alien files the adjustment of 
status application on May 1, 2019, and the application is 
adjudicated on September 1, 2019. HHS published the new FPG in early 
January 2019, which contains the same values as the 2018 FPG for 
purposes of this example. For a household of 1, the FPG is $12,140. 
Fifteen percent of the FPG is $1,821 in a 12-month period. The alien 
is certified to receive SNAP benefits for 36 months, beginning on 
January 1, 2018. For the consecutive 12-month period between January 
1, 2018 and December 31, 2018, the alien receives $2,160 in SNAP 
benefits. For the consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 
2019 and December 31, 2019, the alien receives $2,160 in SNAP 
benefits. The alien received no other public benefits. SNAP was 
previously excluded under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, but is 
included in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b).
    Under proposed 8 CFR 212.22(d), the SNAP benefits the alien 
received before January 1, 2019, the effective date of the public 
charge rule, would not be considered. However, the SNAP benefits the 
alien received on or after January 1, 2019 would be considered if 
the aggregate annual value of SNAP benefits received since the 
effective date of the rule exceeds $1,821 (fifteen percent of the 
FPG for the household of one within any period of consecutive twelve 
consecutive months). For the consecutive twelve-month period between 
January 1, 2019 and September 1, 2019, the date of adjudication, the 
alien had only received a total of $1,620 in SNAP benefits, which is 
less than the threshold amount. However, because the alien is 
certified to receive $2,160 in SNAP benefits for a consecutive 
twelve-month period beginning after the rule's effective date, and 
such amount exceeds fifteen percent of the FPG, these benefits would 
be considered as a heavily weighed negative factor in the totality 
of the circumstances, as illustrated in Table 30. In this case, 
absent other evidence tending to show that the alien is unlikely to 
receive the benefits covered by the certification, USCIS would 
probably find that the alien is likely to become a public charge and 
is ineligible for adjustment of status.\589\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \589\ Pursuant to proposed 8 CFR 212.24(a), for SNAP benefits, 
DHS would calculate the value of the benefit attributable to the 
alien in proportion to the total number of people covered by the 
benefit, based on the amount(s) deposited as defined in 212.21(b) 
which the benefits are received in the Electronic Benefits Transfer 
(EBT) card account.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51208]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.045

    Example 2: Benefits Excluded Under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance
    Example 2 is based on the following scenario: The DHS rule on 
public charge inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), goes into effect on January 1, 2019. An alien is 
the only member of the household, has been paroled pursuant to 
section 212(d)(5) of the Act for over five years, and is seeking to 
adjust status based on a visa category subject to a public charge 
inadmissibility determination. The alien files the adjustment of 
status application on May 1, 2020, and the application is 
adjudicated on September 1, 2020. HHS publishes the calendar year 
2019 FPG in early January 2019 and the 2020 FPG in early January 
2020. For the purposes of this example, the FPG for 2019 and 2020 
contains the same values as the FPG for 2018, which is $12,140. 
Fifteen percent of the FPG for 2018, 2019 and 2020 would be $1,821 
in the relevant consecutive 12-month periods for this example .The 
alien was certified to receive SNAP for 36 months beginning in 
January 2018. The alien received no other public benefits. For the 
consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2018 and December 
31, 2018, the alien received $2,160 in SNAP benefits. For the 
consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2019 and December 
31, 2019, the alien received $2,160 in SNAP benefits. Beginning on 
January 1, 2020, however, the alien no longer receives any SNAP 
benefits. The alien provided a benefits termination letter as 
evidence along with the alien's adjustment application.
    Under proposed 8 CFR 212.22(d), the SNAP benefits the alien 
received before January 1, 2019, the effective date of the public 
charge rule, would not be considered. However, the SNAP benefits the 
alien received on or after January 1, 2019 would be considered if 
the aggregate annual value of SNAP benefits received since the 
effective date of the rule exceeds $1,821 (fifteen percent of the 
FPG for the household of one within any period of consecutive twelve 
consecutive months). For the consecutive twelve-month period between 
January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, the SNAP benefits the alien 
received exceeded the fifteen percent threshold, and therefore would 
be considered. Because the receipt was within the 36 months 
immediately preceding the application, it is a heavily weighed 
factor in the totality of the circumstances. The termination letter 
suggests, however, that the alien is unlikely to receive future 
public benefits. DHS would weigh the termination letter along with 
the other evidence, in the totality of the circumstances. The 
preceding analysis is summarized in Table 31.\590\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \590\ Pursuant to proposed 8 CFR 212.24(a), for SNAP benefits, 
DHS would calculate the value of the benefit attributable to the 
alien in proportion to the total number of people covered by the 
benefit, based on the amount(s) deposited as defined in 212.21(b) 
which the benefits are received in the Electronic Benefits Transfer 
(EBT) card account.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.046

    Example 3: Benefits Previously Excluded and Included Under the 
1999 Interim Field Guidance
    The example is based on the following scenario: The DHS rule on 
public charge inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), goes into effect on January 1, 2019. An alien has 
been paroled into the United States pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of 
the Act for over five year and is seeking to adjust status based on 
a visa category subject to the public charge inadmissibility 
determination. The alien's household of three includes the alien and 
the alien's two U.S. citizen children. The alien files an adjustment 
of status application on May 1, 2019, and the application is 
adjudicated on September 1, 2019. HHS publishes the calendar year 
2019 FPG in early January 2019. For the purposes of this example, 
the FPG for 2019 contains the same values as the FPG for 2018. The 
relevant FPG based on a household of one in a consecutive twelve-
month period is $12,140. Fifteen percent of the average FPG for the 
consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2018 and FPG for 
December 31, 2018 is $1,821. Fifteen percent of the average FPG for 
the consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2019 and FPG 
for December 31, 2019 is also $1,821.
    For the consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2018 
and December 31, 2018, the alien's household of 3 receives $2,400 in 
SNAP benefits. The proportional value of the $2,4000 SNAP benefit 
attributable to the alien based on her household size of 3 for this 
consecutive twelve-month period would be $800, or one third of 
$2,400. Similarly, for the consecutive twelve-month period between 
January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, the alien's household is 
certified to receives $1,800 in SNAP benefits for the a household 
size of 3.
    The alien is also receiving TANF. For the consecutive twelve-
month period between January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2018, the 
alien also receives a proportionate share of $100 per month in TANF 
benefits or $1,200 for the twelve-month period. The alien is 
certified to continue to receive TANF at this level through December 
2019, and there is no evidence that the alien has terminated 
receipt.
    Under proposed 8 CFR 212.22(d), the SNAP benefits the alien 
received before January 1, 2019, the effective date of the public 
charge rule, would not be considered. However, the SNAP benefits the 
alien received on or after January 1, 2019 would be considered if 
the cumulative value of all monetizable benefits received exceeded 
$1,821. TANF was considered under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance 
and therefore, the total value of the benefit received prior January 
1, 2019 would be considered as a negative factor in the totality of 
the circumstances.\591\ TANF benefits received after January 1, 2019 
would be considered if the total value of the alien's receipt of one 
or more public benefits exceeded $1,821 during the relevant 
consecutive twelve-month period. At the time the alien's application 
was adjudicated on September 1, 2019, the alien received $600 in 
proportional SNAP benefits and $900 in TANF benefits during the 
consecutive 12-month period between January 1, 2019 and September 1, 
2019, which, cumulatively, is less than 15 percent of the FPG in the 
amount of $1,821. Therefore, the alien's receipt of SNAP and TANF in 
2019 would not be considered past receipt of public benefits within 
the 36-month period immediately preceding the application. However, 
because the alien was certified to receive both SNAP and TANF for 
the entire consecutive twelve-month period between January 1, 2019 
and December 31, 2019 in a cumulative amount that exceeds the 
fifteen percent threshold, this would be a heavily weighed factor in 
the totality of the circumstances, as illustrated in Table 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \591\ Note that considering the past receipt of previously 
included benefits as a negative factor in the totality of the 
circumstances is consistent with how such benefits were treated 
under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, under which an ``officer 
determining admissibility should assess the totality of the alien's 
circumstances at the time of the application for admission or 
adjustment . . . The longer ago an alien received such cash benefits 
or was institutionalized, the less weight these factors will have as 
a predictor of future receipt. Also, the `length of time an 
applicant has received public cash assistance is a significant 
factor.' The longer an alien has received cash income-maintenance 
benefits in the past and the greater the amount of benefits, the 
stronger the implication that the alien is likely to become a public 
charge. The negative implication of past receipt of such benefits or 
past institutionalization [sic], however, may be overcome by 
positive factors in the alien's case demonstrating an ability to be 
self-supporting.'' Field Guidance on Deportability and 
Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 
26, 1999).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.047

    DHS notes that the proposed exclusion of certain benefits received 
before the effective date may provide an opportunity for public benefit 
granting agencies to communicate the consequences of receiving public 
benefits, to the extent such agencies deem appropriate. In addition, 
the proposed exclusion provides advance notice to aliens that DHS is 
considering to change which public benefits it will consider for 
purposes of public charge inadmissibility determinations. If finalized, 
this provision, coupled with the proposed 60-day effective date, would 
give aliens an opportunity to stop receiving public benefits and obtain 
other means of support before filing for immigration benefits.
    DHS welcomes comment on whether DHS should consider receipt of 
public benefits previously considered under the 1999 Interim Field 
Guidance as described in Table 29 at all, or if DHS should consider the 
benefit(s) in some other way than as a negative factor in the totality 
of the circumstances.

M. Summary of Review of Factors in the Totality of the Circumstances

    An alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge, as discussed 
above, is prospective and based on the totality of the alien's 
circumstances. The Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency, would 
be used by DHS to assess whether the alien is likely to become a public 
charge based on the totality of the circumstances. Table 33 below, 
provides a brief summary of the totality of the circumstances framework 
for public charge inadmissibility determinations. \592\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \592\ The family status factor consideration entails determining 
the alien's household size and whether the alien has his or her own 
household or is a part of another individual's household. Among 
noncitizens in families with 3 or 4 people, about 20 percent 
received non-cash assistance, while about 30 percent of noncitizens 
in families of 5 or more received non-cash benefits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.048


[[Page 51212]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.049


[[Page 51213]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.050


[[Page 51214]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.051


[[Page 51215]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.052

    Below, DHS provides examples of potential public charge 
inadmissibility determinations. These examples are for illustrative 
purposes only and assume a closed universe of facts for purposes of 
simplicity. The examples are not intended to represent actual possible 
outcomes, as each case is reviewed individually on its own merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \593\ A sponsor must be able to demonstrate the means to 
maintain an income of at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines for the sponsor's household size. See INA section 213A, 8 
U.S.C. 1183a. For aliens who are subject to the sponsor 
requirements, if a sponsor is not able to have a sufficient 
affidavit of support, the alien is inadmissible based on public 
charge under INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) 
and 1183a.
    \594\ Except that the absence of a sufficient affidavit of 
support, where required, will lead to an inadmissibility finding. 
See INA 212(a)(4)(C), (D), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C), (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Favorable Determination of Admissibility
    The following is an example (Table 34) of a set of facts that would 
likely result in a favorable determination of admissibility for public 
charge purposes. An alien would need to meet all other admissibility 
and eligibility requirements of the immigration benefit the alien is 
seeking.

[[Page 51216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.053

2. Unfavorable Determination of Admissibility
    The following is an example (Table 35) of a set of facts that would 
likely result in an unfavorable determination of admissibility for 
public charge purposes. The alien may also be subject to other 
inadmissibility grounds.

[[Page 51217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.054


[[Page 51218]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.055

N. Valuation of Monetizable Benefits

    DHS has consulted with the relevant Federal agencies regarding the 
inclusion and consideration of certain monetizable public benefits, and 
is proposing a benefit-specific methodology to establish a value for 
certain monetizable benefits in order to determine whether the alien 
has received in excess of the 15 percent threshold. This methodology 
ensures that for benefits which are provided on the basis of a 
household and not the individual, USCIS would only take into 
consideration the portion of the benefit that is attributable to the 
alien. However, in circumstances where the alien is not eligible for a 
given benefit but is part of a household that receives the benefit 
(such as by living in a household that receives a housing benefit by 
virtue of other household members' eligibility), such benefit based on 
the eligibility and receipt of such benefit(s) by his/her household 
members, USCIS would not consider such use for purpose of a public 
charge inadmissibility determination.
    In valuing the cash monetizable benefits, USCIS would calculate the 
amount of the benefit attributable to the alien in proportion to the 
other household members. Thus, for instance, a household cash benefit 
of $600, shared among three eligible individuals, would be attributed 
to the alien in the amount of $200.
    In valuing the non-cash monetizable benefits, DHS would use the 
same methodology, as follows:
     With respect to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP, or formerly called ``Food Stamps''), 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 
2036c, DHS would calculate the annual aggregate amount of the benefit 
attributable to the alien alone, based on the amount(s) deposited 
monthly in the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card account. This 
calculation would be performed based on the alien's reporting of the 
monthly amounts deposited. DHS would divide the amount received by the 
number of eligible household members enrolled in the benefit.
     With respect to the Section 8 Housing Assistance under the 
Housing Choice Voucher Program, as administered by HUD under 24 CFR 
part 984; 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 1437u, DHS would calculate the 
proportional value of the voucher attributable to the eligible alien 
alone, based on the amount of the benefit received. In calculating the 
proportional value of the benefit, DHS would use the same methodology--
it would divide the value of the benefit by the number of people 
receiving it. DHS also welcomes comments on a potential alternative 
methodology, under which DHS would assign value to the benefit using 
HUD rules at 24 CFR 5.520.
     With respect to Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance 
(including Moderate Rehabilitation) under 24 CFR parts 5, 402, 880-884 
and 886, DHS would calculate the proportional value of the rental 
assistance attributable to the eligible alien alone, based on the 
amount of the benefit received. In calculating the proportional value 
of the benefit, DHS would use the same methodology as above--it would 
divide the value of the benefit by the number of people receiving it. 
DHS also welcomes comment on a potential alternative methodology, under 
which DHS would assign value to the benefit using HUD rules at 24 CFR 
5.520.
    DHS seeks public comments on these proposed approaches described 
above, including any studies or data that would support an alternative 
approach.

O. Public Charge Bond for Adjustment of Status Applicants

    DHS has the broad authority to prescribe forms of bonds as is 
deemed necessary for carrying out the Secretary's authority under the 
provisions of the Act.\595\ Additionally, an alien who DHS has 
determined to be inadmissible based on public charge grounds may, if 
otherwise admissible, be admitted at the discretion of the Secretary 
upon giving a suitable and proper bond.\596\ Currently, the regulatory 
authority for posting a public charge bond can be found in 8 CFR 103.6 
and 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \595\ See INA section 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3).
    \596\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Overview of Immigration Bonds Generally
    Immigration bonds may generally be secured by cash or cash 
equivalents, or may be underwritten by a surety company certified by 
the Department of Treasury under 31 U.S.C. 9304-9308.\597\ A bond, 
including a surety bond, is a contract between the United States (the 
obligee) and an individual or a company (obligor) who pledges a sum of 
money to guarantee a set of conditions set by the government concerning 
an alien.\598\ Surety bonds are bonds in which the surety company and 
its agents serve as co-obligors on the bond. Such company and its 
agents are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the face 
amount of the bond if the bond is breached.\599\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \597\ See generally 8 CFR 103.6.
    \598\ See, e.g., Matter of Allied Fid. Ins. Co., 19 I&N Dec. 
124, 125-26 (BIA 1984) (discussing the contractual nature of 
delivery bonds submitted under 8 CFR 103.6); see Merriam-Webster 
Online Dictionary, Definition of Bond, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bond (last updated Sept. 3, 2018).
    \599\ See 8 CFR 103.6(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Overview of Public Charge Bonds
(a) Public Charge Bonds
    Public charge bonds are intended to hold the United States and all 
states, territories, counties, towns, municipalities and districts 
harmless against aliens becoming a public charge.\600\ A public charge 
bond is issued on the condition that the alien does not become a public 
charge. If the government permits the alien to submit a public charge 
bond, the government

[[Page 51219]]

admits the alien despite having found the alien inadmissible as likely 
to become a public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \600\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an alien admitted after submitting a public charge bond becomes 
a public charge, the bond is breached. The bond is breached regardless 
of whether a demand for payment of the public expense has been made 
otherwise, as reflected below.\601\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \601\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183; see also Matter of 
Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252, 253-54 (BIA 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Current and Past Public Charge Bond Procedures
    Regulations governing public charge bonds can be found at 8 CFR 
103.6 and 8 CFR 213.1. Agency guidance is provided in the Adjudicator's 
Field Manual (AFM), Chapter 61.1. According to the AFM, although DHS 
has the authority to require public charge bonds, the authority has 
rarely been exercised since the passage of IIRIRA in 1996, which 
codified the affidavit of support requirements.\602\ Consequently, 
USCIS does not currently have a process in place to regularly accept 
public charge bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \602\ See AFM, Chapter 61.1 (``(b) Policy. Although USCIS has 
the authority to require a public charge bond, such authority is 
rarely exercised in light of the statutory changes contained in the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(IIRIRA) which created the enforceable affidavit of support (see 
Chapter 20.5 of this field manual).'' IIRIRA section 564(f) amended 
INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. In addition to the regular bonding 
requirements, IIRIRA section 564(a) through (e) also established 3-
year pilot programs in 5 district offices of INS to require aliens 
to post a bond in addition to the affidavit requirements under INA 
section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and the deeming requirements under 
section 421 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1631. Congress provided that 
any pilot program established pursuant to this subsection shall 
require an alien to post a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the 
cost of benefits described in INA section 213A(d)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 
1183a, and for the alien and the alien's dependents, and shall 
remain in effect until the departure, naturalization, or death of 
the alien. See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 564(a), 
110 Stat 3009-546, 3009-683. Suit on that bond was supposed to be 
brought under the terms and conditions of INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 
1183a. Within 180 days after the date of IIRIRA, which was on 
September 30, 1996, the Attorney General was directed to issue 
regulations establishing the pilot program, including criteria and 
procedures for certification of bonding companies, debarment of any 
such company that fails to pay a bond, and criteria for setting the 
amount of the bond to assure that the bond is in an amount that is 
not less than the cost of providing benefits under INA section 
213A(d)(2)(B) for the alien and the alien's dependents for 6 months. 
See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 564(b), 110 Stat 
3009-546, 3009-683 to -684. Congress furthermore imposed an annual 
reporting requirement, starting 9 months after the date of the 
implementation of the program. See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. 
C, section 564(d), 110 Stat 3009-546, 3009-684. DHS is unable to 
locate implementing materials relating to this pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to 1996, INS had issued public charge bond guidance in the 
Operating Instructions (OI) 103.6 and 213.1,\603\ and its predecessor, 
the Examinations Handbook, at Part VI, VI-88 through VI-98.\604\ 
Although these manuals do not appear to comprehensively address public 
charge bonds, the following summarizes parameters of past public charge 
bond practices:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \603\ See INS Operating Instructions (Nov. 1997) [hereinafter 
OI]. INS removed Operating Instructions in 1998 and transferred the 
parts relating to the bond to the Inspector's Field Manual, Chapter 
45. See Transmittal Memo (TM2), M-450 Inspector's Field Manual, 
Dated March 13, 1998, and Transmittal Memo (TM1), M-450 Inspector's 
Field Manual, Dated June 24, 1997. No further guidance on public 
charge bond processing appears to have been issued.
    \604\ See INS Examinations Handbook, Part VI, VI-88 through VI-
98 (Oct. 1, 1988) [hereinafter Examinations Handbook].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A consular officer would advise an immigrant visa applicant 
required to post a bond in writing, specifying the amount to be posted 
with INS. Without such a letter, INS would not accept the posting of a 
bond.\605\ INS informed the DOS of the posting of the bond as soon as 
an alien-designated obligor in the United States posted the bond.\606\ 
According to 8 CFR 213.1, a public charge bond had to be at least 
$1,000. As soon as a bond was posted, INS monitored the bond 
periodically.\607\ Any interested party could request the review and 
cancellation of the bond at any time.\608\ Upon receiving the request, 
INS would notify the alien of his or her opportunity to present 
evidence to establish that the bond was not breached and that the alien 
was not likely to become a public charge in the future; receipt of 
public assistance was ordinarily sufficient to warrant the continuation 
of the bond.\609\ According to the OIs, if no request to cancel the 
bond was made, INS would review the bond every 5 years to determine 
whether INS should cancel the bond. Ordinarily, and in addition to the 
statutory reasons for cancellation, a bond was cancelled after the 
initial 5- year period (or earlier, if warranted) if the review showed 
that the alien had not and would not likely become a public 
charge.\610\ Additionally, and in accordance with 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1), 
the bond could be cancelled if INS determined that there is no 
likelihood that the alien would become a public charge.\611\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \605\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-89; see OI 
213.1.
    \606\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-89; see OI 
213.1.
    \607\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-91 and VI-92; 
see OI 103.6(c)(1).
    \608\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-94; see OI 
103.6(c)(1).
    \609\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-94; see OI 
103.6(c)(1).
    \610\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-94; see OI 
103.6(c)(1).
    \611\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-94; see OI 
103.6(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the alien became a public charge by using public assistance, the 
bond was breached in the necessary amount with any remainder continued 
in effect.\612\ According to the Examinations Handbook, if the alien 
had received any public funds, and the agency from which the alien had 
obtained the funds requested repayment, the obligor was required to pay 
the actual expenses to INS within thirty days. If no payment was made, 
the obligor was then required to pay the total amount due plus $200 to 
the INS. If the payment was not made, the amount was then extracted 
from the bond itself.\613\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \612\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-95; see OIs 
103.6(c)(1).
    \613\ See Examinations Handbook, Part VI, at VI-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 public charge guidance did not detail any procedures on 
public charge bonds.\614\ The current USCIS guidance in the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual addresses the possibility of a bond in 
certain circumstances, and outlines that upon termination on account of 
the statutory reasons, the sums or other security held to secure its 
performance, except to the extent it is forfeited for violation of its 
terms, must be returned to the person who posted the bond, or to his 
legal representatives.\615\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \614\ Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on 
Public Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999).
    \615\ See AFM Ch. 61.1, Posting, Cancellation and Breaching of 
Public Charge Bonds. As already mentioned, USCIS' bond authority is 
rarely exercised in light of the statutory changes contained in the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(IIRIRA) which created the enforceable affidavit of support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the current bond form used by U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), Immigration Bond (Form I-352), references public 
charge bonds, ICE does not administer public charge bonds. However, 
Form I-352 does specify that the obligor shall pay to the United States 
or to any State, territory, county, town, municipality or district that 
provided public assistance any and all charges up to the total amount 
of the bond. In the event that the public authority providing 
assistance is not authorized to accept reimbursement, the obligor 
agrees that he or she will pay DHS.

[[Page 51220]]

(c) Relationship of the Public Charge Bond to the Affidavit of Support
    The Affidavit of Support and the public charge bond are distinct, 
but complementary, means to recover costs associated with the alien's 
receipt of public benefits. As discussed above, certain applicants 
seeking immigrant status must submit an enforceable Affidavit of 
Support under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864).\616\ The affidavit 
of support is a contract between the alien's sponsor and the U.S. 
Government that imposes on the sponsor a legally enforceable obligation 
to support the alien. The obligation may be enforced against the 
sponsor by the sponsored alien, the Federal Government, any State or 
any political subdivision thereof, or by any other entity that provides 
any means-tested public benefit.\617\ According to section 213A(b) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a(b), a non-governmental entity that provided 
such benefit(s) or the appropriate entity of the Federal Government, a 
State, or any political subdivision of the State must request 
reimbursement by the sponsor in the amount of the unreimbursed costs of 
the benefits or, after non-payment, bring an action against the sponsor 
under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183A, no later than 10 years 
after the date on which the sponsored alien last received any means-
tested benefit to which the affidavit of support applies.\618\ Section 
213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, does not require a sponsored immigrant 
to request the sponsor or joint sponsor to comply with the support 
obligation before bringing an action to compel compliance.\619\ Neither 
USCIS nor DHS are directly involved in enforcing an Affidavit of 
Support sponsor's obligation to reimburse an agency. USCIS does, 
however, make information about the sponsor available to an agency 
seeking reimbursement.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \616\ See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.
    \617\ See INA section 213A(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(a)(1)(B).
    \618\ See INA section 213A(b), 8 U.S.C. 1183A(b). Implementing 
regulations on the request for reimbursement and actions to compel 
reimbursement can be found at 8 CFR 213a.4. Remedies available to 
enforce an affidavit of support under this section include any or 
all of the remedies described in 28 U.S.C. 3201 (Judgement liens), 
28 U.S.C. 3203 (Execution), 28 U.S.C. 3204 (Installment payment 
order), or 28 U.S.C. 3205 (Garnishment), as well as an order for 
specific performance and payment of legal fees and other costs of 
collection and include corresponding remedies available under State 
law. See INA section 213A(c), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(c). A Federal agency 
may seek to collect amounts owed under this section in accordance 
with the provisions of subchapter II of 31 U.S.C. Chapter 37 (Claims 
of the United States Government). See INA section 213A(c), 8 U.S.C. 
1183a(c).
    \619\ See 8 CFR 213a.4(a)(2).
    \620\ See 8 CFR 213a.4(a)(3). Upon receipt of a duly issued 
subpoena, USCIS will provide the agency with a certified copy of a 
sponsor's Form I-864. Additionally, USCIS routinely provides the 
sponsor's name, address and Social Security number to Federal, 
state, and local agencies providing means-tested benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183, an alien may be 
admitted to the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General 
upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond. In contrast to the 
affidavit of support, which is a contract between the government and 
the sponsor, a bond, including a surety bond, is a contract between the 
United States (the obligee) and an individual or a company (obligor) 
who pledges a sum of money to guarantee conditions set by the 
government concerning an alien.\621\ Thus, there are distinct 
differences between the affidavit of support and the bond. For example, 
unlike the affidavit of support, in which the alien as well as the 
government entity may have a cause of action to recover expenses, only 
the government entity being part of the bond contract may pursue 
recovery from the obligor if the bond is breached and only the obligor 
may challenge the breach determination.\622\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \621\ See, e.g., Matter of Allied Fid. Ins. Co., 19 I&N Dec. 
124, 125-26 (BIA 1984).
    \622\ Compare INA section 213A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1183a, with INA 
section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. See also Matter of Ins. Co. of N. Am., 
17 I&N Dec. 251, 251 (BIA 1978) (finding that only the obligor and 
the obligee are party to the contract and that only the obligor, but 
not the alien, may challenge the government breach determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183, Congress directly 
addresses the affidavit of support and the deeming requirement imposed 
in section 213 of the Act when it added a parenthetical to the public 
charge bond provision stating that the alien may be admitted ``(subject 
to the affidavit of support requirement and attribution of sponsor's 
income and resources under Section 213A)'' upon having posted a 
suitable bond.\623\ In the provision amending section 213 of the Act, 
section 564(f) of IIRIRA, Congress emphasized that the bond was to be 
considered in addition to the sponsor and deeming requirements under 
section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183A, and not instead of them.\624\ 
The Joint Explanatory Statement in the House Conference Report for 
IIRIRA confirms that Congress intended that bonds ``should be required 
in addition to, and not in lieu of, the new sponsorship and deeming 
requirements of section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a.'' \625\ 
Correspondingly, Congress also retained in section 213 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1183, the longstanding concept that suit on the bond may be made 
irrespective of the reasons for the breach and irrespective of whether 
a demand for payment of public expenses have been made.\626\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \623\ See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 564(f), 
110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-684.
    \624\ See IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, div. C, section 564(f), 
110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-684 (``(f) Bonds in addition to sponsorship 
and deeming requirements--Section 213 (8 U.S.C. 1183) is amended by 
inserting `(subject to the affidavit of support requirement and 
attribution of sponsor's income and resources under section 213A)' 
after `in the discretion of the Attorney General.' '').
    \625\ See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 243 (1996) (Conf. 
Rep.).
    \626\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183; see also Matter of 
Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252, 253 (BIA 1985) (distinguishing 
inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act and a public 
charge bond from deportability under section 237(a)(5) of the Act); 
Matter of B, 3 I&N Dec. 323, 326 (BIA 1948) (holding that before an 
alien could be considered deportable on public charge ground, the 
state authorities must have demanded repayment of charges for 
services rendered and the charges must thereafter have remained 
unpaid.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Summary of Proposed Changes
    In this rule, DHS proposes to clarify when an alien seeking 
adjustment of status will be permitted to post a public charge bond 
under DHS's authority outlined in sections 103 and 213 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1103 and 1183. Additionally, as reflected below, DHS proposes to 
establish a new minimum bond amount of $10,000 (adjusted annually for 
inflation), explain the circumstances under which a public charge bond 
will be cancelled, as well as establish specific conditions under which 
a public charge bond will be breached.\627\ Finally, DHS proposes 
processing fees for the initial submission of the Public Charge Bond 
(Form I-945) and for the Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond 
(Form I-356); both fees would be initially set at $25. USCIS plans to 
establish a process to accept and process public charge bonds, which 
would be available on the effective date of the final rule. DHS 
welcomes comments on any aspect of the public charge bond or public 
charge bond process, including whether the minimum public charge bond 
amount should be higher or lower, and possible ranges for that amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \627\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Permission To Post a Public Charge Bond
    First, the proposed regulation clarifies that permitting an alien 
who is found inadmissible as a public charge but is otherwise 
admissible to submit a public charge bond is within DHS's 
discretion.\628\ Section 213 of the Act gives DHS discretion to allow 
an alien

[[Page 51221]]

to post a ``suitable and proper'' public charge bond if the alien is 
otherwise admissible. Therefore, DHS proposes that in circumstances 
under which USCIS determines, after a finding of inadmissibility on the 
public charge ground that a favorable exercise of discretion is 
warranted, USCIS will notify the alien of the possibility to submit a 
bond and USCIS will specify the bond amount and bond conditions. The 
alien would then be permitted to submit the appropriate form for the 
public charge bond in accordance with the form instructions and with 
the appropriate fee. DHS proposes that a public charge bond could only 
be submitted on the alien's behalf after USCIS makes this option 
available to the alien, and that USCIS would reject any unsolicited 
attempt to submit a bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \628\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same factors that weighed positively when making the public 
charge inadmissibility determinations will generally indicate that 
offering the option of a public charge bond to an alien is warranted. 
Ultimately, the purpose of the public charge bond is to allow DHS to 
admit an alien who is inadmissible as likely to become a public charge, 
but who warrants a favorable exercise of discretion. DHS believes that 
offering a public charge bond in the adjustment of status context would 
generally only be warranted in limited circumstances in which the alien 
has no heavily weighed negative factors, but the presence of such 
factors would not automatically preclude DHS from offering a public 
charge bond. As explained above, DHS would consider the heavily weighed 
negative factors particularly indicative of the likelihood that an 
alien would become a public charge. However, as is the case with any 
discretionary determination, DHS may also consider any of a range of 
positive and negative factors applicable to the alien's case when 
determining whether the alien should be offered the option to post a 
public charge bond and be admitted to the United States on bond. For 
example, an officer could consider whether allowing the alien to become 
a lawful permanent resident would offer benefits to national security, 
or would be justified for exceptional humanitarian reasons. Another 
example in which USCIS may offer an alien the possibility to post a 
bond would be if an alien had a weak financial status, had received 
public benefits 40 months prior to applying for immigration status, and 
had a medical condition, but the alien's prospect of obtaining medical 
insurance (that does not meet the definition of a public benefit under 
proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b)) is good and the grant of admission upon 
public bond would be in the interest of family unity.
4. Bond Amount and Submission of a Public Charge Bond
    DHS proposes that, in cases in which USCIS has determined that 
offering a public charge bond to an alien is warranted, the public 
charge bond be set at no less than $10,000, annually adjusted for 
inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
(CPI-U),\629\ and rounded up to the nearest dollar. This would raise 
the amount that is currently stated in 8 CFR 213.1 from no less than 
$1,000 to no less than $10,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \629\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for 
All Urban Consumers, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu 
(select ``U.S. All items, 1982-84=100--CUUR0000SA0'') (last visited 
Sept. 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposing a base amount sufficient for a public charge bond based 
on historical public benefit data is difficult, because the amount of 
average public benefit being considered under the proposed rule depends 
on the public benefit the person receives and how long the person 
receives the benefit. The broad range of public benefits available to 
individuals on the Federal, State, and local level, but not necessarily 
to immigrants, renders such a determination even more complex.
    As indicated above, DHS proposes to set the base amount of the 
public charge bond at $10,000. The current 8 CFR 213.1 refers to a bond 
amount of at least $1,000. 8 CFR 213.1 was promulgated in July of 
1964.\630\ This provision has not been updated and inflation has never 
been accounted to represent present dollar values. Simply adjusting the 
amount for inflation using CPI-U would bring the bond floor in June 
2018 to about $8,100.\631\ DHS notes that bond amounts could be $1,000 
or more (in 1964 dollars) and once adjusted for inflation, these 
amounts are equivalent to $8,100 or more in present dollar values. 
Additionally, when examining previous public charge bonds granted by 
legacy immigration agencies, DHS has found that the minimum amount of 
approved public charge bonds remained relatively stable in inflation-
adjusted dollars and fluctuated around or above $10,000.\632\ 
Accordingly, DHS proposes that $10,000 would be an amount that would 
provide USCIS with an appropriate starting point when determining the 
public charge bond amount that is minimally necessary to ensure that 
United States can recoup cost of public benefits received by the alien. 
Additionally, as with determining whether to offer an alien the option 
of posting a public charge bond, USCIS will consider the alien's 
individual circumstances when determining the exact amount of the bond 
the alien is required to post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \630\ Miscellaneous Amendments to Chapter, 29 FR 10579 (July 30, 
1964).
    \631\ DHS uses the semi-annual average for the first half of 
2018 and the annual average from 1964 from the historical CPI-U for 
U.S. City Average, All Items. See https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-201806.pdf.
    Calculation: Annual average for 1st half of 2018 (250.089)/
annual average for 1964 (31) = 8.1; CPI-U adjusted present dollar 
amount = $1,000 * 8.1 = $8,100.
    \632\ See, e.g., Wallis v. U.S. ex rel. Mannara, 273 F. 509, 511 
(2d Cir. 1921) ($1000 public charge bond posted in September 1920, 
which would amount to about $12,600.30 in July 2018); Matter of 
Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252, 252 (BIA 1985) ($5000 bond posted in 
February 1979, which would amount to about $$18,234.88 in July 
2018); In re Obligor, 2007 WL 5326596, at *1 (AAO June 6, 2007) 
(adjustment upon $10,000 bond in June 1999, which would amount to 
about $15,162.82 in July 2018). For purposes of these calculations, 
DHS used the CPI Inflation Calculator from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm 
(last visited Aug. 20th, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If USCIS determines that the alien seeking an adjustment of status 
may submit a public charge bond, neither the alien nor an obligor, 
including a surety company, would be able to appeal the amount of the 
bond required.\633\ As discussed more fully in this preamble, DHS has 
discretion to allow an alien to post a public charge bond ``in such 
amount and containing such conditions'' as DHS may prescribe. Given the 
discretionary nature of DHS's authority under section 213 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1183, DHS has determined that the bond amount would not be 
appealable administratively either to the AAO or the BIA, because 
neither administrative body has jurisdiction over this discretionary 
determination.\634\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \633\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(b).
    \634\ See United States ex rel. Chanin v. Williams, 177 F. 689, 
690 (2d Cir. 1910) (``The matter of admission under bond of a person 
once found to be likely to become a public charge is by the statute 
confided to the Secretary, and we do not see why his refusal to 
admit is not an adverse exercise of such discretion in any 
particular case. His reasons for refusal may or may not seem 
persuasive to a court; but it is to him, not to the court, that 
Congress has confided the discretion.''); see also In re Obligor, 
2007 WL 5326596, at *1 (AAO June 6, 2007) (sustained appeal that 
public charge bond was not breached). The BIA does not have 
jurisdiction. 8 CFR 1003.1(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, under this proposed rule, USCIS would notify 
the alien of the bond amount and conditions, including the type of bond 
the alien may submit. Each submission would be on the form designated 
and in accordance with the applicable instructions and fees prescribed 
in 8 CFR 103.7. While the proposed rule

[[Page 51222]]

retains the options for a surety bond or a cash or cash equivalent such 
as a cashier's check or money order deposit and agreement to secure a 
bond, due to operational feasibility considerations USCIS plans to 
initially allow for only surety bonds.\635\ For example, surety bonds 
do not involve the actual exchange of money until the bond is breached, 
while the undertaking of cash bonds involves additional accounting 
mechanisms, including the management of interest. DHS proposes to use 
new USCIS Form I-945, Public Charge Bond for this purpose. As discussed 
in greater detail below, DHS is proposing a $25 public charge bond 
processing fee to be submitted with the Form I-945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \635\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


    For all public charge surety bonds, an acceptable surety company is 
generally one that appears on the current Treasury Department Circular 
570 as a company holding the requisite certificate of authority to act 
as a surety on Federal bonds.\636\ Treasury-certified sureties have 
agents throughout the United States from whom aliens could seek 
assistance in procuring an appropriate bond.\637\ The Department of the 
Treasury certifies companies only after having evaluated a surety 
company's qualifications to underwrite Federal bonds, including whether 
those sureties meet the specified corporate and financial standards. 
Under 31 U.S.C. 9305(b)(3), a surety (or the obligor) must carry out 
its contracts and comply with statutory requirements, including prompt 
payment of demands arising from an administratively final determination 
that the bond had been breached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \636\ See 8 CFR 103.6(b); see also proposed 8 CFR 103.6, as 
published in 83 FR 25951 (June 5, 2018).
    \637\ See Dep't of Treasury Circular 570, Listing of Approved 
Sureties (July 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an alien successfully posts a public charge bond in the amount 
and under the conditions specified in the form instructions and USCIS 
notice, USCIS will continue to adjudicate the alien's application for 
adjustment of status and will grant such application if all eligibility 
criteria are met. Additionally, if the bond has been successfully 
posted, USCIS must ensure that the bond is maintained during the 
effective period of the bond. To achieve this goal, DHS proposes that 
an obligor would need to notify DHS within 30 days of any change in the 
obligor's or the alien's physical and mailing address. Given the 
contractual nature of the public charge bond, the change of address 
requirement imposed is similar to the one imposed on a sponsor's change 
of address requirement for purposes of the affidavit of support under 8 
CFR 213a.3, except that the obligor would also need to notify USCIS of 
the bonded alien's change of address. An alien would still need to 
comply with the change of address requirements under section 265 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1305, and 8 CFR 265.1 to notify USCIS of his or her 
change of address.
    If the alien does not respond to the notice soliciting a public 
charge bond, or the bond submitted does not comply with the bond amount 
and conditions set by USCIS, USCIS will deny the alien's application. 
Given the complexity of a bond process, DHS plans to issue separate 
guidance addressing the specifics of public charge bond submission.
5. Public Charge Bond Substitution
    DHS proposes that if USCIS accepts a bond of limited duration, the 
bond on file must be substituted with a new bond 180 days before the 
bond on file with USCIS expires.\638\ A bond of limited duration is a 
bond that expires on a date certain regardless of whether the statutory 
terms for cancellation of such a bond have been met (i.e., 
naturalization, permanent departure, or death of the alien). A bond of 
unlimited duration is a bond that does not have a specific end date but 
ends upon USCIS canceling the bond. Bonds of limited duration are 
sometimes easier and cheaper to obtain and DHS is proposing to allow 
for this option so long as a substitute bond is valid and effective 
before the expiration date of the bond on file. Because a bond has to 
be maintained until cancelled by USCIS, substitution ensures continuous 
indemnification of the United States against the alien receiving public 
benefits until the conditions for the cancellation of the bond have 
been met. Additionally, requiring that the substitute bond for a bond 
of limited duration is submitted to DHS at least 180 days before the 
expiration of the bond previously submitted expires permits USCIS to 
allow for some time to adjudicate the sufficiency of any substitute 
bonds, which further ensures continuous indemnification of the United 
States against the alien receiving public benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \638\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Either the obligor, a substitute obligor, or the alien would be 
able to submit the substitute bond at any time and regardless of the 
reasons. The substitute bond would need to be valid, properly submitted 
with the appropriate fee, and effective on the day the previously 
submitted bond on file with USCIS expires. The substitute bond would 
need to meet all of the requirements applicable to the bond on file 
with USCIS, as required by 8 CFR 103.6 and 8 CFR 213.1. To ensure 
continued bond coverage of the alien as required under section 213 of 
the Act, the substitute bond would also need to cover a bond breach 
that occurred before USCIS accepted the substitute bond, in the event 
USCIS does not have knowledge of the breach until after the expiration 
or cancellation of the bond on file with USCIS. If USCIS determined 
that the substitute bond proffered is sufficient, it would accept the 
bond and the bond would become effective on the day the bond currently 
on file expires or when the new bond takes effect, if prior to the 
expiration of the bond on file.\639\ Additionally, the bond previously 
on file would be cancelled, if needed.\640\ If the substitute bond was 
insufficient, USCIS would notify the obligor of the substitute bond so 
that the obligor could correct the deficiency within the timeframe 
stipulated in the notice. USCIS may also send a copy of the 
notification to the alien, the alien's representative (if any), and the 
initial obligor. If the deficiency is not corrected within the 
timeframe stipulated in the notice, the substitute would be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \639\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
    \640\ For purposes of this type of cancellation, neither the 
obligor nor the alien must submit Form I-356. Form I-356 is 
submitted to assess whether the alien has received any public 
benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), or otherwise breached a 
condition of the bond. At the time for substitution, USCIS does not 
engage in a breach assessment as the bond is substituted with 
another, not actually cancelled according to the terms of proposed 8 
CFR 213.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Public Charge Bond Cancellation
(a) Conditions
    A public charge bond must remain in effect until the alien 
naturalizes or otherwise obtains U.S. citizenship, permanently departs 
the United States, or dies, until the bond is substituted with another 
bond, or until the bond is otherwise cancelled by DHS.\641\ During this 
period, as a condition of the bond, an alien on whose behalf a public 
charge bond has been accepted agrees to not receive public benefits, as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment of status to 
that of a legal permanent resident and until the bond is cancelled 
according to proposed 8 CFR 212.21(g). The alien also has to comply 
with any other conditions imposed as part of the bond. That means that 
a bond is considered breached if the alien receives public benefits, as 
defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the

[[Page 51223]]

alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident and 
until the bond is cancelled under proposed 8 CFR 213.1(g). A bond is 
also considered breached if the alien fails to comply with any other 
condition of the bond. In these situations, USCIS cannot cancel the 
bond. Public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), received 
by an alien present in the United States in an immigration status that 
is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility under 
section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), and public benefits 
received after the alien obtained U.S. citizenship are not counted 
towards any breach determination, and therefore, also for purposes of 
the cancellation determination.\642\ Additionally, consistent with the 
public benefits definition proposed in this rule, DHS would not 
consider as part of a public charge bond cancellation determination any 
public benefits received by an alien enlisted in the U.S. armed forces 
under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B) or 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(2), 
serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. 
Armed Forces, or if received by such an individual's spouse or child as 
defined in section 101(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b), regardless of 
whether such receipt occurred prior to the alien enlisting into the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \641\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183; see also proposed 8 
CFR 213.1.
    \642\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Definition of Permanent Departure
    According to section 213 of the Act, a public charge bond must be 
cancelled when the alien naturalizes or otherwise obtains U.S. 
citizenship, permanently departs the United States, or dies. When 
codifying section 213 of the Act, Congress did not define ``permanent'' 
and the concept of permanent departure does not exist in other areas of 
immigration law. However, ``permanent'' is defined in section 
101(a)(31) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(31), as ``a relationship of 
continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a 
relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be 
dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of 
the individual, in accordance with law.'' ``Departing'' or 
``departure'' is not defined in the INA, but DHS believes that it is 
reasonable to conclude that permanent departure for the purposes of 
canceling a public charge bond means that the alien has left the United 
States on a lasting, non-temporary basis after losing the lawful 
permanent resident status either voluntarily or involuntarily, and is 
physically outside the United States. Losing lawful permanent resident 
status either voluntarily or involuntary coupled with physically 
leaving the United States is consistent with the INA's definition for 
permanent. The proposed rule will clarify that an alien has permanently 
departed for bond cancellation when he or she has (1) lost or abandoned 
lawful permanent resident status, whether involuntary by operation of 
law or voluntarily, and (2) physically left the United States.\643\ An 
alien must establish that both elements, as described above, have been 
met before USCIS may cancel the bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \643\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS further proposes that an alien is only deemed to have 
involuntarily lost lawful permanent resident status in removal 
proceedings with the entry of a final order of removal \644\ or through 
rescission of adjustment of status.\645\ An alien may be found to have 
abandoned LPR status, even if the assessment is made outside of removal 
proceedings and if the alien's actions were unintentional.\646\ If an 
alien loses his or her LPR status through operation of law, the alien 
would be required to provide evidence of the loss of status by 
submitting evidence of the official determination of loss of LPR status 
before USCIS will cancel the bond.\647\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \644\ See 8 CFR 1.2; see also Matter of Lok, 18 I&N Dec. 101, 
105-06 (BIA 1981).
    \645\ See INA section 246, 8 U.S.C. 1256.
    \646\ Abandonment is not directly addressed in the INA. The 
question typically arises in the context of LPRs returning to the 
United States. INA section 101(a)(20), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20), defines 
the term ``lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' as ``the 
status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing 
permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with 
the immigration laws, such status not having changed'' (emphasis 
added). INA section 211(b), 8 U.S.C. 1181, provides for a waiver of 
the documentary requirements for admission for one who can qualify 
as a ``returning resident immigrant'' as defined in INA section 
101(a)(27)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(A), that is as ``an immigrant, 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, who is returning from a 
temporary visit abroad.'' Finally, according to INA section 
101(a)(13)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(i), an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence in the United States is not 
regarded as seeking admission into the United States, unless the 
alien has abandoned or relinquished that status. See also INA 
section 223, 8 U.S.C. 1203.
    \647\ For example, if the alien has his or her lawful permanent 
resident status in removal proceedings, the alien must present a 
copy of the removal order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, determining whether an alien has abandoned his or her 
status is highly fact specific and courts consider factors such as the 
length of an alien's absence from the United States, family and 
employment ties, property holdings, residence, and the alien's intent 
or actions.\648\ An alien may intentionally relinquish lawful permanent 
resident status through his or her voluntary actions, such as by 
submitting a declaration of intent to abandon LPR status. Neither the 
INA nor DHS regulations direct how aliens may formally inform the U.S. 
Government of their abandoning their lawful permanent resident status. 
To simplify the process, USCIS had developed, in the past, Form I-407, 
Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status as a means by 
which an alien may formally record that they have abandoned LPR status. 
The purpose of the form is to create a record and to ensure that the 
alien acts voluntarily and willingly, and is informed of the right to a 
hearing before an Immigration Judge and has knowingly, willingly, and 
affirmatively waived that right.\649\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \648\ See, e.g., Matter of Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749, 755-57 (BIA 
1988) (considering the alien's absence from the United States 
because of her husband's work and study abroad, as well as her own 
employment abroad, to find that her absence was not temporary in 
nature and that she had abandoned her LPR status); Matter of Kane, 
15 I&N Dec. 258, 265 (BIA 1975) (alien who spent 11 months per year 
living in her native country operating a lodging house abandoned her 
LPR status; her desire to retain her status, without more, was not 
sufficient); Matter of Quijencio, 15 I&N Dec. 95, 97-98 (BIA 1974) 
(alien's lawful permanent resident status considered abandoned after 
12 year absence); Matter of Castro, 14 I&N Dec. 492, 494 (BIA 1973) 
(alien who severed his ties to the United States for six years, 
moved abroad, acquired land, built a house and obtained steady 
employment, but made brief business trips to the United States was 
not a returning resident and had abandoned his status); Matter of 
Montero, 14 I&N Dec. 399, 400-01 (BIA 1973) (alien who returned to 
her native country to join her husband, children, home, employment 
and financial resources without fixed intent to return within a 
fixed period had abandoned her lawful permanent resident status); 
cf. Khoshfahm v. Holder, 655 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2011) (alien 
child who was out of the country for 6 years and prevented from 
returning due to the father's heart condition and the events of 
September 11 did not abandon his lawful permanent resident status).
    \649\ See Purpose of Form I-407 and its instructions at 
www.uscis.gov/i-407. Even though an alien completed and submitted 
Form I-407, the alien may still challenge the declaration of 
abandonment as part of removal proceedings because a declaration is 
not dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that it is difficult to assess whether an alien voluntarily 
abandoned his or her lawful permanent resident status, DHS proposes 
that an alien may demonstrate voluntarily relinquishment of the lawful 
permanent resident status for purposes of bond cancellation only by 
showing proof that he or she has submitted Form I-407 to the U.S. 
Government.\650\ In addition to the advantages of the Form I-407 
enumerated above, requiring evidence of a Form I-407 filing would 
ensure consistent adjudication of bond cancellation requests because 
officers have the necessary information and would not have to otherwise 
determine

[[Page 51224]]

the alien's intent in regards to the voluntary abandonment of the 
lawful permanent resident status and the permanent departure. 
Requesting the filing of a declaration would also be consistent with 
evidence required in the BIA precedent Matter of De Los Santos, in 
which the bond was cancelled after the alien was required, among other 
things, to submit a formal statement attesting to the desire to abandon 
permanent resident status.\651\ Form I-407 would not have a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \650\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
    \651\ Matter of De Los Santos, 11 I&N Dec. 121, 121 (BIA 1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Bond Cancellation for Lawful Permanent Residents After 5 Years and 
Cancellation If the Alien Obtains an Immigration Status Exempt From 
Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Following the Initial Grant of 
Lawful Permanent Resident Status
    Currently, 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) requires that DHS cancel a public 
charge bond submitted for an alien after the fifth anniversary of 
admission of the immigrant, provided that the alien has filed a request 
to cancel the bond and provided that the alien did not become a public 
charge prior to the fifth anniversary.\652\ The provision was added in 
1984 based on INS's belief that the public would be adequately 
protected even with such a limitation on the bond liability.\653\ INS 
reasoned that if an alien is self-sustaining for a five-year period, it 
would not be probable that the alien becomes a public charge after five 
years because the reason for the becoming a public charge is based on 
factors in existence prior to admission as an immigrant.\654\ 
Additionally, INS explained that limiting the bond liability in this 
manner parallels the deportation liability.\655\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \652\ See 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1).
    \653\ See Powers and Duties of Service Officers, Availability of 
Service Records; Public Charge Bonds, 49 FR 24010, 24011 (June 11, 
1984).
    \654\ See 49 FR 24010, 24011.
    \655\ See 49 FR 24010, 24011 (``The Service believes that the 
public will be adequately protected by limiting the duration of 
liability of public charge bonds to a five-year period which 
parallels the deportation liability.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS proposes to continue to cancel the public charge bond after the 
fifth anniversary of the alien's adjustment of status to that of a 
lawful permanent resident, provided that the alien files a request to 
cancel the bond and the alien has not received any public benefits as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b) after obtaining lawful permanent resident 
status or otherwise violated the conditions of the public charge bond. 
Retaining the possibility for this type of cancellation of the public 
charge bond is not just consistent with the current period of time in 
which an alien may become removable for receiving public benefits after 
entry for causes that existed prior to entry,\656\ but is also 
consistent with the 5-year ineligibility period for certain public 
benefits under PRWORA.\657\ Finally, as noted previously, the public 
charge bond statutory provision requires DHS to cancel the bond upon 
the alien's death, naturalization, or permanent departure from the 
United States.\658\ However, DHS believes that section 213 of the Act 
sets forth the situations when DHS must cancel the public charge bond, 
but leaves to DHS the discretion of canceling the bond for other 
reasons.\659\ Therefore, retaining the cancellation provision is 
consistent with the statutory text and the purpose of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \656\ See INA section 237(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5).
    \657\ See 8 U.S.C. 1611-1646.
    \658\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183 (``Such bond or 
undertaking shall terminate upon the permanent departure from the 
United States, the naturalization, or the death of such alien, and 
any sums or other security held to secure performance thereof, 
except to the extent forfeited for violation of the terms thereof, 
shall be returned to the person by whom furnished, or to his legal 
representatives.'' (emphasis added)).
    \659\ See 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) (``The district director may cancel 
a public charge bond at any time if he/she finds that the immigrant 
is not likely to become a public charge. A bond may also be 
cancelled in order to allow substitution of another bond. A public 
charge bond shall be cancelled by the district director upon review 
following the fifth anniversary of the admission of the immigrant, 
provided that the alien has filed Form I-356, Request for 
Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, and the district director finds 
that the immigrant did not become a public charge prior to the fifth 
anniversary. If Form I-356 is not filed, the bond shall remain in 
effect until the form is filed and the district director reviews the 
evidence supporting the form and renders a decision to breach or 
cancel the bond.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DHS is proposing to not retain the discretion to 
cancel a public charge bond at any time if it subsequently determines 
that the alien is not likely to become a public charge.\660\ First, for 
many aliens who adjust status in the United States, DHS is unlikely to 
make a second public charge determination under section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act.\661\ Second, given that Congress selected a 5-year timeframe 
in related contexts (in the parallel deportation statue under section 
237(a)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5), under PRWORA at 8 U.S.C. 
1613, and as part of naturalization requirements under INA section 316, 
8 U.S.C. 1427), DHS believes that retaining a bond for at least 5 years 
is a reasonable timeframe that will ensure the ability of U.S. 
government to recoup the costs of public benefits that may be received 
by aliens before most of them are generally eligible to naturalize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \660\ See 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1).
    \661\ See INA section 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), 
under which an LPR would be considered an applicant for admission 
only under specifically outlined circumstances (e.g.. if he or she 
has abandoned LPR status, was absent from the United States 
continuously longer than 180 days, has engaged in illegal activity 
after departing the United States, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DHS proposes that USCIS would cancel the public charge 
bond if an alien subject to a public charge bond obtains an immigration 
status while present in the United States that is exempt from public 
charge grounds of inadmissibility, as listed in 8 CFR 212.23, following 
the initial grant of status as a lawful permanent resident, provided 
that the alien or the obligor has filed a request for cancellation of 
public charge bond, on the form designated by DHS, in accordance with 
form instructions, and provided that the alien has not breached the 
bond conditions as described in paragraphs (h) of proposed 8 CFR 213.1. 
An example of when this ground of cancellation may apply is if an alien 
loses or abandons his or her LPR status but nonetheless qualifies for 
another status not subject to public charge inadmissibility, e.g. 
asylum. DHS believes that maintaining the bond in this situation no 
longer serves the intended purpose of the bond if the population is 
exempt from public charge grounds of inadmissibility, as the purpose of 
the public charge bond is to ensure that the alien does not become a 
public charge.\662\ As discussed in the section on exemptions, most of 
these aliens are, at that time, members of a vulnerable population, and 
the status provided to these aliens serves distinct policy goals 
separate from the general immigration system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \662\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with other bases for bond cancellation, however, if a request 
for cancellation of a public charge bond is not filed, the bond shall 
remain in effect until the form is filed, reviewed, and a decision is 
rendered. Additionally, if these aliens adjust status in the future on 
a basis that is subject to section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4), they may again be subject to public charge grounds of 
inadmissibility and DHS may assess whether a bond is appropriate at 
that time.
(d) Request To Cancel the Bond, and Adjudication of the Cancelation 
Request
    DHS proposes that USCIS would cancel the bond upon request by the 
alien, following a determination that the conditions of a bond have 
been met and the bond has not been breached, as outlined in proposed 8 
CFR 213.1.

[[Page 51225]]

Return of the bond amount is ``to the extent [the bond] has been 
forfeited for violation of the terms thereof.'' \663\ DHS proposes to 
interpret this authority to allow DHS to impose, as a condition of the 
bond, forfeiture of the entire amount in the event of a breach. Once 
USCIS determines that the alien has violated the bond conditions by 
receiving public benefits, USCIS would declare the bond breached and 
collect. The request to cancel the bond would be submitted on the form 
designated by DHS, according to its instructions, and with any 
mandatory fee. USCIS proposes to designate Form I-356, Request for 
Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, to be used to request cancellation 
of a public charge bond. As discussed in more detail below, DHS is also 
proposing an initial processing fee of $25 to be submitted with the 
Form I-356. Given the obligor's and the alien's interest in having the 
bond cancelled, the alien, or the obligor or co-obligor, would be able 
to submit a request to cancel the public charge bond to USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \663\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A request to cancel the bond is necessary because typically, after 
an alien obtains an immigration benefit from USCIS or enters as an 
immigrant, USCIS has little interaction with the alien until he or she 
seeks another immigration benefit. In addition, USCIS is typically not 
notified if an alien has permanently departed or died. Information 
currently collected by DHS is insufficient for USCIS to determine on 
its own whether the alien intended a departure to be permanent. 
Therefore, as part of the cancellation request, the alien would need to 
submit evidence of naturalization or otherwise having obtained U.S. 
citizenship, permanent departure, or if the person is deceased, the 
alien's executor would submit a death certificate. Additionally, the 
alien or the alien's executor must also submit the information 
requested in Form I-356 regarding receipt of public benefits as defined 
in 8 CFR 212.21(b).\664\ Any information collected would be in 
accordance with relevant privacy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \664\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The obligor and the alien would have the burden to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the conditions for cancellation of 
the public charge bond have been met.\665\ If USCIS finds that the 
information included in the request is insufficient to determine 
whether cancellation is appropriate, USCIS may request additional 
information in accordance with 8 CFR part 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \665\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Decision and Appeal
    If USCIS determines that the request warrants a cancellation of a 
bond, USCIS would notify the obligor, and return the full value of any 
cash or cash equivalent, such as a cashier's check or money order 
deposited by the obligor to secure the bond plus interest, similar to 
current practice.\666\ When the bond is cancelled, the obligor would be 
released from liability.\667\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \666\ See 8 CFR 103.6(c) and proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
    \667\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If USCIS denies the request to cancel the bond, it will notify the 
obligor of the reasons why and of the right to appeal in accordance 
with the requirements of 8 CFR part 103, subpart A.\668\ A bond obligor 
could appeal the denial to cancel the bond to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) of USCIS by filing Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form I-290B) together with the appropriate fee and required evidence. 
See 8 CFR 103.1; 103.3. For operational efficiency, DHS proposes that 
an obligor may only file a motion after an unfavorable decision by the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. As part of an appeal, 
the regulations a 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2) require the officer rendering the 
initial decision to review the initial decision; if the reviewing 
officer agrees that the decision is incorrect, he or she may treat the 
appeal as a motion and may enter a favorable decision.\669\ USCIS would 
also inform the alien and the alien's representative (if any) of the 
denial. The alien would not be able to appeal a denial because the bond 
contract is between the obligor and the U.S. government; the alien is 
not party to the contract.\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \668\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
    \669\ See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(ii)-(v).
    \670\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Breach of a Public Charge Bond and Appeal
(a) Breach Conditions and Adjudication
    A bond would be considered breached if the alien has received 
public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the 
alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident and 
until the public charge bond is cancelled under 8 CFR 213.1(g). 
Consistent with other proposed regulatory provisions contained in this 
NPRM, public benefits received during periods while an alien is present 
in the United States in a status exempt from the public charge ground 
of inadmissibility, as listed in 8 CFR 212.23, following the initial 
grant of lawful permanent resident status, would not be considered when 
determining whether the conditions of the bond have been breached. 
Additionally, consistent with the public benefits definition proposed 
in this rule, DHS would not consider as part of a public charge bond 
breach determination any public benefits received by an alien enlisted 
in the U.S. armed forces under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B) 
or 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(2), serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve 
component of the U.S. Armed Forces, or if received by such an 
individual's spouse or child as defined in section 101(b) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1101(b), regardless of whether such receipt occurred prior to 
the alien enlisting into the U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, DHS would not 
consider public benefits received after the alien who is the subject of 
the public charge bond obtains U.S. citizenship, as U.S. citizens are 
no longer subject to public charge grounds of inadmissibility, and 
therefore, the term of the public charge bond.
    A bond would be considered breached if any other condition imposed 
by USCIS as part of the public charge bond is breached.\671\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \671\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(d) and 8 CFR 213.1(h)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current 8 CFR 103.6, an immigration bond is considered 
breached when there has been a substantial violation of the stipulated 
conditions. The term ``substantial violation'' is generally interpreted 
according to contractual principles.\672\ However, public charge bonds 
have been distinguished from other immigration bonds in this regard, 
given that the public charge bond's condition is that the alien will 
not become a public charge.\673\ Therefore, DHS proposes to not retain 
the phrase ``substantial violation'' in the proposed public charge bond 
provision at 8 CFR 213.1. Instead, DHS proposes to incorporate the 
substantial violation standard via incorporating principles that govern 
the public charge and public benefits definitions at proposed 8 CFR 
212.21(a) and (b) (defining public charge and public benefits). Under 
the proposed approach, the bond would be

[[Page 51226]]

considered breached if the alien receives public benefits after the 
alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident and 
until the bond is cancelled pursuant to 8 CFR 213.1(g), or if the alien 
breaches any other condition imposed as part of the bond.\674\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \672\ See, e.g., Aguilar v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 9, 16 
(2015) (substantial violation under 8 CFR 103.6(e) of a delivery 
immigration bond is a matter of contract interpretation, in which 
courts have looked to four factors: (1) The extent of the breach; 
(2) whether the breach was intentional or accidental; (3) whether 
the breach was in good faith; and (4) whether the obligor took steps 
to make amends or place himself in compliance).
    \673\ See Matter of Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252, 253 (BIA 1985) (each 
of the other types of immigration bonds provided in the regulation 
has its own specific conditions; the public charge bond's condition 
is that the alien will not become a public charge, and the lack of 
knowledge or good faith of the alien did not render the breach 
insubstantial).
    \674\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If USCIS learns of the breach, and declares a bond breached based 
on information that is not otherwise protected from the disclosure to 
the obligor, USCIS would disclose such information to the obligor to 
the extent permitted by law. For example, USCIS may learn of an alien's 
having received public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), if the 
public benefit-granting agency notifies USCIS that it provided a public 
benefit(s) to the alien who was admitted on bond.\675\ Or, USCIS may 
learn from the alien, as part of a bond cancellation request that he or 
she received public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \675\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. Receipt of public 
benefits, however, is sufficient to cause a breach of the public 
charge bond, even in the absence of a demand for repayment. See 
Matter of Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252, 253 (BIA 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If USCIS found that it has insufficient information to determine 
whether a breach occurred, USCIS would request additional information 
from the benefits granting agency, or USCIS would request additional 
information from alien or the obligor as outlined in 8 CFR part 103. 
USCIS would also provide the obligor with the opportunity to respond 
and submit rebuttal evidence, including specifying a deadline for a 
response. DHS furthermore proposes that it would send a copy of any 
notification to the obligor or co-obligor regarding the breach also to 
the alien and the alien's representative (if any).\676\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \676\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Decision and Appeal
    After the obligor's response or after the deadline for a response 
has passed, USCIS would make a breach determination, and inform the 
obligor of the right to appeal in accordance with the requirements of 8 
CFR 103, subpart A. See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h). A bond obligor would 
have the possibility to appeal a breach determination to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) of USCIS by filing a Notice of 
Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) together with the appropriate fee and 
required evidence. See 8 CFR 103.1; 103.3. Under this rule, DHS 
proposes that the obligor would only be able to file a motion under 8 
CFR 103.5 as part of the unfavorable decision on appeal. DHS believes 
that such an approach reasonable and operationally efficient; 
additionally, it provides clarity as to when a breach determination 
becomes administratively final, as defined in 8 CFR 213.1(h). First, as 
part of an appeal, pursuant to 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2), a USCIS officer who 
made the initial breach determination must review the decision before 
the appeal can be forwarded to the AAO.\677\ If the USCIS agrees with 
the appealing party that favorable action may be warranted, he or she 
may treat the appeal as a motion and then take favorable action, which 
would resolve the appeal.\678\ However, the official is also not 
precluded from reopening a proceeding or reconsidering a decision on 
his or her own motion under 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5)(i). If the reviewing 
official is not inclined to take a favorable action, the reviewing 
official will forward the appeal to the AAO. Once the AAO issues the 
decision, however, an obligor may file a motion of the AAO's decision 
in accordance with 8 CFR 103.5.\679\ Thus, limiting when a motion can 
be filed is efficient for both the obligor and USCIS. Additionally, a 
breach determination would be administratively final, among other 
instances, if the appeals period to the AAO expires; filing a motion 
does not toll the appeals period stated in 8 CFR 103.3, and if the 
obligor fails to appeal, the breach determination would become 
administratively final unless the motion is granted. The denial of a 
motion can then be appealed to the AAO, and the AAO decision itself, if 
unfavorable, may be motioned in accordance with 8 CFR 103.5. 
Additionally, USCIS may reopen a breach determination at any time 
pursuant to 8 CFR 103.5, even if an appeal is pending. For these 
reasons, it appears to be more efficient for all parties if the obligor 
simply appeals a breach determination in the first instance, if review 
of the initial breach determination is desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \677\ See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2); see also Adjudicator's Field 
Manual, Chapter 10.8.
    \678\ See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2); see also Adjudicator's Field 
Manual, Chapter 10.8.
    \679\ See 8 CFR 103.5; see Administrative Appeal's Office 
Practice Manual, Chapter 4, Motions to Reopen and Reconsider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the appeal is dismissed or rejected, or the obligor fails to 
appeal, the breach determination becomes the final agency 
determination, and USCIS would issue a demand for payment, if the bond 
was a surety bond, pursuant to 31 CFR 901.2.\680\ The alien may not 
appeal the breach determination or file a motion because the bond 
contract is between the obligor and the U.S. government; the alien is 
not party to the contract.\681\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \680\ See 8 CFR 103.6(e); see proposed 8 CFR 213.1; see 
generally United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, 
Inc. 728 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1089-91 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Safety Nat'l 
Cas. Corp. v. DHS, 711 F. Supp. 2d 697, 703-04 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
    \681\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1. See also, e.g., Matter of Ins. 
Co. of N. Am., 17 I&N Dec. 251, 251 (BIA 1978) (An immigration bond 
is a contract between the Service and the obligor; the obligor and 
his or her attorney-in-fact is the proper party to appeal the 
service's decision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Consequences of Breach
    If USCIS determines that the bond has been breached, DHS proposes 
that USCIS would collect on the bond in full, meaning the total 
monetary amount of the bond as liquidated damages. This practice 
appears to differ from the practice described in legacy INS' Operating 
Instructions, which contemplate forfeiture only of the amount of public 
benefits received.\682\ The total damages to the government go beyond 
the simple amount of the benefits received, and are difficult if not 
impossible to calculate with precision. Liquidated damages are an 
appropriate remedy in such situations, and were an accepted practice in 
prior immigration bond cases.\683\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \682\ See OI 103.6(c) (If it is found that the alien has become 
a public charge, the bond shall be breached in the necessary amount 
with any remainder continued in effect).
    \683\ See United States v. Goldberg, 40 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1930); 
Matta v. Tillinghast, 33 F.2d 64 (1st Cir. 1929); Ill. Surety Co. v. 
United States, 229 F. 527 (2d Cir. 1916); United States v. Andreano, 
36 F. Supp. 821 (D.R.I. 1941); United States v. Rubin, 227 F. 938 
(E.D. Pa. 1915); Matter of B-, 1 I&N Dec. 121 (BIA 1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
    A final determination that a bond has been breached would create a 
claim in favor of the United States. The claim in favor of the United 
States may not be released or discharged by an immigration 
officer.\684\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \684\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, a party must first exhaust all 
administrative remedies and obtain a final decision from USCIS in 
accordance with 8 CFR part 103, before being able to bring suit 
challenging USCIS cancellation or bond breach determination in Federal 
district court.\685\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \685\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although enforcement and suits may be based on various causes of 
action, courts have determined that bond breach determinations are 
always reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
framework.\686\

[[Page 51227]]

DHS invites public comments on the proposed public charge bond and its 
procedures, including the public charge bond type, bond amount, 
duration, substitution, cancellation and any other aspects of a public 
charge bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \686\ See United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. 
Agency, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1089-90 (N.D. Cal. 2010); 
Bahramizadeh v. INS, 717 F.2d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1983) (reviewing 
bond-breach determinations under the APA framework); Castaneda v. 
Dep't of Justice, 828 F.2d 501, 502 (8th Cir. 1987) (immigration 
bond-breach determination reviewed under the APA framework); Ruiz-
Rivera v. Moyer, 70 F.3d 498, 500-01 (7th Cir. 1995) (determining 
whether ``INS' decision that the bond conditions were substantially 
violated was plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 8 CFR 
103.6(e)''); Ahmed v. United States, 480 F.2d 531, 534 (2d Cir. 
1973) (analyzing substantial breach, as required by 8 CFR 103.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Public Charge Bond Processing Fees
    DHS is proposing to charge for the processing of public charge 
bonds and cancellation requests. In this rule, DHS proposes to charge 
$25 for the posting of a public charge bond, $25 for the posting of a 
substitute public charge bond, and $25 when the alien, obligor or co-
obligor requests to cancel the public charge bond (i.e., when the Form 
I-356 is filed). INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), authorizes DHS 
to set fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services at a 
level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such 
services. USCIS must expend resources to process public charge bonds 
and bond cancellation requests, including start-up costs to 
operationalize a public charge bond process. USCIS is primarily funded 
by immigration and naturalization benefit request fees charged to 
applicants and petitioners. Fees collected from individuals and 
entities filing immigration benefit requests are deposited into the 
Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and used to fund the cost 
of processing immigration benefit requests and providing related 
services (i.e., biometric collections).\687\ In addition, DHS complies 
with the requirements and principles of the Chief Financial Officers 
Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-03, (CFO Act), and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-25. USCIS reviews the fees deposited into the 
IEFA biennially and, if necessary, proposes adjustments to ensure 
recovery of costs necessary to meet national security, customer 
service, and adjudicative processing goals. USCIS typically uses 
projected volume data and completion rates (the average time for 
adjudication of an immigration benefit request) to set the fees for 
specific immigration benefit requests, and related services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \687\ See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee 
Schedule, 81 FR 26904, 26940 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed $25 fees will not result in recovery of the full cost 
of intake and adjudication the proposed Forms I-945 and I-356. However, 
at this time, DHS is not able to estimate the start-up costs for 
establishing a public charge bond process, nor the number of public 
charge bonds or cancellation requests that it will receive during any 
period of time because both the form and process are new to USCIS, and 
USCIS does not have a reasonable proxy on which to rely for an 
estimate. In addition, public charge bonds are very fact-specific; 
USCIS will make a case-by-case determination on whether to offer the 
submission of a bond to an applicant. Similarly, whether a cancellation 
request is submitted will be driven by the particular circumstances of 
each alien by whom or on whose behalf a bond is posted, depending on 
whether conditions for cancellation have been met. Nevertheless, to 
recover at least some of the costs of adjudicating Forms I-945 and I-
356, and avoid other fee payers having to fund the public charge bond 
process entirely, DHS is proposing a $25 fee for the initial public 
charge bond submission, and a $25 fee for the bond cancellation 
request, with no option to request a fee waiver. Once USCIS implements 
a public charge bond process, it will be able to obtain data on the 
volume and burden of public charge bonds and cancellation requests and 
adjust these fees to amounts necessary to recover the relative costs of 
these adjudications next time that USCIS reviews the fees deposited 
into the IEFA.
10. Other Technical Changes
    In addition to amending 8 CFR 103.6 and 213.1 to update and 
establish requirements specific to public charge bonds, this proposed 
rule would make technical changes to 8 CFR 103.6 to update references 
to offices and form names.
11. Concurrent Surety Bond Rulemaking
    On June 5, 2018, DHS published a proposed rule that would set forth 
procedures and standards under which DHS would decline surety 
immigration bonds from Treasury-certified companies.\688\ The June 5 
proposed rule would also create administrative exhaustion requirements 
applicable to sureties. This public charge proposed rule is not 
intended to displace or otherwise affect the proposed changes to 8 CFR 
103.6 in the June 5, 2018 proposed rule, although a final public charge 
rule may depart from the June 5 rule with respect to surety bonds 
breach determinations, as described above. DHS plans to conduct the two 
rulemakings concurrently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \688\ See Procedures and Standards for Declining Surety 
Immigration Bonds and Administrative Appeal Requirement for 
Breaches, 83 FR 25951 (June 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive 
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory 
costs.
    This proposed rule is designated a ``significant regulatory 
action'' that is economically significant since it is estimated that 
the proposed rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this proposed regulation.
1. Summary
    As previously discussed, DHS is proposing to modify its regulations 
to add new regulatory provisions for inadmissibility determinations 
based on public charge grounds under the INA. DHS is proposing to 
prescribe how it determines whether an alien is inadmissible because he 
or she is likely at any time to become a public charge and identify the 
types of public benefits that are considered in the public charge 
determinations. An alien applying for a visa, admission at the port of 
entry, or adjustment of status generally must establish that he or she 
is not likely at any time to become a public charge. DHS proposes that 
certain factors may be weighed positively or negatively, depending on 
how the factor impacts the immigrant's likelihood to become a public 
charge. DHS is also proposing to revise existing regulations to clarify 
when and how it considers public charge when adjudicating change of 
status and extension of stay applications. Finally, DHS is proposing to 
revise its regulations governing the Secretary's discretion to accept a 
public

[[Page 51228]]

charge bond or similar undertaking under section 213 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1183. Similar to a waiver, a public charge bond permits an alien 
deemed inadmissible on the public charge ground to obtain adjustment of 
status, if otherwise admissible.\689\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \689\ There is no mention of ``waiver'' or ``waive'' in INA 
section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. However, the BIA has viewed that 
provision as functioning as a waiver of the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility. See Matter of Ulloa, 22 I&N Dec. 725, 726 (BIA 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would impose new costs on the population 
applying to adjust status using Form I-485 that are subject to the 
public charge grounds on inadmissibility who would now be required to 
file the new Form I-944 as part of the public charge inadmissibility 
determination. DHS would require any adjustment applicants subject to 
the public charge inadmissibility ground to submit Forms I-944 with 
their Form I-485 to demonstrate they are not likely to become a public 
charge. In addition, Form I-129 and Form I-129CW beneficiaries, and 
Form I-539 filers may also incur additional costs should they receive a 
RFE to file Form I-944 to determine inadmissibility based on public 
charge grounds under the provisions of this proposed rule. The proposed 
rule would also impose additional costs for completing Forms I-485, I-
129, I-129CW, and I-539 as the associated time burden estimate for 
completing each of these forms would increase. Moreover, the proposed 
rule would impose new costs associated with the proposed public charge 
bond process, including new costs for completing and filing Form I-945, 
Public Charge Bond, and Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public 
Charge Bond. DHS estimates that the additional total cost of the 
proposed rule would range from approximately $45,313,422 to 
$129,596,845 annually to the population applying to adjust status who 
also would be required to file Form I-944, for the opportunity cost of 
time associated with the increased time burden estimates for Forms I-
485, I-129, I-129CW, and I-539, and for requesting or cancelling a 
public charge bond using Form I-944 and Form I-356, respectively.
    Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the total 
quantified new direct costs of the proposed rule would range from about 
$453,134,220 to $1,295,968,450 (undiscounted). In addition, DHS 
estimates that the 10-year discounted total direct costs of this 
proposed rule would range from about $386,532,679 to $1,105,487,375 at 
a 3 percent discount rate and about $318,262,513 to $910,234,008 at a 7 
percent discount rate.
    The proposed rule would impose new costs on the population seeking 
extension of stay or change of status using Form I-129, Form I-129CW, 
or Form I-539 since, for any of these forms, USCIS adjudication 
officers would then be able to exercise discretion in determining 
whether it would be necessary to issue a RFE whereby a Form I-129 or I-
129CW beneficiary or a Form I-539 applicant may then have to submit 
Form I-944. DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis estimating the 
potential cost of filing Form I-129, Form I-129CW, or Form I-539 for a 
range of 10 to 100 percent of beneficiaries or filers, respectively, 
receiving a RFE to submit Form I-944. The costs to Form I-129 
beneficiaries who may receive a RFE to file Form I-944 range from 
$6,086,318 to $60,863,181 annually and the costs to Form I-129CW 
beneficiaries who may receive such a RFE from $114,132 to $1,141,315 
annually. The costs to Form I-539 applicants who may receive a RFE to 
file Form I-944 range from $3,164,375 to $31,643,752 annually.
    The proposed rule would also potentially impose new costs on 
individuals or companies (obligors) if an alien has been found to be a 
public charge, but has been given the opportunity to submit a public 
charge bond, for which USCIS intends to use the new Form I-945. DHS 
estimates the total cost to file Form I-945 would be at minimum about 
$34,234 annually.\690\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \690\ Calculation: $35.66 (cost per obligor to file Form I-945) 
* 960 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-945) = 
$34,233.60 = $34,234 (rounded) annual total cost to file Form I-945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed rule would potentially impose new costs on 
aliens or obligors (individuals or entities) who would submit Form I-
356 as part of a request to cancel the public charge bond. DHS 
estimates the total cost to file Form I-356 would be approximately $825 
annually.\691\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \691\ Calculation: $33.00 (cost per obligor to file Form I-356) 
* 25 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-356) = 
$825.00 annual total cost to file Form I-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would also result in a reduction in transfer 
payments from the federal government to individuals who may choose to 
disenroll from or forego enrollment in a public benefits program. 
Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forego future 
enrollment in a public benefits program include foreign-born non-
citizens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status 
households.\692\ DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer 
payments from the federal and state governments would be approximately 
$2.27 billion annually due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in 
public benefits programs by foreign-born non-citizens who may be 
receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted 
federal and state transfer payments reduction of this proposed rule 
would be approximately $19.3 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and 
about $15.9 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. However, DHS notes 
there may be additional reductions in transfer payments that we are 
unable to quantify. There may also be additional reductions in transfer 
payments from states to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or 
forego enrollment in a public benefits program. Because state 
participation in these programs may vary depending on the type of 
benefit provided, DHS was only able to estimate the impact of state 
transfers. For example, the federal government funds all SNAP food 
expenses, but only 50 percent of allowable administrative costs for 
regular operating expenses.\693\ Similarly, Federal Medical Assistance 
Percentages (FMAP) in some HHS programs like Medicaid can vary from 
between 50 percent to an enhanced rate of 100 percent in some 
cases.\694\ However, assuming that the state share of federal financial 
participation (FFP) is 50 percent, the 10-year discounted amount of 
state transfer payments of this proposed policy would be approximately 
$9.65 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and about $7.95 billion at a 
7 percent discount rate. Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in 
federal and state transfers under federal benefit programs may have 
downstream and upstream impacts on state and local economies, large and 
small businesses, and individuals. For example, the rule might result 
in reduced revenues for healthcare providers participating in Medicaid, 
pharmacies that provide prescriptions to

[[Page 51229]]

participants in the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) program, 
companies that manufacture medical supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery 
retailers participating in SNAP, agricultural producers who grow foods 
that are eligible for purchase using SNAP benefits, or landlords 
participating in federally funded housing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \692\ DHS uses the term ``foreign-born non-citizens'' because it 
is the term used by the Census Bureau for which much of the data in 
this analysis is based on. DHS generally interprets this term to 
mean alien in this analysis.
    \693\ Per section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 
See also USDA, FNS Handbook 901, p. 41 available at: https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/apd/
FNS_HB901_v2.2_Internet_Ready_Format.pdf.
    \694\ See Dept. of Health and Human Services, ``Federal 
Financial Participation in State Assistance Expenditures; Federal 
Matching Shares for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, and Aid to Needy Aged, Blind, or Disabled Persons for 
October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.'' ASPE FMAP 2017 Report. 
Dec. 29, 2015. Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/fy2017-federal-medical-assistance-percentages. Accessed Sept. 13, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule would add new direct and indirect 
impacts on various entities and individuals associated with regulatory 
familiarization with the provisions of the rule. Familiarization costs 
involve the time spent reading the details of a rule to understand its 
changes. A foreign-born non-citizen (such as those contemplating 
disenrollment or foregoing enrollment in a public benefits program) 
might review the rule to determine whether they are subject to the 
provisions of the proposed rule and may incur familiarization costs. To 
the extent that an individual or entity directly regulated by the rule 
incurs familiarization costs, those familiarization costs are a direct 
cost of the rule. In addition to those individuals or entities the rule 
directly regulates, a wide variety of other entities would likely 
choose to read the rule and, therefore, would incur familiarization 
costs. For example, immigration lawyers, immigration advocacy groups, 
health care providers of all types, non-profit organizations, non-
governmental organizations, and religious organizations, among others, 
may need or want to become familiar with the provisions of this 
proposed rule. DHS believes such non-profit organizations and other 
advocacy groups might choose to read the rule in order to provide 
information to those foreign-born non-citizens that might be affected 
by a reduction in federal and state transfer payments. Familiarization 
costs incurred by those not directly regulated are indirect costs.
    DHS estimates the time that would be necessary to read this 
proposed rule would be approximately 8 to 10 hours per person, 
resulting in opportunity costs of time. An entity, such as a non-profit 
or advocacy group, may have more than one person that reads the rule.
    The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to help ensure 
that aliens who are admitted to the United States, seek extension of 
stay or change of status, or apply for adjustment of status are not 
likely to receive public benefits and will be self-sufficient, i.e., 
individuals will rely on their own financial resources, as well as the 
financial resources of the family, sponsors, and private 
organizations.\695\ DHS also anticipates that the proposed rule would 
produce some benefits from the elimination of Form I-864W. The 
elimination of this form would potentially reduce the number of forms 
USCIS would have to process. DHS estimates the amount of cost savings 
that would accrue from eliminating Form I-864W would be $35.78 per 
petitioner.\696\ However, DHS notes that we are unable to determine the 
annual number of filings of Form I-864W and, therefore, we are 
currently unable to estimate the total annual cost savings of this 
change. Additionally, a public charge bond process would also provide 
benefits to applicants as they potentially would be given the 
opportunity to be adjusted if otherwise admissible, at the discretion 
of DHS, after a determination that he or she is likely to become a 
public charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \695\ 8 U.S.C. 1601(2).
    \696\ Calculation of savings from opportunity cost of time for 
no longer having to complete and submit Form I-864W: ($35.78 per 
hour * 1.0 hours) = $35.78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 36 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed 
provisions and their impacts.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.056


[[Page 51231]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.057


[[Page 51232]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.058


[[Page 51233]]


     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \697\ OMB Circular A-4 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.059

    In addition to the impacts summarized above and as required by OMB 
Circular A-4, Table 37 presents the prepared accounting statement 
showing the costs associated with this proposed regulation.\697\

[[Page 51234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.060


[[Page 51235]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.061

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
2. Background and Purpose of the Rule
    As discussed in the preamble, DHS seeks to ensure appropriate 
application of the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Under the 
INA, an alien who, at the time of application for a visa, admission, or 
adjustment of status, is deemed likely at any time to become a public 
charge is inadmissible to the United States.\698\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \698\ See INA section 212(a)(4); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the INA does not define public charge, Congress has specified 
that when determining if an alien is likely at any time to become a 
public charge, consular and immigration officers must, at a minimum, 
consider certain factors including the alien's age, health, and family 
status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and 
skills.\699\ Additionally, DHS may consider any affidavit of support 
submitted under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, on behalf of 
the applicant when determining whether the applicant may become a 
public charge.\700\ For most family-based and some employment-based 
immigrant visas or adjustment of status applications, applicants must 
have a sufficient affidavit of support or they will be found 
inadmissible as likely to become a public charge.\701\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \699\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(B)(i).
    \700\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii). When required, the 
applicant must submit Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 
213A of the INA.
    \701\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in general, there is a lack of academic literature and 
economic research examining the link between immigration and public 
benefits (i.e., welfare), and the strength of that connection.\702\ It 
is also difficult to determine whether immigrants are net contributors 
or net users of government-supported public assistance programs since 
much of the answer depends on the data source, how the data are used, 
and what assumptions are made for

[[Page 51236]]

analysis.\703\ Moreover, DHS also was not able to estimate potential 
lost productivity, health effects, additional medical expenses due to 
delayed health care treatment, or increased disability insurance claims 
as a result of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \702\ See Borjas, G.J. (2016) We wanted workers: Unraveling the 
immigration narrative. Chapter 9, pp. 175-176, 190-191. W.W. Norton 
& Company, New York.
    \703\ See Borjas, G.J. (2016) We wanted workers: Unraveling the 
immigration narrative. Chapter 9, p. 175. W.W. Norton & Company, New 
York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the public charge inadmissibility ground does not apply 
to all applicants seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of status. 
Several immigrant and nonimmigrant categories, by law or regulation, 
are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility 
grounds.\704\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \704\ See proposed 8 CFR 212.23(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs and benefits for this proposed rule focus on individuals 
applying for adjustment of status using Form I-485. Such individuals 
would be applying from within the United States, rather than applying 
for a visa from outside the United States at a DOS consulate abroad. In 
addition, the impact of this proposed rule on nonimmigrants who are 
seeking an extension of stay or a change of status are also examined in 
this analysis.
    The new process DHS is proposing for making a determination of 
inadmissibility based on public charge incorporates a new form--Form I-
944--in the current process to apply for adjustment of status. 
Currently, as part of the requirements for filing Form I-485, 
applicants submit biometrics collection for fingerprints and signature, 
and also file Form I-693 which is to be completed by a designated civil 
surgeon. Form I-693 is used to report results of a medical examination 
to USCIS.
    Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA) is 
also filed to satisfy the requirements of section 213A of the Act for 
most family-based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants to 
show that they have adequate means of financial support and are not 
likely to become a public charge. When a sponsor completes and signs 
Form I-864 in support of an intending immigrant, the sponsor agrees to 
use his or her resources, financial or otherwise, to support the 
intending immigrant named in the affidavit, if it becomes necessary.
    Immigrants required to submit Form I-864 completed by a sponsor to 
obtain an immigrant visa overseas or to adjust status to that of lawful 
permanent resident in the United States, include (1) immediate 
relatives of U.S. citizens (spouses, unmarried children under 21 years 
of age, and parents of U.S. citizens 21 years of age and older); (2) 
family-based preference immigrants (unmarried sons and daughters of 
U.S. citizens, spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of lawful 
permanent residents, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and 
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens 21 years of age and older); and 
(3) employment-based preference immigrants in cases only when a U.S. 
citizen, lawful permanent resident, or U.S. national relative filed the 
immigrant visa petition or such relative has a significant ownership 
interest (5 percent or more) in the entity that filed the petition. 
However, immigrants seeking certain visa classifications are exempt 
from the requirement to submit a Form I-864 as are intending immigrants 
who have earned or can receive credit for 40 qualifying quarters 
(credits) of work in the United States.
    Additionally, some sponsors for intending immigrants may be able to 
file an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-
864EZ). Form I-864EZ is a shorter version of Form I-864 and is designed 
for cases that meet certain criteria. A sponsor may file Form I-864EZ 
only if: (1) The sponsor is the person who filed or is filing a 
Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) for a relative being 
sponsored; (2) the relative being sponsored is the only person listed 
on Form I-130; and (3) the income the sponsor is using for 
qualification is based entirely on salary or pension and is shown on 
one or more Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form W-2s provided by 
employers or former employers.
    Form I-864 includes attachment, Contract Between Sponsor and 
Household Member (Form I-864A), which may be filed when a sponsor's 
income and assets do not meet the income requirements of Form I-864 and 
the qualifying household member chooses to combine his or her resources 
with the income and/or assets of a sponsor to meet those requirements. 
A sponsor must file a separate Form I-864A for each household member 
whose income and/or assets the sponsor is using to meet the affidavit 
of support income requirements. The Form I-864A contract must be 
submitted with Form I-864. The Form I-864A serves as a contractual 
agreement between the sponsor and household member that, along with the 
sponsor, the household member is responsible for providing financial 
and material support to the sponsored immigrant.
    In cases where the petitioning sponsor cannot meet the income 
requirements by him or herself, an individual seeking an immigrant visa 
or adjustment of status may also meet the affidavit of support 
requirement by obtaining a joint sponsor who is willing to accept joint 
and several liability with the petitioning sponsor as to the obligation 
to provide support to the sponsored alien. The joint sponsor must 
demonstrate income or assets that independently meet the requirements 
to support the sponsored immigrant(s) as required under section 
213A(f)(2) and (f)(5)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1883a(f)(2) and 
(f)(5)(A). The joint sponsor's income and assets may not be combined 
with the income/assets of the petitioning sponsor or the sponsored 
immigrant. Both the petitioning sponsor and the joint sponsor must each 
complete a Form I-864.
    Certain classes of immigrants currently are exempt from the 
requirement to file Form I-864 or Form I-864EZ and therefore must file 
Form I-864W. DHS proposes to eliminate Form I-864W and instead 
individuals would now be required to provide the information previously 
requested on the Form I-864W using Form I-485. Based on the information 
provided in the Form I-485, an officer can verify whether an alien is 
statutorily required to file an affidavit of support.
    Some applicants seeking adjustment of status may be eligible for a 
fee waiver when filing Form I-485. An applicant who is unable to pay 
the filing fees or biometric services fees for an application or 
petition may obtain a fee waiver by filing a Request for Fee Waiver 
(Form I-912). If an applicant's Form I-912 is approved, the agency will 
waive both the filing fee and biometric services fee. Therefore, DHS 
assumes for the purposes of this economic analysis that the filing fees 
and biometric services fees required for Form I-485 are waived if an 
approved Form I-912 accompanies the application.
    When filing Form I-485, a fee waiver is only available if the 
applicant is applying for adjustment of status based on:
     Special Immigrant Status based on an approved Form I-360 
as an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Afghan or Iraqi national employed 
by or on behalf of the U.S. Government; or
     An adjustment provision that is exempt from the public 
charge grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 
including but not limited to the Cuban Adjustment Act, the Haitian 
Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA), and the Nicaraguan Adjustment 
and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), or similar provisions; 
continuous residence in the United States since before January 1, 1972, 
``Registry,''

[[Page 51237]]

Asylum Status under section 209(b) of the INA, Special Immigrant 
Juvenile Status, and Lautenberg parolees.
    Additionally, the following individuals seeking adjustment of 
status may apply for a fee waiver for Form I-485:
     Battered spouses of A, G, E-3, or H nonimmigrants;
     Battered spouses or children of a lawful permanent 
resident or U.S. citizen under INA section 240A(b)(2);
     T nonimmigrants;
     U nonimmigrants; or
     VAWA self-petitioners.
    DHS is proposing to facilitate the current Form I-485 application 
process by creating a new form--Form I-944--which would collect 
information to the extent allowed by relevant laws based on factors 
such as age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial 
status; education and skills; and any additional financial support 
through an affidavit of support, so that DHS could determine whether an 
applicant applying for adjustment of status who is subject to public 
charge review would be inadmissible to the United States based on 
public charge grounds. For the analysis of this proposed rule, DHS 
assumes that all individuals who apply for an adjustment of status 
using Form I-485 are required to submit Form I-944, unless he or she is 
in a class of applicants that is exempt from review for determination 
of inadmissibility based on public charge at the time of adjustment of 
status according to statute or regulation.
    In addition to those applying for an adjustment of status, any 
alien applying for an extension of stay or change of status as a 
nonimmigrant in the United States would now be required to demonstrate 
that he or she is neither using nor receiving, nor likely to receive, 
public benefits as defined in this proposed rule unless the applicant 
is in a class of admission or is seeking to change to a class of 
admission that is exempt from inadmissibility on public charge grounds.
    For applicants seeking adjustment of status or an immigrant visa 
who are likely to become a public charge after the review for 
determination of inadmissibility based on public charge, DHS is 
proposing to establish a bond process for such aliens. DHS currently 
does not have a specific process or procedure in place to accept public 
charge bonds, though it has the authority to do so. The proposed public 
charge bond process would include DHS acceptance of a public charge 
bond posted on an adjustment of status applicant's behalf if the 
adjustment of status applicant was deemed inadmissible based on public 
charge. The process would also include the possibility to substitute an 
existing bond, the requirement to substitute a bond before the bond on 
file with DHS expires, the DHS determination of breach of a public 
charge bond, the possibility to file an appeal upon a breach 
determination, cancellation of a public charge bond, and the 
possibility to submit an appeal upon denial of the cancellation 
request.
3. Population
    This proposed rule would affect individuals who are present in the 
United States who are seeking an adjustment of status to that of a 
lawful permanent resident. According to statute, an individual who is 
seeking adjustment of status and is at any time likely to become a 
public charge is ineligible for such adjustment.\705\ The grounds of 
inadmissibility set forth in section 212 of the Act also apply when 
certain aliens seek admission to the United States, whether for a 
temporary purpose or permanently. However, the grounds of public charge 
inadmissibility (including ineligibility for adjustment of status) do 
not apply to all applicants since there are various classes of 
admission that Congress expressly exempted from the public charge 
inadmissibility ground. Within USCIS, this proposed rule would affect 
individuals who apply for adjustment of status since these individuals 
would be required to be reviewed for a determination of inadmissibility 
based on public charge grounds as long as the individual is not in a 
class of admission that is exempt from review for public charge. In 
addition, the proposed rule would affect individuals applying for an 
extension of stay or change of status because these individuals would 
have to demonstrate that they have not received, are not currently 
receiving, and are not likely to receive public benefits in the future, 
as defined in the proposed rule. This analysis estimates the 
populations from each of these groups that would be subject to review 
for receipt of public benefits. DHS notes that the population estimates 
are based on aliens present in the United States who are applying for 
adjustment of status or extension of stay or change of status, rather 
than individuals outside the United States who must apply for an 
immigrant visa through consular processing at a DOS consulate abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \705\ See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Population Seeking Adjustment of Status
    With this proposed rule, DHS intends to ensure that aliens who 
apply for adjustment of status are self-sufficient and will rely on 
their own financial resources, as well of those of their families, 
sponsors, and private organizations. Therefore, DHS estimates the 
population of individuals who are applying for adjustment of status 
using Form I-485.\706\ Under the proposed rule, these individuals would 
undergo review for determination of inadmissibility based on public 
charge grounds, unless an individual is in a class of admission that is 
exempt from review for public charge determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \706\ Data on the population of individuals who are applying for 
adjustment of status and the class of admission come from U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 
for years 2012 to 2016. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Office of Immigration 
Statistics. Available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/ (accessed Jan. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 38 shows the total population in fiscal years 2012 to 2016 
that applied for adjustment of status. In general, the annual 
population of individuals who applied to adjust status was consistent. 
Over the 5-year period, the population of individuals applying for 
adjustment of status ranged from a low of 530,802 in fiscal year 2013 
to a high of 565,427 in fiscal year 2016. In addition, the average 
population of individuals over 5 fiscal years who applied for 
adjustment of status over this period was 544,246.

[[Page 51238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.062

    DHS welcomes any public comments on our estimates of the total 
number of individuals applying for adjustment of status in the United 
States as the primary basis for developing population estimates of 
those who would be subject to review for determination of 
inadmissibility based on public charge grounds.
i. Exemptions From Determination of Inadmissibility Based on Public 
Charge Grounds
    There are exemptions and waivers for certain classes of admission 
that are not subject to review for determination of inadmissibility 
based on public charge grounds. Table 39 shows the classes of 
applicants for admission, adjustment of status, or registry according 
to statute or regulation that are exempt from inadmissibility based on 
public charge grounds.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51239]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.063


[[Page 51240]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.064

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
    To estimate the annual total population of individuals seeking to 
adjust status who would be subject to review for inadmissibility based 
on public charge grounds, DHS examined the annual total population of 
individuals who applied for adjustment of status for fiscal years 2012 
to 2016. For each fiscal year, DHS removed individuals from the 
population whose classes of admission are exempt from public charge 
review for inadmissibility, as shown in table 39, leaving the total 
population that would be subject to such review. Further discussion of 
these exempt classes of admission can be found in the preamble.
    Table 40 shows the total estimated population of individuals 
seeking to adjust status under a class of admission that is exempt from 
review for inadmissibility based on public charge grounds for fiscal 
years 2012 to 2016 as well as the total estimated population that would 
be subject to public charge review.\707\ In fiscal year 2016, for 
example, the total number of persons who applied for an adjustment of 
status across various classes of admission was 565,427 (see table 38). 
After removing individuals from this population whose classes of 
admission are exempt from examination for public charge, DHS estimates 
the total population of adjustment applicants in fiscal year 2016 that 
would be subject to public charge review for inadmissibility is 
382,769.\708\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \707\ Calculation of total estimated population that would be 
subject to public charge review: (Total Population Applying for 
Adjustment of Status)-(Total Population Seeking Adjustment of Status 
that is Exempt from Public Charge Review for Inadmissibility) = 
Total Population Subject to Public Charge Review for 
Inadmissibility.
    \708\ Calculation of total population subject to public charge 
review for inadmissibility for fiscal year 2016: 565,427-182,658 = 
382,769.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51241]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.065

    DHS estimates the projected annual average total population of 
adjustment applicants that would be subject to public charge review for 
inadmissibility by DHS is 382,264. This estimate is based on the 5-year 
average of the annual estimated total population subject to public 
charge review for inadmissibility from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 
2016. Over this 5-year period, the estimated population of individuals 
applying for adjustment of status subject to public charge review 
ranged from a low of 366,125 in fiscal year 2015 to a high of 397,988 
in fiscal year 2013.
    DHS welcomes any public comments on our estimates of the total 
population of individuals seeking to adjust status under a class of 
admission that is exempt from review for inadmissibility based on 
public charge grounds as well as the total population that would be 
subject to public charge review. DHS notes that the population 
estimates are based on immigrants present in the United States who are 
applying for adjustment of status, rather than immigrants outside the 
United States who must apply for an immigrant visa through consular 
processing at DOS consulate abroad.
ii. Exemptions From the Requirement To Submit an Affidavit of Support
    In addition to the exemptions from inadmissibility based on public 
charge, certain classes of admission are exempt from the requirement to 
submit an affidavit of support for applicants for admission, adjustment 
of status, or registry. Certain applicants applying for adjustment of 
status are required to submit an affidavit of support from a sponsor or 
otherwise be found inadmissible as likely to become a public charge. 
When an affidavit of support is submitted, a contract is established 
between the sponsor and the U.S. Government to establish a legally 
enforceable obligation to support the applicant financially.
    Table 41 shows the estimated total population of individuals 
seeking adjustment of status who were exempt from the requirement to 
submit an affidavit of support from a sponsor over the period fiscal 
year 2012 to fiscal year 2016.\709\ The table also shows the total 
estimated population that was required to submit an affidavit of 
support showing evidence of having adequate means of financial support 
so that an applicant would not be found inadmissible as likely to 
become a public charge for failure to submit a sufficient affidavit of 
support. Further discussion of these exempt classes of admission can be 
found in the preamble. The estimated annual average population of 
individuals seeking to adjust status who were required to submit a 
public charge affidavit of support from a sponsor over the 5-year 
period was 257,610. Over this 5-year period, the estimated population 
of individuals required to submit a public charge affidavit of support 
from a sponsor ranged from a low of 247,011 in fiscal year 2015 to a 
high of 272,451 in fiscal year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \709\ Data on the population of individuals who are applying for 
adjustment of status and the class of admission come from U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 
for years 2012 to 2016. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Office of Immigration 
Statistics. Available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/ (accessed Jan. 24, 2018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.066

    DHS estimates the projected annual average total population that 
would be subject to the requirement to submit an affidavit of support 
from a sponsor is 257,610. This estimate is based on the 5-year average 
of the annual estimated total population of applicants applying for 
adjustment of status that would be subject to the requirement to submit 
an affidavit of support from a sponsor from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal 
year 2016. Over this 5-year period, the estimated population of such 
individuals applying for adjustment of status ranged from a low of 
247,011 in fiscal year 2015 to a high of 272,451 in fiscal year 2016.
    DHS welcomes any public comments on our estimates of the total 
population of individuals seeking adjustment of status who were exempt 
from the requirement to submit an affidavit of support as well as the 
total population that was required to submit an affidavit of support 
showing evidence of having adequate means of financial support so that 
an applicant would not be found inadmissible as likely become a public 
charge for failure to submit a sufficient affidavit of support. DHS 
notes that the population estimates are based on immigrants present in 
the United States who are applying for adjustment of status, rather 
than immigrants outside the United States who must apply for an 
immigrant visa through consular processing at a U.S. Department of 
State consulate abroad.
(b) Population Seeking Extension of Stay or Change of Status
    Nonimmigrants in the United States may apply for an extension of 
stay or change of status by having Form I-129 filed by an employer on 
his or her behalf. An employer uses Form I-129 to petition USCIS for a 
beneficiary to enter the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant to 
perform services or labor, or to receive training. The Form I-129 can 
also be used to request an extension or change in status. In addition, 
an employer may use Form I-129CW to petition USCIS for a foreign 
national who is ineligible for another employment-based nonimmigrant 
classification to work as a nonimmigrant in the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) temporarily as a CW-1, CNMI-Only 
Transitional Worker. Moreover, an employer may also use Form I-129CW to 
request an extension of stay or change of status for a CNMI-Only 
Transitional Worker.
    A nonimmigrant may file Form I-539 so long as the nonimmigrant is 
currently in an eligible nonimmigrant category. A nonimmigrant 
generally must submit an application for extension of stay or change of 
status before his or her current authorized stay expires. In addition 
to determining inadmissibility based on public charge for individuals 
seeking adjustment of status, DHS is proposing to conduct reviews of 
nonimmigrants who apply for extension of stay or change of status to 
determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that he or she has not 
received, is not receiving, nor is likely to receive, public benefits, 
as defined in the proposed rule.\710\ However, DHS proposes that such 
determinations would not require applicants seeking extension of stay 
or change of status to file Form I-944. Instead, USCIS officers would 
be able to exercise discretion regarding whether it would be necessary 
to issue a RFE whereby an applicant would then have to submit Form I-
944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \710\ Past or current receipt of public benefits, alone, would 
not justify a finding of inadmissibility on public charge grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 42 shows the total estimated population of beneficiaries 
seeking extension of stay or change of status through an employer 
petition using Form I-129 for fiscal years 2012 to 2016. DHS estimated 
this population based on receipts of Form I-129 in each fiscal year. 
Over this 5-year period, the estimated population of individuals who 
would be subject to a determination of inadmissibility on public charge 
grounds ranged from a low of 282,225 in fiscal year 2013 to a high of 
377,221 in fiscal year 2012. The estimated average population of 
individuals seeking extension of stay or change of status over the 
five-year period fiscal year 2012 to 2016 was 336,335. DHS estimates 
that 336,335 is the average annual projected population of 
beneficiaries seeking extension of stay or change of status through an 
employer petition using Form I-129 and

[[Page 51243]]

therefore subject to the discretionary RFEs for public charge 
determination.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.067

    Table 43 shows the total estimated population of beneficiaries 
seeking extension of stay or change of status through an employer 
petition using Form I-129CW for fiscal years 2012 to 2016. DHS 
estimated this population based on receipts of Form I-129CW in each 
fiscal year. Over this 5-year period, the estimated population of 
individuals who would be subject to a determination of inadmissibility 
on public charge grounds ranged from a low of 5,249 in fiscal year 2013 
to a high of 8,273 in fiscal year 2016. The estimated average 
population of individuals seeking extension of stay or change of status 
through Form I-129CW over the five-year period fiscal year 2012 to 2016 
was 6,307. DHS estimates that 6,307 is the average annual projected 
population of beneficiaries seeking extension of stay or change of 
status through an employer petition using Form I-129CW and therefore 
subject to discretionary RFEs for public charge determination.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.068


[[Page 51244]]


    Table 44 shows the total estimated population of individuals 
seeking extension of stay or change of status using Form I-539 for 
fiscal years 2012 to 2016. DHS estimated this population based on 
receipts of Form I-539 in each fiscal year. Over this 5-year period, 
the estimated population of individuals who would be subject to a 
determination of inadmissibility on public charge grounds ranged from a 
low of 149,583 in fiscal year 2013 to a high of 203,695 in fiscal year 
2016. The estimated average population of individuals seeking extension 
of stay or change of status over the 5-year period from fiscal year 
2012 to 2016 was 174,866. DHS estimates that 174,866 is the average 
annual projected population of individuals who would seek an extension 
of stay and change of status using Form I-539 and therefore would be 
subject to the discretionary RFEs for public charge determination.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.069

    DHS welcomes any public comments on our estimates of the total 
population of employers filing on behalf of individuals seeking 
extension of stay or change of status using Form I-129 or Form I-129CW 
as well as the total of individuals seeking extension of stay or change 
of status using Form I-539, where DHS proposes that the total 
population using each of these forms would be subject to review on a 
discretionary basis for determination of inadmissibility based on 
public charge grounds. DHS notes that the population estimates are 
based on nonimmigrants present in the United States who are applying 
for extension of stay or a change of status, rather than individuals 
outside the United States who must apply for a nonimmigrant visa 
through consular processing at a DOS consulate abroad.
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    DHS expects this proposed rule to produce costs and benefits 
associated with the procedures for examining individuals seeking entry 
into the United States for inadmissibility based on public charge.
    For this proposed rule, DHS generally uses the federal minimum wage 
plus weighted average benefits of $10.66 per hour ($7.25 federal 
minimum wage base plus $3.41 weighted average benefits) as a reasonable 
proxy of time valuation to estimate the opportunity costs of time for 
individuals who are applying for adjustment of status and must be 
reviewed for determination of inadmissibility based on public charge 
grounds.\711\ DHS also uses $10.66 per hour to estimate the opportunity 
cost of time for individuals who cannot or choose not to participate in 
the labor market as these individuals incur opportunity costs and/or 
assign valuation in deciding how to allocate their time. This analysis 
uses the federal minimum wage rate since approximately 80 percent of 
the total number of individuals who obtained lawful permanent resident 
status were in a class of admission under family-sponsored preferences 
and other non-employment-based classifications such as diversity, 
refugees and asylees, and parolees.\712\ Therefore, DHS assumes many of 
these applicants hold positions in occupations that are likely to pay 
around the federal minimum wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \711\ See 29 U.S.C. 206--Minimum wage, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title29/html/USCODE-2011-title29-chap8-sec206.htm (accessed Jan. 24, 2018).
    \712\ See United States Department of Homeland Security. 
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2016, Table 7. Washington, DC, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration 
Statistics, 2017. Available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016 (accessed Jan. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federal minimum wage of $7.25 is an unweighted hourly wage that 
does not account for worker benefits. DHS accounts for worker benefits 
when estimating the opportunity cost of time by calculating a benefits-
to-wage multiplier using the most recent Department of Labor, BLS 
report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation 
for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries. 
DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.47 and, 
therefore, is able to estimate the full opportunity cost per applicant, 
including employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits 
such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement.\713\

[[Page 51245]]

DHS notes that there is no requirement that an individual be employed 
in order to file Form I-485 and many applicants may not be employed. 
Therefore, in this proposed rule, DHS calculates the total rate of 
compensation for individuals applying for adjustment of status as 
$10.66 per hour in this proposed rule using the benefits-to-wage 
multiplier, where the mean hourly wage is $7.25 per hour worked and 
average benefits are $3.41 per hour.\714\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \713\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: 
(Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour) 
= $36.32/$24.77 = 1.466 = 1.47 (rounded). See Economic News Release, 
Employer Cost for Employee Compensation (March 2018), U.S. Dept. of 
Labor, BLS, Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for employee 
compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Civilian 
workers, by major occupational and industry group. June 8, 2018, 
available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06082018.pdf (viewed June 20, 2018).
    \714\ The calculation of the weighted federal minimum hourly 
wage for applicants: $7.25 per hour * 1.47 benefits-to-wage 
multiplier = $10.658 = $10.66 (rounded) per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, DHS uses the unweighted mean hourly wage of $24.34 per 
hour for all occupations to estimate the opportunity cost of time for 
some populations in this economic analysis, such as those submitting an 
affidavit of support for an immigrant seeking to adjust status and 
those requesting extension of stay or change of status. For populations 
such as this, DHS assumes that individuals are dispersed throughout the 
various occupational groups and industry sectors of the U.S. economy. 
For the population submitting an affidavit of support, therefore, DHS 
calculates the average total rate of compensation as $35.78 per hour, 
where the mean hourly wage is $24.34 per hour worked and average 
benefits are $11.46 per hour.715 716
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \715\ The national mean hourly wage across all occupations is 
reported to be $24.34. See Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates United States. May 2017. Department of Labor, BLS, 
Occupational Employment Statistics program; available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes_nat.htm.
    \716\ The calculation of the weighted mean hourly wage for 
applicants: $24.34 per hour * 1.47 = $35.779 = $35.78 (rounded) per 
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS welcomes public comments on its use of $10.66 per hour as the 
opportunity cost of time for most populations of this analysis 
(individuals in a class of admission under family-sponsored preferences 
and other non-employment-based preferences) and $35.78 per hour as the 
opportunity cost of time for other populations, such as those 
submitting an affidavit of support for an immigrant seeking to adjust 
status.
(a) Baseline Estimate of Current Costs
    The baseline estimate of current costs is the best assessment of 
costs and benefits absent the proposed action. For this proposed rule, 
DHS estimates the baseline according to current operations and 
requirements and to that compares the estimated costs and benefits of 
the provisions set forth in the proposed rule. Therefore, DHS defines 
the baseline by assuming ``no change'' to DHS regulations to establish 
an appropriate basis for evaluating the provisions of the proposed 
rule. DHS notes that costs detailed as part of the baseline include all 
current costs associated with completing and filing Form I-485, 
including required biometrics collection and medical examination (Form 
I-693) as well as any affidavits of support (Forms I-864, I-864A, I-
864EZ, and I-864W) or requested fee waivers (Form I-912). As noted 
previously in the background section, the source of additional costs 
imposed by this proposed rule would come from the proposed requirements 
to submit Form I-944 detailing information about an applicant regarding 
factors such as age, health, family status, finances, and education and 
skills. These costs are analyzed later in this economic analysis.
    Table 45 shows the estimated population and annual costs of filing 
for adjustment of status and requesting an extension of stay or change 
of status for the proposed rule. These costs primarily result from the 
process of applying for adjustment of status, including filing Form I-
485 and Form I-693 as well as, if necessary, an affidavit of support 
and/or Form I-912. The costs are derived from the process of applying 
for extension of stay or change of status, including filing Form I-129, 
Form I-129CW, or Form I-539.
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P

[[Page 51246]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.070

BILLING CODE 4410-10-C

[[Page 51247]]

i. Determination of Inadmissibility Based on Public Charge Grounds
a. Form I-485, Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status
    The basis of the quantitative costs estimated for this proposed 
rule is the cost of filing for adjustment of status using Form I-485, 
the opportunity cost of time for completing this form, any other 
required forms, and any other incidental costs (e.g., travel costs) an 
individual must bear that are required in the filing process. DHS 
reiterates that costs examined in this section are not additional costs 
that would be imposed by the proposed rule, but costs that applicants 
currently incur as part of the application process to adjust status. 
The current filing fee for Form I-485 is $1,140. The fee is set at a 
level to recover the processing costs to DHS. As previously discussed 
in the population section, the estimated average annual population of 
individuals who apply for adjustment of status using Form I-485 is 
382,264. Therefore, DHS estimates that the annual filing cost 
associated for Form I-485 is approximately $435,780,960.\717\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \717\ Calculation: Form I-485 filing fee ($1,140) * Estimated 
annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = $435,780,960 annual 
cost for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates the time burden of completing Form I-485 is 6.25 
hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering the required documentation and information, completing the 
application, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, 
and submitting the application.\718\ Using the total rate of 
compensation for minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS estimates the 
opportunity cost of time for completing and submitting Form I-485 would 
be $66.63 per applicant.\719\ Therefore, using the total population 
estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-485, DHS estimates the 
total opportunity cost of time associated with completing Form I-485 is 
approximately $25,470,250 annually.\720\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \718\ Source: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement 
for Form I-485 (OMB control number 1615-0023). The PRA Supporting 
Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201706-1615-001.
    \719\ Calculation for opportunity cost of time for filing Form 
I-485: ($10.66 per hour * 6.25 hours) = $66.625 = $66.63 (rounded) 
per applicant.
    \720\ Calculation: Form I-485 estimated opportunity cost of time 
($66.63) * Estimated annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = 
$25,470,250.13 = $25,470,250 (rounded) annual opportunity cost of 
time for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS requires applicants who file Form I-485 to submit biometric 
information (fingerprints and signature) by attending a biometrics 
services appointment at a designated USCIS Application Support Center 
(ASC). The biometrics services processing fee is $85.00 per applicant. 
Therefore, DHS estimates that the annual cost associated with 
biometrics services processing for the estimated average annual 
population of 382,264 individuals applying for adjustment of status is 
approximately $32,492,440.\721\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \721\ Calculation: Biometrics services processing fee ($85) * 
Estimated annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = 
$32,492,440 annual cost for associated with Form I-485 biometrics 
services processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the biometrics services fee, the applicant would 
incur the costs to comply with the biometrics submission requirement as 
well as the opportunity cost of time for traveling to an ASC, the 
mileage cost of traveling to an ASC, and the opportunity cost of time 
for submitting his or her biometrics. While travel times and distances 
vary, DHS estimates that an applicant's average roundtrip distance to 
an ASC is 50 miles and takes 2.5 hours on average to complete the 
trip.\722\ Furthermore, DHS estimates that an applicant waits an 
average of 1.17 hours for service and to have his or her biometrics 
collected at an ASC, adding up to a total biometrics-related time 
burden of 3.67 hours.\723\ Using the total rate of compensation of 
minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of 
time for completing the biometrics collection requirements for Form I-
485 is $39.12 per applicant.\724\ Therefore, using the total population 
estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-485, DHS estimates the 
total opportunity cost of time associated with completing the 
biometrics collection requirements for Form I-485 is approximately 
$14,954,168 annually.\725\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \722\ See ``Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent 
Spouses; Final rule,'' 80 FR 10284 (25 Feb. 2015); and ``Provisional 
and Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain 
Immediate Relatives; Final Rule,'' 78 FR 536, 572 (3 Jan. 2013).
    \723\ Source for biometric time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement for Form I-485 (OMB control 
number 1615-0023). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at 
Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201706-1615-001.
    \724\ Calculation for opportunity cost of time to comply with 
biometrics submission for Form I-485: ($10.66 per hour * 3.67 hours) 
= $39.12 (rounded) per applicant.
    \725\ Calculation: Estimated opportunity cost of time to comply 
with biometrics submission for Form I-485 ($39.12) * Estimated 
annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = $14,954,167.68 = 
$14,954,168 (rounded) annual opportunity cost of time for filing 
Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the opportunity cost of providing biometrics, 
applicants would incur travel costs related to biometrics collection. 
The cost of travel related to biometrics collection would equal $27.25 
per trip, based on the 50-mile roundtrip distance to an ASC and the 
General Services Administration's (GSA) travel rate of $0.545 per 
mile.\726\ DHS assumes that each applicant would travel independently 
to an ASC to submit his or her biometrics, meaning that this rule would 
impose a travel cost on each of these applicants. Therefore, DHS 
estimates that the total annual cost associated with travel related to 
biometrics collection for the estimated average annual population of 
382,264 individuals applying for adjustment of status is approximately 
$10,416,694.\727\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \726\ See U.S. General Services Administration website for 
Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates, https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement-rates 
(accessed January 7, 2018).
    \727\ Calculation: (Biometrics collection travel costs) * 
(Estimated annual population filing Form I-485) = $27.25 * 382,264 = 
$10,416,694 annual travel costs related to biometrics collection for 
Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing Form 
I-485 is $519,114,512. The total current annual costs include Form I-
485 filing fees, biometrics services fees, opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-485 and submitting biometrics information, and travel 
cost associated with biometrics collection.\728\ DHS notes that a 
medical examination is generally required as part of the application 
process to adjust status. Costs associated with the medical examination 
are detailed in the next section. Moreover, costs associated with 
submitting an affidavit of support and requesting a fee waiver are also 
detailed in subsequent sections since such costs are not required for 
every individual applying for an adjustment of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \728\ Calculation: $435,780,960 (Annual filing fees for Form I-
485) + $25,470,250 (Opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-485) 
+ $32,492,440 (Biometrics services fees) + $14,954,168 (Opportunity 
cost of time for biometrics collection requirements) + $10,416,694 
(Travel costs for biometrics collection) = $519,114,512 total 
current annual cost for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record
    USCIS requires most applicants who file Form I-485 seeking 
adjustment of status to submit Form I-693 completed by a designated 
civil surgeon. Form I-693 is used to report results of a medical 
examination to USCIS. For this analysis, DHS assumes that all 
individuals who apply for adjustment of status using Form I-485 are 
required to submit Form I-693. DHS reiterates that costs examined in 
this section are not

[[Page 51248]]

additional costs that would be imposed by the proposed rule, but costs 
that applicants currently incur as part of the application process to 
adjust status. The medical examination is required to establish that an 
applicant is not inadmissible to the United States on health-related 
grounds. While there is no filing fee associated with Form I-693, the 
applicant is responsible for paying all costs of the medical 
examination, including the cost of any follow-up tests or treatment 
that is required, and must make payments directly to the civil surgeon 
or other health care provider. In addition, applicants bear the 
opportunity cost of time for completing the medical exam form as well 
as sitting for the medical exam and the time waiting to be examined.
    USCIS does not regulate the fees charged by civil surgeons for the 
completion of a medical examination. In addition, medical examination 
fees vary by physician. DHS notes that the cost of the medical 
examinations may vary widely, from as little as $20 to as much as 
$1,000 per respondent (including vaccinations to additional medical 
evaluations and testing that may be required based on the medical 
conditions of the applicant).\729\ DHS estimates that the average cost 
for these activities is $490 and that all applicants would incur this 
cost.\730\ Since DHS assumes that all applicants who apply for 
adjustment of status using Form I-485 must also submit Form I-693, DHS 
estimates that based on the estimated average annual population of 
382,264 the annual cost associated with filing Form I-693 is 
$187,309,360.\731\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \729\ Source for medical exam cost range: Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record (Form 
I-693) (OMB control number 1615-0033). The PRA Supporting Statement 
can be found at Question 13 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-004.
    \730\ Source for medical exam cost estimate: Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record (Form 
I-693) (OMB control number 1615-0033). The PRA Supporting Statement 
can be found at Question 13 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-004.
    \731\ Calculation: (Estimated medical exam cost for Form I-693) 
* (Estimated annual population filing Form I-485) = $490 * 382,264 = 
$187,309,360 annual estimated medical exam costs for Form I-693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing Form I-693 is 
2.5 hours per applicant, which includes understanding and completing 
the form, setting an appointment with a civil surgeon for a medical 
exam, sitting for the medical exam, learning about and understanding 
the results of medical tests, allowing the civil surgeon to report the 
results of the medical exam on the form, and submitting the medical 
exam report to USCIS.\732\ DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time 
for completing and submitting Form I-693 is $26.65 per applicant based 
on the total rate of compensation of minimum wage of $10.66 per 
hour.\733\ Therefore, using the total population estimate of 382,264 
annual filings for Form I-485, DHS estimates the total opportunity cost 
of time associated with completing and submitting Form I-693 is 
approximately $10,187,336 annually.\734\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \732\ Source for medical exam time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination 
Record (Form I-693) (OMB control number 1615-0033). The PRA 
Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-004.
    \733\ Calculation for medical exam opportunity cost of time: 
($10.66 per hour * 2.5 hours) = $26.65 per applicant.
    \734\ Calculation: (Estimated medical exam opportunity cost of 
time for Form I-693) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-
485) = $26.65 * 382,264 = $10,187,335.60 = $10,187,336 (rounded) 
annual opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost of a medical exam and the opportunity cost 
of time associated with completing and submitted Form I-693, applicants 
must bear the cost of postage for sending the Form I-693 package to 
USCIS. DHS estimates that each applicant will incur an estimated 
average cost of $3.75 in postage to submit the completed package to 
USCIS.\735\ DHS estimates the total annual cost in postage based on the 
total population estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-693 is 
$1,433,490.\736\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \735\ Source for medical exam form package postage cost 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Report of Medical 
Examination and Vaccination Record (Form I-693) (OMB control number 
1615-0033). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 13 
on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-004.
    \736\ Calculation: (Form I-693 estimated cost of postage) * 
(Estimated annual population filing Form I-693) = $3.75 * 382,264 = 
$1,433,490 annual cost in postage for filing Form I-693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing Form 
I-693 is $198,930,186. The total current annual costs include medical 
exam costs, the opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-693, and 
cost of postage to mail the Form I-693 package to USCIS.\737\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \737\ Calculation: $187,309,360 (Medical exam costs) + 
$10,187,336 (Opportunity cost of time for Form I-693) + $1,433,490 
(Postage costs for biometrics collection) = $198,930,186 total 
current annual cost for filing Form I-693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver
    Some applicants seeking an adjustment of status may be eligible for 
a fee waiver when filing Form I-485. An applicant who is unable to pay 
the filing fees or biometric services fees for an application or 
petition may be eligible for a fee waiver by filing Form I-912. If an 
applicant's Form I-912 is approved, USCIS, as a component of DHS, will 
waive both the filing fee and biometric services fee. Therefore, DHS 
assumes for the purposes of this economic analysis that the filing fees 
and biometric services fees required for Form I-485 are waived if an 
approved Form I-912 accompanies the application. Filing Form I-912 is 
not required for applications and petitions that do not have a filing 
fee. DHS also notes that costs examined in this section are not 
additional costs that would be imposed by the proposed rule, but costs 
that applicants currently could incur as part of the application 
process to adjust status.
    Table 46 shows the estimated population of individuals that 
requested a fee waiver (Form I-912), based on receipts, when applying 
for adjustment of status in fiscal years 2012 to 2016, as well as the 
number of requests that were approved or denied each fiscal year. 
During this period, the number of individuals who requested a fee 
waiver when applying for adjustment of status ranged from a low of 
42,126 in fiscal year 2012 to a high of 76,616 in fiscal year 2016. In 
addition, the estimated average population of individuals applying to 
adjust status who requested a fee waiver for Form I-485 over the 5-year 
period fiscal year 2012 to 2016 was 58,558. DHS estimates that 58,558 
is the average annual projected population of individuals who would 
request a fee waiver using Form I-912 when filing Form I-485 to apply 
for an adjustment of status.\738\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \738\ DHS notes that the estimated population of individuals who 
would request a fee waiver for filing Form I-485 includes all visa 
classifications for those applying for adjustment of status. We are 
unable to determine the number of fee waiver requests for filing 
Form I-485 that are associated with specific visa classifications 
that are subject to public charge review.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51249]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.071

    To provide a reasonable proxy of time valuation for applicants, as 
described previously, DHS assumes that applicants requesting a fee 
waiver for Form I-485 earn the total rate of compensation for 
individuals applying for adjustment of status as $10.66 per hour, where 
the value of $10.66 per hour represents the federal minimum wage with 
an upward adjustment for benefits. The analysis uses this wage rate 
because DHS expects that applicants who request a fee waiver are 
asserting that they are unable to afford to pay the USCIS filing fee. 
As a result, DHS expects such applicants to hold positions in 
occupations that have a wage below the mean hourly wage across all 
occupations. DHS also notes that this proposed rule may reduce the 
number of fee waiver requests received, but, at this time, we cannot 
determine the extent to which this will occur.
    DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing Form I-912 is 
1 hour and 10 minutes per applicant (1.17 hours), including the time 
for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and 
information, completing the request, preparing statements, attaching 
necessary documentation, and submitting the request.\739\ Therefore, 
using $10.66 per hour as the total rate of compensation, DHS estimates 
the opportunity cost of time for completing and submitting Form I-912 
is $12.47 per applicant.\740\ Using the total population estimate of 
58,558 requests for a fee waiver for Form I-485, DHS estimates the 
total opportunity cost of time associated with completing and 
submitting Form I-912 is approximately $730,218 annually.\741\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \739\ Source for fee waiver time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) (OMB control 
number 1615-0116). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at 
Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201506-1615-006.
    \740\ Calculation for fee waiver opportunity cost of time: 
($10.66 per hour * 1.17 hours) = $12.47.
    \741\ Calculation: (Estimated opportunity cost of time for Form 
I-912) * (Estimated annual population of approved Form I-912) = 
$12.47 * 58,558 = $730,218.26 = $730,218 (rounded) annual 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-944 that are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing and submitting Form I-912, applicants must bear the cost of 
postage for sending the Form I-912 package to USCIS. DHS estimates that 
each applicant will incur an estimated average cost of $3.75 in postage 
to submit the completed package to USCIS.\742\ DHS estimates the annual 
cost in postage based on the total population estimate of 58,558 annual 
approved requests for a fee waiver for Form I-485 is $219,593.\743\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \742\ Source for fee waiver postage cost estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) (OMB control 
number 1615-0116). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at 
Question 13 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201506-1615-006.
    \743\ Calculation: (Form I-912 estimated cost of postage) * 
(Estimated annual population of approved Form I-912) = $3.75 * 
58,558 = $219,592.50 = $219,593 (rounded) annual cost in postage for 
filing Form I-912 that is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing a 
fee waiver request (Form I-912) for Form I-485 is $949,811. The total 
current annual costs include the opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-912 and cost of postage to mail the Form I-912 
package to USCIS.\744\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \744\ Calculation: $730,218 (Opportunity cost of time for Form 
I-912) + $219,593 (Postage costs for biometrics collection) = 
$949,811 total current annual cost for filing Form I-912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Affidavit of Support Forms
    As previously discussed, submitting an affidavit of support using 
Form I-864 is required for most family-based immigrants and some 
employment-based immigrants to show that they have adequate means of 
financial support and are not likely to become a public charge. 
Additionally, Form I-864 includes attachment Form I-864A which may be 
filed when a sponsor's income and assets do not meet the income 
requirements of Form I-864 and the qualifying household member chooses 
to combine his or her resources with the income and/or assets of a 
sponsor to meet those requirements. Some sponsors for intending 
immigrants may be able to file an affidavit of support using Form I-
864EZ, provided certain criteria are met. Moreover, certain classes of 
immigrants currently are exempt from the requirement to file Form I-864 
or Form I-864EZ and therefore must file Form I-864W, Request for 
Exemption for Intending Immigrant's Affidavit of Support. However, DHS 
proposes to eliminate Form I-864W, and instead individuals would be 
required to provide the information previously requested on the Form I-
864W using Form I-485. Based on the information provided in the Form I-
485, an officer can verify whether an immigrant is statutorily required 
to file an affidavit of support.
    There is no filing fee associated with filing Form I-864 with 
USCIS. However, DHS estimates the time burden associated with a sponsor 
filing Form I-864 is 6 hours per petitioner, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and 
information, completing the affidavit, preparing statements, attaching 
necessary documentation, and

[[Page 51250]]

submitting the affidavit.\745\ Therefore, using the average total rate 
of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost 
of time for completing and submitting Form I-864 would be $214.68 per 
petitioner.\746\ DHS assumes that the average rate of total 
compensation used to calculate the opportunity cost of time for Form I-
864 is appropriate since the sponsor of an immigrant, who is agreeing 
to provide financial and material support, is instructed to complete 
and submit the form. Using the estimated annual total population of 
257,610 individuals seeking to adjust status who are required to submit 
an affidavit of support using Form I-864, DHS estimates the opportunity 
cost of time associated with completing and submitting Form I-864 is 
$55,303,715 annually.\747\ DHS estimates this amount as the total 
current annual cost for filing Form I-864, as required when applying to 
adjust status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \745\ Source for I-864 time burden estimate: Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Forms 
I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ, I-864W) (OMB control number 1615-0075). The 
PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov 
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1615-004.
    \746\ Calculation opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of 
the INA: ($35.78 per hour * 6.0 hours) = $214.68 per applicant.
    \747\ Calculation: (Form I-864 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-864) = $214.68 * 
257,610 = $55,303,714.80 = $55,303,715 (rounded) total annual 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also no filing fee associated with filing Form I-864A with 
USCIS. However, DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing 
Form I-864A is 1 hour and 45 minutes (1.75 hours) per petitioner, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required 
documentation and information, completing the contract, preparing 
statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the 
contract.\748\ Therefore, using the average total rate of compensation 
of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for 
completing and submitting Form I-864A will be $62.62 per 
petitioner.\749\ DHS assumes the average total rate of compensation 
used for calculating the opportunity cost of time for Form I-864 since 
both the sponsor and another household member agree to provide 
financial support to an immigrant seeking to adjust status. However, 
the household member also may be the intending immigrant. While Form I-
864A must be filed with Form I-864, DHS notes that we are unable to 
determine the number filings of Form I-864A since not all individuals 
filing I-864 need to file Form I-864A with a household member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \748\ Source for I-864A time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the 
INA (Forms I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ, I-864W) (OMB control number 1615-
0075). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on 
Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1615-004.
    \749\ Calculation opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-864A, Contract Between Sponsor and Household 
Member: ($35.78 per hour * 1.75 hours) = $62.615 = $62.62 (rounded) 
per petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with Form I-864, there is no filing fee associated with filing 
Form I-864EZ with USCIS. However, DHS estimates the time burden 
associated with filing Form I-864EZ is 2 hours and 30 minutes (2.5 
hours) per petitioner, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering the required documentation and information, completing the 
affidavit, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and 
submitting the affidavit.\750\ Therefore, using the average total rate 
of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost 
of time for completing and submitting Form I-864EZ will be $89.45 per 
petitioner.\751\ However, DHS notes that we are unable to determine the 
number filings of Form I-864EZ and, therefore, rely on the annual cost 
estimate developed for Form I-864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \750\ Source for I-864EZ time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the 
INA (Forms I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ, I-864W) (OMB control number 1615-
0075). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on 
Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1615-004.
    \751\ Calculation opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-864EZ, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of 
the INA: ($35.78 per hour * 2.5 hours) = $89.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also no filing fee associated with filing Form I-864W with 
USCIS. However, DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing 
this form is 60 minutes (1 hour) per petitioner, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and 
information, completing the request, preparing statements, attaching 
necessary documentation, and submitting the request.\752\ Therefore, 
using the average total rate of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS 
estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing and submitting 
Form I-864EZ will be $35.78 per petitioner.\753\ However, DHS notes 
that we are unable to determine the number filings of Form I-864W and, 
therefore, rely on the annual cost estimate developed for Form I-864. 
Moreover, the proposed rule would eliminate Form I-864W as a form for 
use in filing an affidavit of support. Filers who would have been 
required to file Form I-864W instead would be instructed to provide the 
information previously requested on the Form I-864W using Form I-485, 
as amended by this proposed rule. Based on the information provided in 
the Form I-485, an officer could verify whether an immigrant is 
statutorily required to file an affidavit of support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \752\ Source for I-864W time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the 
INA (Forms I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ, I-864W) (OMB control number 1615-
0075). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on 
Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1615-004.
    \753\ Calculation opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-864W: ($35.78 per hour * 1.0 hours) = $35.78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is also proposing to amend the HHS Poverty Guidelines for 
Affidavit of Support (Form I-864P), by removing certain language 
describing means-tested public benefits. Form I-864P is used to 
determine the minimum level of income required to sponsor most family-
based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants. These income 
requirements are to show that a sponsor has adequate means of financial 
support and is not likely to rely on the government for financial 
support. Form I-864P is for informational purposes and used for 
completing Form I-864. DHS does not anticipate additional costs or 
benefits as a result of any proposed changes to Form I-864P.
ii. Consideration of Receipt, or Likelihood of Receipt of Public 
Benefits Defined in Proposed 212.21(b) for Applicants Requesting 
Extension of Stay or Change of Status
    Nonimmigrants in the United States may apply for extension of stay 
or change of status by either having an employer file Form I-129 or 
Form I-129CW, as applicable, on his or her behalf, or by filing Form I-
539, so long as the nonimmigrant is currently in an eligible 
nonimmigrant category. This proposed rule seeks to require 
nonimmigrants who are seeking extension of stay or change of status to 
demonstrate that they have not previously received, are not currently 
receiving, nor are likely to receive public benefits in the future, as 
defined in this rule in 8 CFR 212.21(b. DHS also notes that costs 
examined in this section are not additional costs that would be imposed 
by the proposed rule, but costs that petitioners and applicants 
currently would incur as part of the application

[[Page 51251]]

process to request an extension of stay or change of status.
a. Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
    The current filing fee for Form I-129 is $460.00. The fee is set at 
a level to recover the processing costs to DHS. As previously 
discussed, the estimated average annual population of employers filing 
on behalf of nonimmigrant workers seeking EOS/COS using Form I-129 is 
336,335. Therefore, DHS estimates that the annual cost associated with 
filing Form I-129 is approximately $154,714,100.\754\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \754\ Calculation: (Form I-129 filing fee) * (Estimated annual 
population filing Form I-129) = $460 * 336,335 = $154,714,100 annual 
estimated cost for filing Form I-129 seeking an extension of stay or 
change of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates the time burden for completing Form I-129 is 2 hours 
and 20 minutes (2.34 hours), including the time for reviewing 
instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, 
completing the request, preparing statements, attaching necessary 
documentation, and submitting the request.\755\ Using the average total 
rate of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity 
cost of time for completing and submitting Form I-129 will be $83.73 
per petitioner.\756\ Therefore, using the total population estimate of 
336,335 annual filings for Form I-129, DHS estimates the total 
opportunity cost of time associated with completing and submitting Form 
I-129 is approximately $28,161,330 annually.\757\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \755\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Petition for Nonimmigrant 
Worker (Form I-129) (OMB control number 1615-0009). The PRA 
Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-001.
    \756\ Calculation for estimated opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 2.34 hours) = $83.725 = 
$83.73 (rounded) per applicant.
    \757\ Calculation: (Form I-129 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = $83.73 * 
336,335 = $28,161,329.55 = $28,161,330 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the filing fee and the opportunity cost of time 
associated with completing and submitting Form I-129, applicants must 
bear the cost of postage for sending the Form I-129 package to USCIS. 
DHS estimates that each applicant will incur an estimated average cost 
of $3.75 in postage to submit the completed package to USCIS.\758\ DHS 
estimates the total annual cost in postage based on the total 
population estimate of 336,335 annual filings for Form I-129 is 
approximately $1,261,256.\759\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \758\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers form package 
postage cost estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) (OMB control number 1615-0009). The 
PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov 
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-001.
    \759\ Calculation: (Form I-129 estimated cost of postage) * 
(Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = $3.75 * 336,335 = 
$1,261,256.25 = $1,261,256 (rounded) annual cost in postage for 
filing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing Form 
I-129 is $184,136,686. The total current annual costs include Form I-
129 filing fees, opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-129, 
and cost of postage to mail the Form I-129 package to USCIS.\760\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \760\ Calculation: $154,714,100 (Filing fees for Form I-129) + 
$28,161,330 (Opportunity cost of time for Form I-129) + $1,261,256 
(Postage costs for Form I-129) = $184,136,686 total current 
estimated annual cost for filing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional 
Worker
    The current filing fee for Form I-129CW is $460.00. The fee is set 
at a level to recover the processing costs to DHS. In addition, an 
employer filing Form I-129CW for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional 
Worker must submit an additional $200 for a supplemental CNMI education 
fee per beneficiary, per year and a $50 fee for fraud prevention and 
detection with each petition. Thus, the total fees associated with 
filing Form I-129CW is $710 per beneficiary.\761\ As previously 
discussed, the estimated average annual population of employers filing 
on behalf of nonimmigrant workers seeking EOS/COS using Form I-129CW is 
6,307. Therefore, DHS estimates that the annual cost associated with 
filing Form I-129 is approximately $4,477,970.\762\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \761\ This economic analysis assumes that each Form I-129CW 
filed will also be required to include the additional $200 
supplemental CNMI education fee and the $50 fraud prevention and 
detection fee.
    \762\ Calculation: (Form I-129CW filing fee) * (Estimated annual 
population filing Form I-129CW) = $710 * 6,307 = $4,477,970 annual 
estimated cost for filing Form I-129 seeking an extension of stay or 
change of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates the time burden for completing Form I-129CW is 3 
hours (3.0 hours), including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering the required documentation and information, completing the 
petition, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and 
submitting the request.\763\ Using the average total rate of 
compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of 
time for completing and submitting Form I-129CW will be $107.34 per 
petitioner.\764\ Therefore, using the total population estimate of 
6,307 annual filings for Form I-129CW, DHS estimates the total 
opportunity cost of time associated with completing and submitting Form 
I-129CW is approximately $676,993 annually.\765\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \763\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Petition for CNMI-Only 
Nonimmigrant Transition Worker (Form I-129CW) (OMB control number 
1615-0111). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 
on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201803-1615-006.
    \764\ Calculation for estimated opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 3.0 hours) = $107.34 per 
petitioner.
    \765\ Calculation: (Form I-129CW estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129CW) = $107.34 
* 6,307 = $676,993.38 = $676,993 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-129CW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing Form 
I-129CW is $5,154,963. The total current annual costs include Form I-
129CW filing fees and opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-
129.\766\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \766\ Calculation: $4,477,970 (Filing fees for Form I-129CW) + 
$676,993 (Opportunity cost of time for Form I-129CW) = $5,154,963 
total current estimated annual cost for filing Form I-129CW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Form I-539, Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
    The current filing fee for Form I-539 is $370 per application.\767\ 
The fee is set at a level to recover the processing costs to DHS. As 
previously discussed, the estimated average annual population seeking 
EOS/COS using Form I-539 is 174,866. Therefore, DHS estimates that the 
annual cost associated with filing Form I-539 is approximately 
$64,700,420.\768\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \767\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539) (OMB control number 1615-0003). The 
PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 13 on Reginfo.gov 
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-006. DHS notes that certain A and G nonimmigrants are not 
required to pay a filing fee for Form I-539. In addition, a 
biometrics services fee of $85 is required for V nonimmigrants and 
for certain applicants in the CNMI applying for an initial grant of 
nonimmigrant status.
    \768\ Calculation: (Form I-539 filing fee) * (Estimated annual 
population filing Form I-539) = $370 * 176,866 = $64,700,420 annual 
cost for filing Form I-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates the time burden for completing Form I-539 is 1 hour 
and 53 minutes (1.88 hours), including the time necessary to read all 
instructions for the form, gather all documents required to complete 
the collection of information, obtain translated documents if 
necessary, obtain the services of a preparer if necessary, and complete 
the

[[Page 51252]]

form.\769\ Using the average total rate of compensation of $35.78 per 
hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-539 will be $67.27 per applicant.\770\ Therefore, 
using the total population estimate of 174,866 annual filings for Form 
I-539, DHS estimates the total opportunity cost of time associate with 
completing and submitting Form I-539 is approximately $11,763,236 
annually.\771\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \769\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539) (OMB control number 1615-0003). The 
PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov 
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-006.
    \770\ Calculation for the opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-539: ($35.78 per hour * 1.88 hours) = $67.266 = 
$67.27 (rounded) per applicant.
    \771\ Calculation: (Form I-539 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-539) = $67.27 * 
174,866 = $11,763,235.82 = $11,763,236 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates the total current annual cost for filing Form 
I-539 is $76,463,656. The total current annual costs include Form I-539 
filing fees and the opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-
539.\772\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \772\ Calculation: $64,700,420 (Filing fees for Form I-539) + 
$11,763,236 (Opportunity cost of time for Form I-539) = $76,463,656 
total current annual cost for filing Form I-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Costs of Proposed Regulatory Changes
    The primary source of quantified new costs for the proposed rule 
would be from the creation of Form I-944. This form would be used to 
collect information based on factors such as age; health; family 
status; assets, resources and financial status; and education and 
skills, so that USCIS could determine whether an applicant would be 
inadmissible to the United States based on public charge grounds. The 
proposed rule would require individuals who are applying for adjustment 
of status to complete and submit the form to establish that they are 
not likely to become a public charge. At the agency's discretion, Form 
I-129 and Form I-129CW beneficiaries, and Form I-539 applicants seeking 
an extension of stay or change of status may be required to submit Form 
I-944 to be reviewed for public charge determination.
    The proposed rule would also add costs from an additional 10-minute 
increase in the time burden estimate to complete Form I-485. 
Additionally, the proposed rule would add costs from an additional time 
burden increase of 30 minutes for completing and filing Form I-129, 
Form I-129CW, and Form I-539.
    The proposed rule would also impose new costs by establishing a 
public charge bond process. At the agency's discretion, certain aliens 
who are found likely to become a public charge may be provided the 
opportunity to post a public charge bond. As part of the proposed 
public charge bond process, an individual would have an obligor submit 
a public charge bond using a new Form I-945, Public Charge Bond, on the 
alien's behalf, and the alien or an acceptable surety (individual or a 
company) would use Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public 
Charge Bond, as part of a request to cancel a public charge bond. DHS 
notes that if the alien permanently departed the United States, as 
defined in proposed 8 CFR 213.1, and the loss of LPR status was 
voluntarily, we would also require a Form I-407 submission. If the 
request for cancellation is denied, DHS would notify the obligor and 
inform the obligor of the possibility to appeal the determination to 
the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) using Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion.\773\ In addition, upon learning of a breach of 
public charge bond, DHS would notify the obligor that the bond has been 
declared breached and inform the obligor of the possibility to appeal 
the determination to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
using Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.\774\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \773\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(g).
    \774\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following costs are new costs that would be imposed on the 
population applying to adjust status using Form I-485 or on the 
population that would be seeking extension of stay or change of status 
using Forms I-129, I-129CW, or I-539. However, individuals seeking 
extension of stay or change of status would only be required to submit 
Form I-944 at the discretion of adjudication officers. Table 47 shows 
the estimated annual costs that the proposed rule would impose on 
individuals seeking to adjust status using Form I-485 who also would be 
required to file Form I-944. The table also presents the estimated new 
costs the proposed rule would impose associated with a 10-minute 
increase in the time burden estimate for completing Form I-485, from 
additional time burden increases of 30 minutes each for completing and 
filing Form I-129, Form I-129CW, and Form I-539. The table also shows 
the range of costs that Form I-129 and Form I-129CW beneficiaries, and 
Form I-539 filers would incur should they receive a RFE to file Form I-
944 to determine inadmissibility based on public charge grounds under 
the provisions of this proposed rule. Finally, the table includes the 
estimated new cost associated with the proposed public charge bond 
process.

[[Page 51253]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.072


[[Page 51254]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.073

i. Form I-944, Declaration of Self-Sufficiency and Form I-485, 
Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
    In this proposed rule, DHS is proposing to create a new form for 
collecting information from those applying for immigration benefits 
with USCIS, such as adjustment of status or extension of stay or change 
in status, to demonstrate that the applicant is not likely to become a 
public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act. Form I-944 would 
collect information based on factors such as age; health; family 
status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and 
skills, so that USCIS could determine whether an applicant would be 
inadmissible to the United States based on public charge grounds. For 
the analysis of this proposed rule, DHS assumes that all individuals 
who apply for adjustment of status using Form I-485 are required to 
submit Form I-944, unless the individual is in a class of applicants 
that is exempt from review for determination of inadmissibility based 
on public charge at the time of adjustment of status according to 
statute or regulation.
    There is currently no filing fee associated with Form I-944. 
However, DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing Form I-
944 is 4 hours and 30 minutes (4.5 hours) per applicant, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation 
and information, completing the declaration, preparing statements, 
attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the declaration. 
Therefore, using the total rate of compensation of minimum wage of 
$10.66 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for 
completing and submitting Form I-944 would be $47.97 per 
applicant.\775\ Using the total population estimate of 382,264 annual 
filings for Form I-485, DHS estimates the total opportunity cost of 
time associated with completing and submitting Form I-944 is 
approximately $18,337,204 annually.\776\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \775\ Calculation for declaration of self-sufficiency 
opportunity cost of time: ($10.66 per hour * 4.5 hours) = $47.97 per 
applicant.
    \776\ Calculation: (Estimated opportunity cost of time for Form 
I-944) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-485) = $47.97 * 
382,264 = $18,337,204.08 = $18,337,204 (rounded) annual opportunity 
cost of time for filing Form I-944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing and filing Form I-944, applicants must bear the cost of 
obtaining a credit report and credit score from any one of the three 
major credit bureaus in the United States to be submitted with the 
application.\777\ Consumers may obtain a free credit report once a year 
from each of the three major consumer reporting agencies (i.e., credit 
bureaus) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).\778\ However, 
consumers are not necessarily entitled to a free credit score, for 
which consumer reporting agencies may charge a fair and reasonable 
fee.\779\ DHS does not assume that all applicants are able to obtain a 
free credit report under FCRA specifically for fulfilling the 
requirements of filing Form I-944 and acknowledges that obtaining a 
credit score would be an additional cost. Therefore, DHS assumes that 
each applicant would bear the cost of obtaining a credit report and 
credit score from at least one of the three major credit bureaus. DHS 
estimates the cost of obtaining a credit report and credit score would 
be $19.95 per applicant, as this is the amount that two of the three 
major credit bureaus charge.\780\ DHS notes that it would be required 
that all applicants who apply for adjustment of status using Form I-485 
must also submit Form I-944 and comply with its requirements. 
Therefore, DHS estimates that based on the estimated average annual 
population of 382,264 the total annual cost associated with obtaining a 
credit report and credit score as part of the requirements for filing 
Form I-944 would be $7,626,167.\781\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \777\ The three major credit bureaus are Equifax, Experian, and 
TransUnion. Each of these bureaus is a publicly-traded, for-profit 
company that is not owned by the Federal Government. DHS notes that 
there may be differences in the information contained in the credit 
reports from each of the three major credit bureaus since one credit 
bureau may have unique information on a consumer that is not 
captured by the other credit bureaus.
    \778\ See FCRA, Section 612, Charges for Certain Disclosures. 15 
U.S.C. 1681j. Available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0111-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf (accessed Jan. 26, 2018).
    \779\ See FCRA, Section 609(f), Disclosures to Consumers, 
Disclosure of Credit Scores. 15 U.S.C. 1681g. Available at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0111-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf 
(accessed Jan. 26, 2018).
    \780\ Each of the three major credit charge the following prices 
for a credit report, including a credit score:
    Experian--$19.95, available at https://www.experian.com/consumer-products/compare-credit-report-and-score-products.html 
(accessed Jan. 26, 2018);
    Equifax--$19.95, available at https://www.equifax.com/personal/products/credit/report-and-score (accessed Jan. 26, 2018); and
    TransUnion--$11.50, available at https://disclosure.transunion.com/dc/disclosure/disclosure.jsp (accessed 
Jan. 26, 2018).
    \781\ Calculation: (Estimated cost for credit score and credit 
report) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-485) = $19.95 * 
382,264 = $7,626,166.80 = $7,626,167 (rounded) annual estimated 
costs for obtaining a credit report and credit score as part of the 
requirements for filing Form I-944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DHS estimates that the total cost to complete and file Form 
I-944 would be $25,963,371. The total estimated annual costs include 
the opportunity cost of time to complete the form and the cost to 
obtain a credit report and credit score as required for the total 
population estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-485.\782\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \782\ Calculation: $18,337,204 (Opportunity cost of time to 
complete Form I-944) + $7,626,167 (Cost of credit report and credit 
score) = $25,963,371 total estimated cost to complete Form I-944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would include additional instructions for filing 
Form I-485 and, as a result, applicants would spend additional time 
reading the instructions increasing the estimated time to complete the 
form. The current estimated time to complete Form I-485 is 6 hours and 
15 minutes (6.25 hours). For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the 
time burden for completing

[[Page 51255]]

Form I-485 would increase by 10 minutes. Therefore, in the proposed 
rule, the time burden to complete Form I-485 would be 6 hours and 25 
minutes (6.42 hours).
    The time burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering the required documentation and information, completing the 
application, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, 
and submitting the application.\783\ Using the total rate of 
compensation for minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS currently 
estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing and filing Form 
I-485 would be $66.63 per applicant.\784\ Therefore, using the total 
population estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-485, DHS 
estimates the current total opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing Form I-485 is approximately $25,470,250 annually.\785\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \783\ Source: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Supporting Statement 
for Form I-485 (OMB control number 1615-0023). The PRA Supporting 
Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201706-1615-001.
    \784\ Calculation for opportunity cost of time for filing Form 
I-485: ($10.66 per hour * 6.25 hours) = $66.625 = $66.63 (rounded) 
per applicant.
    \785\ Calculation: Form I-485 estimated opportunity cost of time 
($66.63) * Estimated annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = 
$25,470,250.32 = $25,470,250 (rounded) annual opportunity cost of 
time for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the time burden for 
completing Form I-485 is 6.42 hours per response. Using the total rate 
of compensation for minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS estimates the 
opportunity cost of time for completing and filing Form I-485 would be 
$68.44 per applicant.\786\ Therefore, using the total population 
estimate of 382,264 annual filings for Form I-485, DHS estimates the 
proposed total opportunity cost of time associated with completing Form 
I-485 is approximately $26,162,148 annually.\787\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \786\ Calculation for opportunity cost of time for filing Form 
I-485: ($10.66 per hour * 6.42 hours) = $68.437 = $68.44 (rounded) 
per applicant.
    \787\ Calculation: Form I-485 estimated opportunity cost of time 
($68.44) * Estimated annual population filing Form I-485 (382,264) = 
$26,162,148.16 = $26,162,148 (rounded) annual opportunity cost of 
time for filing Form I-485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new costs imposed by this proposed rule would be the difference 
between the current estimated opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-485 and the proposed estimated opportunity cost of time due to the 
increased Form I-485 time burden estimate. As a result, DHS estimates 
that the proposed rule would impose additional new costs in the amount 
of $691,898 to Form I-485 applicants.\788\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \788\ Calculation of estimated new costs for completing Form I-
485: Proposed estimate of opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-485 ($26,162,148)-Current estimate of opportunity cost of time to 
complete Form I-485 ($25,470,250) = $691,898 estimated new costs of 
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Extension of Stay/Change of Status Using Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker; Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-Only 
Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker; or Form I-539, Application To Extend/
Change Nonimmigrant Status
    The proposed rule would require petitioners to read additional 
instructions and provide additional information on Form I-129, which 
would increase the estimated time to complete the form. The current 
estimated time to complete Form I-129 is 2 hours and 20 minutes (2.34 
hours). For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the time burden for 
completing Form I-129 would increase by 30 minutes to account for the 
additional time petitioners would spend reading the form and providing 
additional information. Therefore, DHS proposes the time burden to 
complete Form I-129 to petitioners would be 2 hours and 50 minutes 
(2.84 hours).
    The time burden for Form I-129 includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, 
completing the request, preparing statements, attaching necessary 
documentation, and submitting the request.\789\ Using the average total 
rate of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the current 
opportunity cost of time for completing and filing Form I-129 is 
currently $83.73 per petitioner.\790\ Therefore, using the total 
population estimate of 336,335 annual filings for Form I-129, DHS 
estimates the current total opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing and filing Form I-129 is approximately $28,161,330 
annually.\791\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \789\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Petition for Nonimmigrant 
Worker (Form I-129) (OMB control number 1615-0009). The PRA 
Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-001.
    \790\ Calculation of estimated opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 2.34 hours) = $83.725 = 
$83.73 (rounded) per applicant.
    \791\ Calculation: (Form I-129 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = $83.73 * 
336,335 = $28,161,329.55 = $28,161,330 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the opportunity cost of 
time for completing and filing Form I-129 would be $101.62 per 
petitioner based on the 30-minute increase in the time burden 
estimate.\792\ Therefore, using the total population estimate of 
336,335 annual filings for Form I-129, DHS estimates the proposed total 
opportunity cost of time associated with completing and filing Form I-
129 is approximately $34,178,363 annually.\793\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \792\ Calculation of proposed opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 2.84 hours) = $101.615 = 
$101.62 (rounded) per applicant.
    \793\ Calculation: (Proposed Form I-129 estimated opportunity 
cost of time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = 
$101.62 * 336,335 = $34,178,362.70 = $34,178,363 (rounded) proposed 
annual estimated opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new costs imposed by this proposed rule would be the difference 
between the current estimated opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-129 and the proposed estimated opportunity cost of time to complete 
the form due to the increased time burden estimate. As a result, DHS 
estimates that the proposed rule would impose additional new costs of 
$6,017,033 to Form I-129 applicants.\794\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \794\ Calculation of estimated new costs for completing Form I-
129: Proposed estimate of opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-129 ($34,178,363)-Current estimate of opportunity cost of time to 
complete Form I-129 ($28,161,330) = $6,017,033 estimated new costs 
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would require petitioners to read additional 
instructions and provide additional information on Form I-129CW, which 
would increase the estimated time to complete the form. The current 
estimated time to complete Form I-129CW is 3 hours (3.0 hours). For the 
proposed rule, DHS estimates that the time burden for completing Form 
I-129CW would increase by 30 minutes to account for the additional time 
petitioners would spend reading the form and providing additional 
information. Therefore, DHS proposes the time burden to complete Form 
I-129CW to petitioners would be 3 hours and 30 minutes (3.5 hours).
    The time burden for Form I-129CW includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, 
completing the request, preparing statements, attaching necessary 
documentation, and submitting the request.\795\ Using the average total 
rate

[[Page 51256]]

of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the current 
opportunity cost of time for completing and filing Form I-129CW is 
currently $107.34 per petitioner.\796\ Therefore, using the total 
population estimate of 6,307 annual filings for Form I-129CW, DHS 
estimates the current total opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing and filing Form I-129CW is approximately $676,993 
annually.\797\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \795\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Petition for CNMI-Only 
Nonimmigrant Transition Worker (Form I-129CW) (OMB control number 
1615-0111). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 
on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201803-1615-006.
    \796\ Calculation for estimated opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 3.0 hours) = $107.34 per 
petitioner.
    \797\ Calculation: (Form I-129CW estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129CW) = $107.34 
* 6,307 = $676,993.38 = $676,993 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the opportunity cost of 
time for completing and filing Form I-129CW would be $125.23 per 
petitioner based on the 30-minute increase in the time burden 
estimate.\798\ Therefore, using the total population estimate of 6,307 
annual filings for Form I-129CW, DHS estimates the proposed total 
opportunity cost of time associated with completing and filing Form I-
129CW is approximately $789,826 annually.\799\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \798\ Calculation of proposed opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-129: ($35.78 per hour * 3.5 hours) = $125.23 per 
applicant.
    \799\ Calculation: (Proposed Form I-129 estimated opportunity 
cost of time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = 
$125.23 * 6,307 = $789,825.61 = $789,826 (rounded) proposed annual 
estimated opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new costs imposed by this proposed rule would be the difference 
between the current estimated opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-129CW and the proposed estimated opportunity cost of time to complete 
the form due to the increased time burden estimate. As a result, DHS 
estimates that the proposed rule would impose additional new costs of 
$112,883 to Form I-129CW applicants.\800\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \800\ Calculation of estimated new costs for completing Form I-
129CW: Proposed estimate of opportunity cost of time to complete 
Form I-129CW ($789,826)-Current estimate of opportunity cost of time 
to complete Form I-129CW ($676,993) = $112,883 estimated new costs 
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would also include additional instructions and 
collection of information for filing Form I-539, which would increase 
the estimated time to complete the form. Applicants, therefore, would 
spend additional time reading the form instructions and providing 
additional information about the request, use, or receipt of public 
benefits. The current estimated time to completing Form I-539 is 1 hour 
and 53 minutes (1.88 hours).\801\ For the proposed rule, DHS estimates 
that the time burden for completing Form I-539 would increase by 30 
minutes. Therefore, in the proposed rule, DHS proposes the time burden 
for completing Form I-539 would be 2 hours and 23 minutes (2.38 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \801\ Source for petition for nonimmigrant workers time burden 
estimate: Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539) (OMB control number 1615-0003). The 
PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov 
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201610-1615-006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time burden for Form I-539 includes the time necessary to read 
all instructions for the form, gather all documents required to 
complete the collection of information, obtain translated documents if 
necessary, obtain the services of a preparer if necessary, and complete 
the form.\802\ Using the average total rate of compensation of $35.78 
per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-539 is currently $67.27 per applicant.\803\ 
Therefore, using the total population estimate of 174,866 annual 
filings for Form I-539, DHS estimates the current total opportunity 
cost of time associated with completing and filing Form I-539 is 
approximately $11,763,236 annually.\804\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \802\ See id.
    \803\ Calculation of opportunity cost of time for completing 
Form I-539: ($35.78 per hour * 1.88 hours) = $67.266 = $67.27 
(rounded) per applicant.
    \804\ Calculation: (Form I-539 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-539) = $67.27 * 
174,866 = $11,763,235.82 = $11,763,236 (rounded) annual estimated 
opportunity cost of time for filing Form I-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed rule, DHS estimates that the opportunity cost of 
time for completing and filing Form I-539 would be $85.16 per applicant 
based on the 30-minute increase in the time burden estimate.\805\ 
Therefore, using the total population estimate of 174,866 annual 
filings for Form I-539, DHS estimates the proposed total opportunity 
cost of time associated with completing and filing Form I-539 is 
approximately $14,891,589.\806\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \805\ Calculation of proposed opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-539: ($35.78 per hour * 2.38 hours) = $85.156 = 
$85.16 (rounded) per applicant.
    \806\ Calculation: (Proposed Form I-539 estimated opportunity 
cost of time per applicant) * (Estimated annual population filing 
Form I-539) = $85.16 * 174,866 = $14,891,588.56 = $14,891,589 
(rounded) proposed annual estimated opportunity cost of time for 
filing Form I-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new costs imposed by this proposed rule would be the difference 
between the current estimated opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-539 and the proposed estimated opportunity cost of time to complete 
the form due to the increased time burden estimate. As a result, DHS 
estimates that the proposed rule would impose additional new costs in 
the amount of $3,128,353 to Form I-539 applicants.\807\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \807\ Calculation of estimated new costs for completing Form I-
539: Proposed estimate of opportunity cost of time to complete Form 
I-539 ($14,891,589)-Current estimate of opportunity cost of time to 
complete Form I-539 ($11,763,236) = $3,128,353 estimated new costs 
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While individuals seeking adjustment of status would be reviewed to 
determine inadmissibility based on public charge grounds under the 
provisions of this proposed rule, DHS proposes to conduct reviews of 
nonimmigrants who apply for extension of stay or change of status to 
determine whether they have demonstrated that they have not received, 
are not receiving, or likely to receive public benefits. Not all 
nonimmigrants who apply for extension of stay or change of status would 
be required to file Form I-944 to detail their financial, health, and 
education status. Instead, USCIS officers would be able to exercise 
discretion regarding whether it would be necessary to issue a RFE for 
the submission of Form I-944.
    As previously noted, there is currently no fee associated with 
filing Form I-944, but DHS estimates the costs for filing Form I-944 
would include the opportunity cost of time (4.5 hours) and the cost to 
obtain credit report and credit score ($19.95 per beneficiary). In 
addition, DHS estimated that the average annual population that would 
request EOS/COS by filing Form I-129 is 336,335, Form I-129CW is 6,307, 
and Form I-539 is 174,866.
    For Form I-129 petitioners who receive a RFE for a beneficiary to 
complete and submit Form I-944, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of 
time for completing Form I-129 would be $161.01 per beneficiary using 
the average total rate of compensation of $35.78 per hour.\808\ In 
addition, DHS estimates the cost to obtain a credit report and credit 
score is $19.95 per beneficiary. DHS assumes that while a petitioner 
would receive the RFE to file Form I-944, the beneficiary would be the 
individual to complete the form and provide all required information. 
Therefore, based on the total population estimate of 336,335 annual 
filings for Form I-129, DHS estimates the total annual opportunity cost 
of time associated with completing Form I-944 would be approximately 
$54,153,298 annually and the total cost to obtain a credit report and 
credit score would be

[[Page 51257]]

about $6,709,883.\809\ In sum, DHS estimates that total cost for Form 
I-129 beneficiaries who receive a RFE to complete and submit Form I-944 
would be approximately $60,863,181 annually.\810\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \808\ Calculation for Form I-129 petition opportunity cost of 
time to complete Form I-944: ($35.78 per hour * 4.5 hours) = 
$161.01.
    \809\ Calculation: (Form I-944 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129) = $161.01 * 
336,335 = $54,153,298.35 = $54,153,298 (rounded) annual opportunity 
cost of time for filing Form I-944. Calculation: (Cost to obtain a 
credit report and credit score) * (Estimated annual population 
filing Form I-129) = $19.95 * 336,335 = $6,709,883.25 = $6,709,883 
(rounded) annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit score.
    \810\ Calculation: (Annual opportunity cost of time for filing 
Form I-944) + (Annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit 
score for Form I-944) = $54,153,298 + $6,709,883 = $60,863,181 
annual total cost for Form I-129 beneficiaries who must file Form I-
944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, for Form I-129CW petitioners who receive a RFE for a 
beneficiary to complete and submit Form I-944, DHS estimates the 
opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-129CW would be $161.01 
per beneficiary using the average total rate of compensation of $35.78 
per hour.\811\ In addition, DHS estimates the cost to obtain a credit 
report and credit score is $19.95 per beneficiary. DHS assumes that 
while a petitioner would receive the RFE to file Form I-944, the 
beneficiary would be the individual to complete the form and provide 
all required information. Therefore, based on the total population 
estimate of 6,307 annual filings for Form I-129CW, DHS estimates the 
total annual opportunity cost of time associated with completing Form 
I-944 would be approximately $1,015,490 annually and the total cost to 
obtain a credit report and credit score would be about $125,825.\812\ 
In sum, DHS estimates that total cost for Form I-129CW beneficiaries 
who receive a RFE to complete and submit Form I-944 would be 
approximately $1,141,315 annually.\813\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \811\ Calculation for Form I-129CW petition opportunity cost of 
time to complete Form I-944: ($35.78 per hour * 4.5 hours) = 
$161.01.
    \812\ Calculation: (Form I-944 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-129CW) = $161.01 
* 6,307 = $1,015,490.07 = $1,015,490 (rounded) annual opportunity 
cost of time for filing Form I-944. Calculation: (Cost to obtain a 
credit report and credit score) * (Estimated annual population 
filing Form I-129CW) = $19.95 * 6,307 = $125,824.65 = $125,825 
(rounded) annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit score.
    \813\ Calculation: (Annual opportunity cost of time for filing 
Form I-944) + (Annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit 
score for Form I-944) = $1,015,490 + $125,825 = $1,141,315 annual 
total cost for Form I-129CW beneficiaries who must file Form I-944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For filers of form I-539 who are required to complete and submit 
Form I-944, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing 
Form I-539 would also be $161.01 per filer using the average total rate 
of compensation of $35.78 per hour. In addition, DHS estimates the cost 
to obtain a credit report and credit score is $19.95 per applicant. DHS 
estimates the total opportunity cost of time associated with completing 
Form I-944 would be approximately $28,155,175 annually based on the 
total population estimate of 174,866 annual filings for Form I-539 and 
the total cost to obtain a credit report and credit score would be 
about $3,488,577.\814\ In sum, DHS estimates that total cost for Form 
I-539 applicants who receive a RFE to complete and submit Form I-944 
would be approximately $31,643,752 annually.\815\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \814\ Calculation: (Form I-944 estimated opportunity cost of 
time) * (Estimated annual population filing Form I-539) = $161.01 * 
174,866 = $28,155,174.66 = $28,155,175 (rounded) annual opportunity 
cost of time for filing Form I-944. Calculation: (Cost to obtain a 
credit report and credit score) * (Estimated annual population 
filing Form I-539) = $19.95 * 174,866 = $3,488,576.70 = $3,488,577 
(rounded) annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit score.
    \815\ Calculation: (Annual opportunity cost of time for filing 
Form I-944) + (Annual cost to obtain a credit report and credit 
score for Form I-944) = $28,155,175 + $3,488,577 = $31,643,752 
annual total cost for Form I-539 applicants who must file Form I-
944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is unable to estimate the actual number of RFEs that 
adjudication officers may issue to Form I-129 beneficiaries, Form I-
129CW beneficiaries, and Form I-539 filers to submit Form I-944 since 
such RFEs would be issued on a discretionary basis. However, we are 
able to present a range of RFEs that could be issued based on total 
population estimates and the estimated annual cost associated with such 
RFE. Table 48 presents a range of potential annual costs related to 
submission of Form I-944 based on the percentage of the maximum number 
of Form I-129 beneficiaries, Form I-129CW beneficiaries, and Form I-539 
applicants who could be issued a RFE. DHS estimates the annual cost if 
all beneficiaries were issued a RFE for 100 percent of the total 
population estimate of 336,335 annual filings for Form I-129 would be 
about $60.1 million. For the total population estimate of 6,307 annual 
filings for Form I-129CW, DHS estimates the annual cost would be 
approximately $1.1 million if all beneficiaries were issued a RFE. 
Moreover, DHS estimates the annual cost if all applicants were issued a 
RFE for 100 percent of the total population estimate of 336,335 annual 
filings for Form I-539 would be about $31.6 million.

[[Page 51258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.074

iii. Public Charge Bond

    DHS does not currently have a process or procedure in place to 
accept public charge bonds, though it has the authority to do so. DHS 
is proposing to amend its regulations and establish a bond process for 
those seeking adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident who 
have been deemed likely to become a public charge. A public charge bond 
may generally be secured by cash or cash equivalents such as cashier's 
checks or money orders in the full amount of the bond, or may be 
underwritten by a surety company certified by the Department of 
Treasury under 31 U.S.C. 9304-9308.\816\ DHS approval of the public 
charge bond and DHS determination of whether the bond has been breached 
would be based on whether the alien has received public benefits as 
defined in the proposed rule or whether the alien has breached any 
other condition imposed as part of the public charge bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \816\ See generally 8 CFR 103.6. However, USCIS plans to 
initially allow for only surety bonds only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, DHS has the broad authority 
to prescribe forms of bonds as is deemed necessary for carrying out the 
Secretary's authority under the provisions of the Act.\817\ 
Additionally, an alien whom DHS has determined to be inadmissible based 
on public charge grounds may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted at 
the discretion of the Secretary upon giving a suitable and proper 
bond.\818\ The purpose of issuing a public charge bond is to better 
ensure that the alien will not become a public charge in the future. If 
an alien receives public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 
212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful 
permanent resident, DHS would declare the bond breached. A bond may 
also be breached if the conditions that are otherwise imposed as part 
of the public charge bond are breached.\819\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \817\ See INA section 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3).
    \818\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183.
    \819\ See 8 CFR 213.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is proposing that public charge bonds would be issued at the 
Secretary's discretion when an alien seeking adjustment of status has 
been found to be inadmissible based on public charge grounds. DHS may 
require an alien to submit a surety bond or cash or cash equivalent, 
such as a cashier's check or money order, to secure a bond.\820\ DHS 
would notify the alien if he or she is permitted to post a public 
charge bond and of the type of bond that may be submitted. If DHS 
accepts a surety bond

[[Page 51259]]

as a public charge bond, DHS would accept only a bond underwritten by 
surety companies certified by the Department of the Treasury, as 
outlined in proposed 8 CFR 103.6(b).\821\ DHS proposes that the amount 
of a public charge bond cannot be less than $10,000 annually adjusted 
for inflation and rounded up to the nearest dollar, but the amount of 
the bond required would otherwise be determined at the discretion of 
the adjudication officer. After reviewing an alien's circumstances and 
finding of inadmissibility based on public charge grounds, an 
adjudication officer would notify the alien through the issuance of a 
RFE or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) that a surety bond may be 
submitted to USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \820\ USCIS plans to initially allow surety bonds.
    \821\ See 31 U.S.C. 9304-9308. See also Bureau of the Fiscal 
Service, U.S. Department of Treasury, available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/surety_home.htm. See 
also proposed 8 CFR 103.6(b)(1) as proposed by ICE, Procedures and 
Standards for Declining Surety Immigration Bonds and Administrative 
Appeal Requirement for Breaches, 83 FR 25951 (June 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual or entity would submit a public charge bond on behalf 
of the alien by using the new Public Charge Bond form (Form I-945), and 
related forms. DHS proposes that it would use Form I-356, Request for 
Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, as part of a request to cancel a 
public charge bond.
    The proposed rule would require that an alien must complete and 
submit Form I-407 when the alien or obligor/co-obligor seeks to cancel 
the public charge bond on account of the alien's permanent departure 
from the United States. Form I-407 records an alien's abandonment of 
status as a LPR. When filing Form I-407, an alien abandoning their LPR 
status is informed of the right to a hearing before an immigration 
judge who would decide whether the alien lost his or her lawful 
permanent resident status due to abandonment and that the alien has 
knowingly, willingly, and affirmatively waived that right. Form I-407 
is used by lawful permanent resident aliens who are outside the United 
States or at a Port of Entry who want to abandon LPR status.
    A public charge bond would be considered breached if the alien 
receives any public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21, 
after DHS accepts a public charge bond submitted on that alien's 
behalf. The bond would also be breached if the alien does not comply 
with the conditions that are otherwise imposed with the public charge 
bond.\822\ Upon learning of a breach of public charge bond, DHS would 
notify the obligor that the bond has been declared breached and inform 
the obligor of the possibility to appeal the determination to the USCIS 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).\823\ Notice of Appeal or Motion 
(Form I-290B) is used to file an appeal or motion to reopen or 
reconsider certain decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \822\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h).
    \823\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a public charge bond must be canceled when an alien with a 
bond dies, departs the United States permanently, or is naturalized or 
otherwise obtains U.S. citizenship, provided the individual has not 
received public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(c) prior 
to death, departure, or naturalization (or otherwise obtaining U.S. 
citizenship), and a request for cancellation has been filed.\824\ DHS 
must also cancel the bond following the fifth anniversary of the 
admission of the lawful permanent resident provided that he or she 
files a request for cancellation of the public charge bond and provided 
that the alien has not received any public benefits, as defined in 8 
CFR 212.21, after the alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful 
permanent resident. Additionally, the public charge bond must be 
cancelled if the alien obtains an immigration status that is exempt 
from public charge inadmissibility after the initial grant of lawful 
permanent resident status, provided that a request for cancellation of 
the public charge bond has been filed and provided that the alien did 
not breach the bond conditions.\825\ To have the public charge bond 
cancelled, an obligor (individual or entity) would request the 
cancellation of the public charge and as part of the request, submit 
Form I-356. If DHS determines that the bond cannot be cancelled, the 
bond remains in place; the obligor may appeal the denial to the AAO by 
filing Form I-290B.\826\ Additionally, a public charge bond may be 
cancelled by DHS after a suitable substitute has been submitted for an 
unlimited bond or a bond of limited duration that bears an expiration 
date. For this type of cancellation, no request to cancel the bond must 
be filed to allow substitution of another bond, as outlined in proposed 
8 CFR 213.\827\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \824\ See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183; see 8 CFR 103.6(c).
    \825\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(d)[Conditions of the bond] and 
proposed 8 CFR 213.1(h)[Breach].
    \826\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(g).
    \827\ See proposed 8 CFR 213.1(f)[Substitution]. Because USCIS 
does not examine whether the bond could be breached, the 
substitution does not have to be accompanied with a filing of Form 
I-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When posting a surety bond, an individual generally pays between 1 
percent to 15 percent of the bond amount for a surety company to post a 
bond.\828\ The percentage that an individual must pay may be dependent 
on the individual's credit score where those with higher credit scores 
would be required to pay a lower percentage of the bond to be posted. 
DHS notes that an individual as another possible option for securing a 
public charge bond may be allowed to submit cash or cash equivalent, 
such as a cashier's check or money order and agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \828\ For example, see https://suretybondauthority.com/frequently-asked-questions/ and https://suretybondauthority.com/learn-more/. DHS notes that the company cited is for informational 
purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the creation of Form I-945, DHS proposes to charge a filing 
fee of $25.00 to submit a public charge surety bond, which would cover 
administrative costs of processing the form. DHS estimates the time 
burden associated with filing Form I-945 is 60 minutes (1.0 hour) per 
obligor, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the 
required documentation and information, completing the form, preparing 
statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the 
form.\829\ Therefore, using the total rate of compensation of minimum 
wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS estimates the opportunity cost of time for 
completing and submitting Form I-945 would be $10.66 per 
applicant.\830\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \829\ Source for immigration bond time burden estimate: 
Supporting Statement, Immigration Bond, ICE Form I-352, (OMB control 
number 1653-0022). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at 
Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1653-001.
    \830\ Calculation for public charge surety bond opportunity cost 
of time: ($10.66 per hour * 1.0 hour) = $10.66 per applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the opportunity cost of time associated with 
completing Form I-945, aliens who may be permitted to have a public 
charge bond posted on their behalf, must secure a surety bond through a 
surety bond company that is certified by the Department of Treasury, 
Bureau of Fiscal Service. DHS notes that the public charge bond amount 
required would be determined at the discretion of an adjudication 
officer, so long as it is over the minimum amount. However, DHS 
estimates the cost per obligor would be $35.66 per obligor at minimum, 
including $25.00 to file Form I-945 and $10.66 per obligor for the 
opportunity cost of time for completing the form. In addition, each 
alien posting a public charge bond through a surety company would be 
required to pay any fees required by the surety company to secure a 
public charge bond. While the proposed public charge bond process would 
be new and historical data are

[[Page 51260]]

not available, DHS estimates that approximately 960 aliens would be 
eligible to file for a public charge bond annually. Therefore, in sum, 
DHS estimates the total cost to file Form I-945 would be at minimum 
about $34,234 annually.\831\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \831\ Calculation: $35.66 (cost per obligor to file Form I-945) 
* 960 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-945) = 
$34,233.60 = $34,234 (rounded) annual total cost to file Form I-945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, an obligor (individual or a company) or the 
alien would file Form I-356 as part of a request to cancel a public 
charge bond. With the creation of Form I-356, DHS proposes to charge a 
filing fee of $25.00 to request cancellation of a public charge bond, 
which would cover administrative costs of processing the form. DHS 
estimates the time burden associated with filing Form I-356 is 45 
minutes (0.75 hours) per obligor or alien requesting cancellation of a 
public charge bond, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining data needed, 
and completing and reviewing the required information. Using the total 
rate of compensation of minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS estimates 
the opportunity cost of time for completing and submitting Form I-356 
would be $8.00 per filer.\832\ Therefore, DHS estimates the cost per 
filer would be $33.00, including $25.00 to file Form I-356 and $8.00 
per obligor or alien for the opportunity cost of time for completing 
the form. While the proposed public charge bond process would be new 
and historical data are not available, DHS estimates that approximately 
25 aliens would request to cancel a public charge bond annually. 
Therefore, in sum, DHS estimates the total cost to file Form I-356 
would be approximately $825 annually.\833\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \832\ Calculation for opportunity cost of time for completing 
Form I-356: ($10.66 per hour * 0.75 hours) = $7.995 = $8.00 
(rounded) per applicant.
    \833\ Calculation: $33.00 (cost per obligor to file Form I-356) 
* 25 (estimated annual population who would file Form I-356) = 
$825.00 annual total cost to file Form I-356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The filing fee for Form I-290B is $675 per obligor wishing to file 
an appeal to challenge the denial of a request to cancel the public 
charge bond or the breach determination. The fee is set at a level to 
recover the processing costs to DHS. However, the fee for Form I-290B 
may be waived using Form I-912 if the party appealing the adverse 
decision can provide evidence of an inability to pay.\834\ In addition, 
DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing Form I-290B is 1 
hour and 30 minutes (1.5 hours) per obligor, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and 
information, completing the form, preparing statements, attaching 
necessary documentation, and submitting the form.\835\ Therefore, using 
the total rate of compensation of minimum wage of $10.66 per hour, DHS 
estimates the opportunity cost of time for completing Form I-290B would 
be $15.99 per obligor.\836\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \834\ See 8 CFR 103.7(c).
    \835\ Source for notice for appeal or motion time burden 
estimate: Supporting Statement for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) (OMB control number 1615-0095). The PRA Supporting Statement 
can be found at Question 12 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-002.
    \836\ Calculation for appeal or motion opportunity cost of time: 
($10.66 per hour * 1.5 hours) = $15.99 per applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the filing fee and the opportunity cost of time 
associated with completing Form I-290B, obligors must bear the cost of 
postage for sending the Form I-290B package to USCIS. DHS estimates 
that each obligor will incur an estimated average cost of $3.75 in 
postage to submit the completed package to USCIS.\837\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \837\ Source for notice for appeal or motion time burden 
estimate: Supporting Statement for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) (OMB control number 1615-0095). The PRA Supporting Statement 
can be found at Question 13 on Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201609-1615-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed public charge bond process would be new 
and historical data are not available to predict future estimates. 
Therefore, DHS also is not able to estimate the total annual cost of 
the proposed public charge bond process. However, DHS estimates the 
total cost per applicant submitting a bond would be $693.74 for 
completing and filing Form I-290B, excluding the cost of obtaining a 
bond.\838\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \838\ Calculation: $674 filing fee + $15.99 opportunity cost of 
time + $3.75 postage cost = $693.74 per applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the new DHS requirement in this proposed rule that an 
alien must complete and submit Form I-407 when seeking to cancel the 
public charge bond upon permanent departure from the United States. 
However, this proposed rule would not impose additional new costs to 
Form I-407 filers.
(c) Transfer Payments and Indirect Impacts of Proposed Regulatory 
Changes
    DHS estimates the direct costs of the proposed rule, but also 
estimates the reduction in transfer payments from the federal and state 
government to certain individuals who receive public benefits and also 
discusses certain indirect impacts that would likely occur as a result 
of the proposed regulatory changes. These indirect impacts are borne by 
entities that are not specifically regulated by this rule, but may 
incur costs due to changes in behavior caused by this rule. The primary 
sources of the reduction in transfer payments from the federal 
government of this proposed rule would be the disenrollment or foregone 
enrollment of individuals in public benefits programs. The primary 
sources of the consequences and indirect impacts of the proposed rule 
would be costs to various entities that the rule does not directly 
regulate, such as hospital systems, state agencies, and other 
organizations that provide public assistance to aliens and their 
households. Indirect costs associated with this rule include 
familiarization with the rule for those entities that are not directly 
regulated but still want to understand the changes in federal and state 
transfer payments due to this rule.
    Moreover, this rule, if finalized, could lead to an additional 
reduction in transfer payments because some aliens outside the United 
States who are likely to become a public charge in the United States 
would not be admitted and therefore would not receive public benefits 
in the United States. For example, CBP could find that an alien 
arriving at a port of entry seeking admission, either pursuant to a 
previously issued visa or as a traveler for whom visa requirements have 
been waived, is likely to become a public charge if he or she is 
admitted. However, DHS is not able to quantify the number of aliens who 
would possibly be denied admission based on a public charge 
determination pursuant to this proposed rule, but is qualitatively 
acknowledging this potential impact.
    Under the proposed rule, DHS would consider past or current receipt 
of public benefits, defined in 212.21(b), as identified a heavily 
weighed factor for purposes of public charge determination. Earlier in 
the preamble, DHS provides a list and description of public benefits 
programs the proposed rule identifies for consideration of public 
charge inadmissibility. Should an individual be found to have received 
or is currently receiving certain public benefits identified in the 
proposed rule, he or she may be found likely to become a public charge. 
Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forego future 
enrollment in a public benefits program include foreign-born non-
citizens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status 
households.
    Table 49 shows the estimated population of public benefits 
recipients who are members of households that

[[Page 51261]]

include foreign-born non-citizens. The table also shows estimates of 
the number of households with at least 1 foreign-born non-citizen 
family member that may have received public benefits.\839,840\ Based on 
the number of households with foreign-born non-citizen family members, 
DHS estimated the number of public benefits recipients who are members 
of households that include foreign-born non-citizens that may have 
received benefits using the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average 
household size for foreign-born households.\841\ \842\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \839\ See U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2016 
Subject Definitions. Available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/subject_definitions/2016_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2018. The foreign-
born population includes anyone who was not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. 
national at birth, which includes respondents who indicated they 
were a U.S. citizen by naturalization or not a U.S. citizen. The ACS 
questionnaires do not ask about immigration status, but uses 
responses to determine the U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen 
populations as well as to determine the native and foreign-born 
populations. The population surveyed includes all people who 
indicated that the United States was their usual place of residence 
on the survey date. The foreign-born population includes naturalized 
U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (i.e. immigrants), 
temporary migrants (e.g., foreign students), humanitarian migrants 
(e.g., refugees), and unauthorized migrants (i.e. people illegally 
present in the United States.
    \840\ To estimate the number of households with at least 1 
foreign-born non-citizen family member that have received public 
benefits, DHS calculated the overall percentage of total U.S. 
households that are foreign-born non-citizen as 6.97 percent. 
Calculation: [22,214,947 (Foreign-born non-citizens)/318,558,162 
(Total U.S. population)] * 100 = 6.97 percent. See U.S. Census 
Bureau American FactFinder Database. ``S0501: Selected 
Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-born Populations 2012-2016 
American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates.'' Available at 
https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2018.
    \841\ See U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder Database. 
``S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-born 
Populations 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 
Estimates.'' Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed 
June 16, 2018. The average foreign-born household size is reported 
as 3.35 persons. DHS multiplied this figure by the estimated number 
of households with at least 1 foreign-born non-citizen receiving 
benefits to estimate the population of foreign-born non-citizen 
receiving benefits.
    \842\ In this analysis, DHS uses the American Community Survey 
(ACS) to develop population estimates along with beneficiary data 
from each of the benefits program. DHS recognizes that in other 
places in this preamble, the SIPP data is used rather than the ACS 
data, which may cause differences in estimates. DHS notes that the 
ACS data was used for the purposes of this analysis because it 
provided a cross-sectional survey based on a random sample of the 
population each year including current immigration classifications. 
Both surveys reflect substantial reliance by aliens on the public 
benefits included in the proposed rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.075


[[Page 51263]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.076

    Consistent data are not available on the number of individuals 
receiving public benefits who are members of households that include 
foreign-born non-citizens. In order to estimate the economic impact of 
the proposed rule, it is necessary to estimate the size of this 
population. To arrive at the population estimates as shown in table 49, 
DHS first calculated the average annual number of people who received 
benefits over a 5-year period whenever possible as reported by the 
benefits granting agencies.\843\ However, data for public benefits 
programs do not identify the nativity status of benefits recipients, 
i.e., foreign-born or U.S. native. Therefore, DHS estimated the 
foreign-born non-citizen population by converting the average annual 
number of benefits recipients using the U.S. Census Bureau's American 
Community Survey (ACS) estimates. First, DHS estimated the number of 
households receiving benefits. Then, DHS estimated the number of 
households with at least one foreign-born non-citizen receiving 
benefits based on the percentage of foreign-born non-citizens compared 
to the total U.S. population. Finally, the number of public benefits 
recipients who are members of households that include foreign-born non-
citizens receiving benefits was estimated based on the average 
household size of households with at least one foreign-born individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \843\ DHS estimated the annual average number of people who 
receive public benefits based on 5-year averages generally over the 
period fiscal year 2013-2017, including LIS, SNAP, and SSI. DHS 
calculated 5-year averages over the period fiscal year 2012-2016 for 
Medicaid and TANF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the public benefits programs analyzed, DHS estimated 
the number of households by dividing the number of people that received 
public benefits by the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average household 
size of 2.64 for the U.S. total population.\844\ According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau population estimates, the foreign-born non-citizen 
population is 6.97 percent of the U.S. total population.\845\ While 
there may be some variation in the percentage of foreign-born non-
citizens who receive public benefits, including depending on which 
public benefits program one considers, DHS assumes in this economic 
analysis that the percentage holds across the populations of the 
various public benefits programs. Therefore, to estimate the number of 
households with at least one foreign-born non-citizen who receives 
public benefits, DHS multiplied the estimated number of households for 
each public benefits program by 6.97 percent. This step may introduce 
uncertainty into the estimate because the percentage of households with 
at least one foreign-born non-citizen may be greater or less than the 
percentage of foreign-born non-citizens in the population. However, if 
foreign-born non-citizens tend to be grouped together in households, 
then an overestimation of households that include at least one FBNC is 
more likely. DHS then estimated the number of foreign-born non-citizens 
who received benefits by multiplying the estimated number of households 
with at least one foreign-born non-citizen who receives public benefits 
by the U.S. Census Bureau's estimated average household size of 3.35 
for those who are foreign-born.\846\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \844\ U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder Database. ``S0501: 
Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-born Populations 
2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates.'' 
Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2018.
    \845\ Ibid. Calculation: [22,214,947 (Foreign-born non-
citizens)/318,558,162 (Total U.S. population)] * 100 = 6.97 percent.
    \846\ U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder Database. ``S0501: 
Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-born Populations 
2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates.'' 
Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this analysis, DHS uses the American Community Survey (ACS) to 
develop population estimates along with beneficiary data from each of 
the benefits program. DHS recognizes that in other places in this 
preamble, the SIPP data is used rather than the ACS data, which may 
cause differences in estimates. DHS notes that the ACS data was used 
for the purposes of this analysis because it provided a cross-sectional 
survey based on a random sample of the population each year including 
current immigration classifications. Both surveys reflect

[[Page 51264]]

substantial reliance by aliens on the public benefits included in the 
proposed rule. DHS welcomes comments on the use of data from the 
American Community Survey (ACS) to develop our estimates, and comments 
on whether other data sources would be useful in these calculations.
    In the following analysis, the population estimate will be adjusted 
to reflect the percentage of aliens intending to apply for adjustment 
of status, but not to reflect the possibility that less than 100 
percent of their household members will be sufficiently concerned about 
potential consequences of the policies proposed in this rule to 
disenroll or forgo enrollment in public benefits. The resulting 
transfer estimates will therefore have a tendency toward 
overestimation. DHS welcomes comment, especially concerning data or 
other evidence, that would allow for refinement of the estimate of the 
percentage of household members who would be dissuaded from public 
benefits participation.
    DHS anticipates that a number of individuals would be likely to 
disenroll or forego enrollment in a public benefits program as a result 
of the proposed rule, which would result in a reduction of transfer 
payments from the federal government to such individuals. However, to 
estimate the economic impact of disenrollment or foregone enrollment 
from public benefits programs, it is necessary to estimate the average 
annual amount of public benefits a person receives for each public 
benefits program included in this economic analysis. Therefore, DHS 
estimated the average annual benefit received per person for each 
public benefit program in table 50. The average benefit per person is 
calculated for each public benefit program by dividing the average 
annual program payments for on public benefits by the average annual 
total number of recipients.\847\ To the extent that data are available, 
these estimates are based on 5-year averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \847\ DHS notes that the amounts presented may not account for 
overhead costs associated with administering each of these public 
benefits programs. The costs presented are based on amounts 
recipients have received in benefits as reported by benefits-
granting agencies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.077


[[Page 51266]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.078

    Research shows that when eligibility rules change for public 
benefits programs there is evidence of a ``chilling effect'' that 
discourages immigrants from using public benefits programs for which 
they are still eligible. For example, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) published a study shortly after the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) took effect 
and found that the number of people receiving food stamps fell by over 
5.9 million between summer 1994 and summer 1997.\848\ The study notes 
that enrollment in the food stamps program was falling during this 
period, possibly due to strong economic growth, but the decline in 
enrollment was steepest among legal immigrants. Under PRWORA, legal 
immigrants were facing significantly stronger restrictions through 
which most would become ineligible to receive food stamps. The study 
also found that enrollment of legal immigrants in the food stamps 
program fell by 54 percent. Moreover, another study found evidence of a 
``chilling effect'' due to enactment of PRWORA where non-citizen 
enrollment in public benefits programs declined more steeply than U.S. 
citizen enrollment over the period 1994 to 1997.\849\ Overall, the 
study found that welfare enrollment in households headed by foreign-
born individuals fell by about 21 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \848\ See Genser, J. (1999). Who is leaving the Food Stamps 
Program: An analysis of Caseload Changes from 1994 to 1997. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Available at 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/who-leaving-food-stamp-program-analysis-caseload-changes-1994-1997. (Accessed June 17, 2018).
    \849\ See Fix, M.E., and Passel, J.S. (1999). Trends in 
Noncitizens' and Citizens' Use of Public Benefits Following Welfare 
Reform: 1994-1997. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Available at 
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/trends-noncitizens-and-citizens-use-public-benefits-following-welfare-reform. (Accessed 
June 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the total transfer payments, DHS calculated the number 
of individuals who are likely to disenroll from or forego enrollment in 
a public benefit program equal to 2.5 percent of the number of foreign-
born non-citizens previously estimated. While previous studies 
examining the effect of PRWORA in 1996 showed a reduction in enrollment 
from 21 to 54 percent, it is unclear how many individuals would 
actually disenroll from or forego enrollment in public benefits 
programs due to the proposed rule. The previous studies had the benefit 
of retrospectively analyzing the chilling effect of PRWORA using actual 
enrollment data, instead of being limited to prospectively estimating 
the number of individuals who may disenroll or forego enrollment in the 
affected public benefits programs. This economic analysis must rely on 
the latter. Moreover, PRWORA was directly changing eligibility 
requirements, whereas this proposed rule, if finalized, would change 
enrollment incentives. Therefore, DHS estimates this annual rate based 
on the number of foreign-born immigrants seeking to adjust status as a 
percentage of the foreign-born non-citizen population in the United 
States, under the assumption that the population likely to disenroll 
from or forego enrollment in public benefits programs would be 
individuals intending to apply for adjustment of status or individuals 
who have adjusted status within the past five years. DHS notes that 
this is likely an overestimate since it is unknown how many foreign-
born non-citizens adjusting status are actually using public benefits. 
For the 5-fiscal year period 2012-2016, the foreign-born non-citizen 
population was estimated to be 22,214,947.\850\ During the same 5-
fiscal year period, 544,246 immigrants adjusted status annually in the 
United States on average.851 852 Therefore, DHS assumes a 
2.5 percent rate of disenrollment or foregone enrollment across each of 
the public benefits programs since the individuals intending to adjust 
status are most likely to disenroll from or forego enrollment in public 
benefits programs in order to preserve their chances of adjusting 
status.\853\ Table 51 shows the estimated population that would be 
likely to disenroll or forego enrollment in a public benefits program 
as a result of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \850\ U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder Database. ``S0501: 
Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-born Populations 
2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates. 
Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2018.
    \851\ See United States Department of Homeland Security. 
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2016, Table 7. Washington, DC, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration 
Statistics, 2017. Available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016 (accessed Jan. 24, 2018).
    \852\ Note that the population seeking extension of stay or 
change of status were not included in the calculation due to the 
nature of the populations involved, namely people employed in jobs 
and their dependents. DHS assumes that these individuals generally 
do not receive public benefits and have means of supporting 
themselves and their dependents.
    \853\ Calculation, based on 5-year averages over the period 
fiscal year 2012-2016: (544,246 adjustments of status/22,214,947 
estimated foreign-born non-citizen population) * 100 = 2.45 = 2.5% 
(rounded).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.079

    Table 52 shows the estimated population that would be likely to 
disenroll from or forego enrollment in public benefits programs due to 
the provisions of the proposed rule and the total reduction in transfer 
payments paid by the federal government to this population. The table 
also presents the previously estimated average annual benefit per 
person who received benefits for each of the public benefits 
programs.\854\ This proposed rule would result in a reduction of 
transfer payments from the federal government to those foreign-born 
non-citizens and associated household members who choose to disenroll 
from or forego future enrollment in a public benefits program. Transfer 
payments are payments from one group to another that do not directly 
affect total resources available to society.\855\ DHS estimates the 
total annual reduction in transfer payments paid by the federal 
government to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forego 
enrollment in public benefits programs is approximately $1.51 billion 
for an estimated 324,438 individuals and 14,532 households across the 
public benefits programs examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \854\ As previously noted, the average annual benefits per 
person amounts presented may not account for overhead costs 
associated with administering each of these public benefits programs 
since they are based on amounts recipients have received in benefits 
as reported by benefits-granting agencies. Therefore, the costs 
presented may underestimate the total amount of transfer payments to 
the federal government.
    \855\ See Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Circular A-4. 
September 17, 2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.080

    Based on the rate of disenrollment or foregone enrollment 
calculated, DHS estimated the annual reduction in the amount of 
transfer payments paid by the federal government to foreign-born non-
citizens and members of their households by multiplying the average 
annual benefits per person by the population of foreign-born non-
citizens who are likely to disenroll from or forego enrollment in a 
public benefit program.\856\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \856\ DHS analyzes federal funds only as we are not readily able 
to track down and identify the state funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, DHS notes there may be additional reductions in transfer 
payments that we are unable to quantify. As these estimates reflect 
only federal financial participation in programs where states may share 
costs, there may also be additional reductions in transfer payments 
from states to individuals who may choose to disenroll from or forego 
enrollment in a public benefits program. Because state participation in 
these programs may vary depending on the type of benefit provided, DHS 
was unable to quantify the impact of state transfers. For example, the 
federal government funds all SNAP food expenses, but only 50 percent of 
allowable administrative costs for regular operating expenses.\857\ 
Similarly, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) in some HHS 
programs like Medicaid can vary from between 50 percent to an enhanced 
rate of 100 percent in some cases. However, assuming that the state 
share of federal financial participation (FFP) is 50 percent, then the 
10-year discounted amount of state transfer payments of this proposed 
policy would be approximately $9.95 billion at a 3 percent discount 
rate and about $8.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. Finally, DHS 
recognizes that reductions in federal and state transfers under federal 
benefit programs may have downstream and upstream impacts on state and 
local economies, large and small businesses, and individuals. For 
example, the rule might result in reduced revenues for healthcare 
providers participating in Medicaid, pharmacies that provide 
prescriptions to participants in the Medicare Part D low-

[[Page 51269]]

income subsidy (LIS) program, companies that manufacture medical 
supplies or pharmaceuticals, grocery retailers participating in SNAP, 
agricultural producers who grow foods that are eligible for purchase 
using SNAP benefits, or landlords participating in federally funded 
housing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \857\ Per section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 
See also USDA, FNS Handbook 901, p. 41 available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/apd/FNS_HB901_v2.2_internet_Ready_Format.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the rate of disenrollment or foregone enrollment may 
result in an underestimate, to the extent that covered aliens may 
choose to disenroll from or forego enrollment in public benefits 
programs sooner than in the same year that the alien applies for 
adjustment of status. For instance, because DHS would consider past 
receipt of public benefits within at least 36 months as a heavily 
weighed factor under the proposed rule, prospective adjustment 
applicants may choose to disenroll or forego enrollment at least 36 
months in advance of such application. Some aliens and members of their 
households may adjust their behavior in anticipation of eventually 
applying for adjustment of status, but not know exactly when they will 
submit such applications. In addition, because the proposed rule also 
affects inadmissibility determinations in contexts aside from 
adjustment of status, some percentage of the alien population is likely 
to disenroll from or forego enrollment in covered programs, for such 
non-adjustment-related purposes as well.
    On the other hand, the 2.5 percent rate of disenrollment or 
foregone enrollment estimate may result in an overestimate, insofar as 
it does not correct for those categories of aliens (such as asylees and 
refugees) that are exempt from the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility and assumes 100% are using public benefits which may 
not be true. DHS expects that the rule's effects on public benefit 
program enrollment and disenrollment by such categories of aliens and 
their households would be less pronounced. Additionally, some 
prospective adjustment applicants and associated household members may 
not choose to disenroll or forego public benefits because they may have 
other factors that counterbalance acceptance of public benefits when 
looked at in the totality of circumstances. DHS welcomes comments on 
the appropriate methodology for estimating the rate of disenrollment or 
foregone enrollment, including ways to improve upon the DHS 
methodology. DHS welcomes public comments on the estimation of the 
disenrollment or foregone enrollment rate used in this analysis.
    However, in order to examine the impact if prospective adjustment 
applicants chose to disenroll or forego enrollment in public benefits 
at least 36 months in advance, DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis 
based on this issue of the proximity of time to a review of public 
charge inadmissibility. In such cases, DHS would consider past receipt 
of public benefits within at least 36 months (3 years) as a heavily 
weighed negative factor under the proposed rule and that a prospective 
adjustment applicant may choose to disenroll or forego enrollment for 
at least 36 months in advance of such application. Table 53 presents 
the potential range of the population who may disenroll from or forego 
enrollment in public benefits programs as well as the potential total 
reduction in transfer payments paid by the federal government to this 
population. DHS estimates that the population range of foreign-born 
non-citizens who may disenroll from or forego enrollment in public 
benefits programs would range from approximately 333,239 to 999,717. In 
addition, the estimated reduction in transfer payments paid by the 
federal government to this population ranges from about $1.51 billion 
to $4.53 billion. For this economic analysis, the primary estimate upon 
which DHS bases its analysis is the 1-year estimate, as shown below in 
the table. However, DHS welcomes the public to comment on DHS's use of 
the 1-year estimate as its primary estimate as well as whether using 
the 3-years estimate is a more appropriate estimate to use as the 
primary estimate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.081

    DHS presents this range since it is possible that the number of 
people who may disenroll from or forego enrollment in public benefits 
programs in one year could be as many as the combined three-year total 
of people who may disenroll or forego enrollment. Because DHS plans to 
heavily weigh the receipt of public benefits within the past 36 months 
as a negative factor, individuals may begin to disenroll or forego 
enrollment in public benefits programs as early as three years prior to 
applying for adjustment of status. As a result, the annual reduction in 
transfer payments could range between the three estimates presented in 
table 53.
    Another source of impacts of the proposed rule would be costs to 
various individuals and other entities associated with familiarization 
with the provisions

[[Page 51270]]

of the rule. Familiarization costs involve the time spent reading the 
details of a rule to understand its changes. A foreign-born non-citizen 
(such as those contemplating disenrollment or foregoing enrollment in a 
public benefits program) might review the rule to determine whether 
they are subject to the provisions of the proposed rule. To the extent 
an individual or entity that is directly regulated by the rule incurs 
familiarization costs, those familiarization costs are a direct cost of 
the rule. In addition to those being directly regulated by the rule, a 
wide variety of other entities would likely choose to read the rule and 
also incur familiarization costs. For example, immigration lawyers, 
immigration advocacy groups, health care providers of all types, non-
profit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and religious 
organizations, among others, may want to become familiar with the 
provisions of this proposed rule. DHS believes such non-profit 
organizations and other advocacy groups might choose to read the rule 
in order to provide information to those foreign-born non-citizens and 
associated households that might be impacted by a reduction in federal 
transfer payments. Familiarization costs incurred by those not directly 
regulated are indirect costs. DHS estimates the time that would be 
necessary to read the rule would be approximately 8 to 10 hours per 
person, resulting in opportunity costs of time. An entity, such as a 
non-profit or advocacy group, may have more than one person who reads 
the rule.
    In addition, the proposed rule may impose costs that DHS is unable 
to quantify. Many federal agencies, such as USDA in administering the 
SNAP program, may need to update and re-write guidance documents or 
would need to update forms used. Moreover, there may be additional 
unquantified costs that state and local government may incur associated 
with similar activities. At each level of government, it will also be 
necessary to prepare training materials and retrain staff. Such changes 
will require staff time and have associated costs.
    There are a number of consequences that could occur because of 
follow-on effects of the reduction in transfer payments identified in 
the proposed rule. DHS is providing a listing of the primary non-
monetized potential consequences of the proposed rule below. 
Disenrollment or foregoing enrollment in public benefits program by 
aliens otherwise eligible for these programs could lead to:
     Worse health outcomes, including increased prevalence of 
obesity and malnutrition, especially for pregnant or breastfeeding 
women, infants, or children, and reduced prescription adherence;
     Increased use of emergency rooms and emergent care as a 
method of primary health care due to delayed treatment;
     Increased prevalence of communicable diseases, including 
among members of the U.S. citizen population who are not vaccinated;
     Increases in uncompensated care in which a treatment or 
service is not paid for by an insurer or patient; and
     Increased rates of poverty and housing instability; and
     Reduced productivity and educational attainment.
    DHS notes that the proposed rule is likely to produce various other 
unanticipated consequences and indirect costs. For example, community 
based organizations, including small organizations, may provide 
charitable assistance, such as food or housing assistance, for 
individuals who forego enrollment in public benefit programs. DHS 
requests comments on other possible consequences of the rule and 
appropriate methodologies for quantifying these non-monetized potential 
impacts.
(d) Discounted Direct Costs and Reduced Transfer Payments
    To compare costs over time, DHS applied a 3 percent and a 7 percent 
discount rate to the total estimated costs associated with the proposed 
rule. Table 54 presents a summary of the quantified direct costs and 
reduced transfer payments from the federal government included in the 
proposed rule. The summary table presents costs in undiscounted dollars 
as well as dollars discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent rates over a 
10-year period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.082


[[Page 51271]]



i. Discounted Direct Costs

    DHS presents the total estimated costs for filing Form I-944 as 
part of the review for determination of inadmissibility based on public 
charge when applying for adjustment of status and the opportunity cost 
of time associated with the increased time burden estimate for 
completing Forms I-485, I-129, I-129CW, and I-539. See table 55. The 
total estimated costs are presented in undiscounted dollars, at a 3 
percent discount rate, and at a 7 percent discount rate.

[[Page 51272]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.083


[[Page 51273]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.084

    Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the 
quantified direct costs of the proposed rule would range from about 
$453,134,220 to $1,295,968,450 (undiscounted). In addition, DHS 
estimates that the 10-year discounted cost of this proposed rule to 
individuals applying to adjust status who would be required to undergo 
review for determination of inadmissibility based on public charge 
would range from about $386,532,679 to $1,105,487,375 at a 3 percent 
discount rate and about $318,262,513 to $910,234,008 at a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    This economic analysis presents the quantified costs of this 
proposed rule based on the estimated population applying to adjust 
status subject to review for public charge determination and the 
opportunity cost of time associated with the increased time burden 
estimates for completing Forms I-485, I-129, I-129CW, and I-539. The 
economic analysis also presents the quantified costs associated with 
the proposed public charge bond process, including costs associated 
with completing and filing Forms I-945 and I-356. DHS reiterates we are 
unable to estimate the actual number of Form I-129 or Form I-129CW 
petitioners and Form I-539 filers that adjudication officers would 
require through a RFE to submit Form I-944 since such RFE would be 
issued on a discretionary basis as outlined in the proposed rule. 
However, previously in this economic analysis, DHS presented a more 
detailed range of RFEs that could be issued based on total population 
estimates and the estimated annual cost associated with such RFEs. DHS 
welcomes any public comments on the discounted costs presented in this 
proposed rule.

ii. Discounted Reduction in Transfer Payments

    DHS presents the total estimated quantified reduction in transfer 
payments from the federal government of the proposed rule in table 56. 
The total estimated costs are presented in undiscounted dollars, at a 3 
percent discount rate, and at a 7 percent discount rate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.085


[[Page 51274]]


    Over the first 10 years of implementation, DHS estimates the total 
quantified reduction in transfer payments from the federal government 
to foreign-born non-citizens and their households would be about $22.7 
billion (undiscounted). In addition, DHS estimates that the 10-year 
discounted costs of this proposed rule would be approximately $19.3 
billion at a 3 percent discount rate and about $15.9 billion at a 7 
percent discount rate due to disenrollment or foregone enrollment in 
various federal public benefits programs. In addition, DHS assumes that 
the state share of federal financial participation (FFP) is 50 percent 
and therefore the 10-year discounted amount of the state-level share of 
transfer payments of this proposed rule would be approximately $9.65 
billion at a 3 percent discount rate and about $7.95 billion at a 7 
percent discount rate. Disenrollment or foregone enrollment in public 
benefits programs could occur whether or not such immigrants are 
directly affected by the provisions of the proposed rule, however, 
USCIS was unable to determine the exact percentage of individuals who 
would disenroll or forego enrollment. DHS notes that there may be a 
number of additional sources of transfer payments that could result 
from the proposed rule that DHS is not able to estimate and quantify at 
this time. Therefore, DHS welcomes public comments on additional 
sources of transfer payments that could result from the proposed rule.
(e) Costs to the Federal Government
    The INA provides for the collection of fees at a level that will 
ensure recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and 
naturalization services, including administrative costs and services 
provided without charge to certain applicants and petitioners. See INA 
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS notes that USCIS establishes its 
fees by assigning costs to an adjudication based on its relative 
adjudication burden and use of USCIS resources. Fees are established at 
an amount that is necessary to recover these assigned costs such as 
clerical, officers, and managerial salaries and benefits, plus an 
amount to recover unassigned overhead (e.g., facility rent, IT 
equipment and systems among other expenses) and immigration benefits 
provided without a fee charge. Consequently, since USCIS immigration 
fees are based on resource expenditures related to the benefit in 
question, USCIS uses the fee associated with an information collection 
as a reasonable measure of the collection's costs to USCIS. Therefore, 
DHS has established the fee for the adjudication of Form I-485, 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; Form I-
129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker; Form I-129CW, Petition for a 
CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker; and Form I-539, Application 
to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status in accordance with this 
requirement. Other forms affected by this proposed rule do not 
currently charge a filing fee, including Form I-693, Medical 
Examination and Vaccination Record; Affidavit of Support forms (Form I-
864, Form I-864A, Form I-864EZ, and I-864W); Form I-912, Request for 
Fee Waiver, and Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent 
Resident Status. DHS notes that the time necessary for USCIS to review 
the information submitted with each of these forms includes the time to 
adjudicate the underlying benefit request. While each of these forms 
does not charge a fee, the cost to USCIS is captured in the fee for the 
underlying benefit request form. DHS welcomes public comments on costs 
to the government from this proposed rule.
(f) Benefits of Proposed Regulatory Changes
    The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be to better ensure 
that aliens who are admitted to the United States or apply for 
adjustment of status would not receive one or more public benefits as 
defined in the proposed 212.21(b) and instead, will rely on their 
financial resource, and those of family members, sponsors, and private 
organizations. As a result, DHS is establishing a more formal review 
process and improving the current review process to standardize the 
determination of inadmissibility based on public charge grounds. The 
proposed process would also help clarify to applicants the specific 
criteria that would be considered as inadmissible under public charge 
determinations.
    DHS anticipates that the proposed rule would produce some benefits 
from the elimination of Form I-864W for use in filing an affidavit of 
support. The information previously requested on the Form I-864W would 
now be captured using Form I-485. Applicants, therefore, would not be 
required to file a form separate from the Form I-485. As noted 
previously, there is no filing fee associated with filing Form I-864W, 
but DHS estimates the time burden associated with filing this form is 
60 minutes (1 hour) per petitioner.\858\ Therefore, using the average 
total rate of compensation of $35.78 per hour, DHS estimates the amount 
of benefits that would accrue from eliminating Form I-864W would be 
$35.78 per petitioner, which equals the opportunity cost of time for 
completing Form I-864W.\859\ However, DHS notes that we are unable to 
determine the annual number filings of Form I-864W since we do not 
currently have information of how many of these filings are based on 
public charge determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \858\ Source for I-864W time burden estimate: Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the 
INA (Forms I-864, I-864A, I-864EZ, I-864W) (OMB control number 1615-
0075). The PRA Supporting Statement can be found at Question 12 on 
Reginfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201705-1615-004.
    \859\ Calculation opportunity cost of time for completing and 
submitting Form I-864W: ($35.78 per hour * 1.0 hours) = $35.78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a benefit of establishing and modifying the public 
charge bond process, despite the costs associated with this process, 
would potentially allow an immigrant the opportunity to be admitted 
although he or she was deemed likely to become a public charge. DHS 
welcomes any public comments on the benefits of this proposed rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to 
consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small 
governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the 
development of their rules. The term ``small entities'' comprises small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned 
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, or governmental 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.\860\ This proposed 
rule would require an individual applying for a visa, seeking admission 
at the port of entry, or adjusting status to establish that he or she 
is not likely at any time to become a public charge. Most of this 
rule's proposed changes do not fall under the RFA because they directly 
regulate individuals who are not, for purposes of the RFA, within the 
definition of small entities established by 5 U.S.C. 601(6). However, 
DHS recognizes that there may be some provisions of this proposed rule 
that would directly regulate small entities, and, therefore,

[[Page 51275]]

DHS has examined the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \860\ A small business is defined as any independently owned and 
operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a 
small business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would increase the time burden by an additional 
30 minutes on petitioners who file Form I-129 or Form I-129CW on behalf 
of a beneficiary requesting an extension of stay or change of status, 
which would impose direct costs on these petitioners. Additionally, the 
proposed provisions to establish a public charge bond process included 
in this proposed rule would allow for either an alien or an obligor 
(individual or an entity) to request a cancellation of a public bond. 
As a result, this proposed rule could have direct impacts on small 
entities that are obligors. DHS also recognizes that a Form I-129 or 
Form I-129CW beneficiary, for whom a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW 
petitioner (i.e., the employer) sought either an extension of stay or a 
change of status, may have to leave the U.S. if the employer's request 
was denied. In these cases, the petitioner may lose the beneficiary as 
an employee and may incur labor turnover costs. DHS presents this 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to examine these 
impacts.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    The small entities that could be impacted by this proposed rule are 
petitioners who file Form I-129 or Form I-129CW on behalf of 
beneficiaries requesting an extension of stay or change of status as 
well as obligors that would request a cancellation of a public bond.
    1. A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is 
being considered.
    DHS seeks to better ensure that applicants for admission to the 
United States and applicants for adjustment of status to lawful 
permanent resident who are subject to the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility are self-sufficient, i.e., they will rely on their own 
financial resources as well as the financial resources of their family, 
sponsors, and private organizations as necessary.\861\ Under section 
212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), an alien is inadmissible if, 
at the time of an application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of 
status, he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. The 
statute requires DHS to consider the following minimum factors that 
reflect the likelihood that an alien will become a public charge: The 
alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial 
status; and education and skills. In addition, DHS may consider any 
affidavit of support submitted by the alien's sponsor and any other 
factors relevant to the likelihood of the alien becoming a public 
charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \861\ See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule.
    DHS objectives and legal authority for this proposed rule are 
discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule.
    3. A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed changes would apply.
    This proposed rule would increase the time burden by an additional 
30 minutes on petitioners who file Form I-129 or Form I-129CW on behalf 
of a beneficiary requesting an extension of stay or change of status, 
which would impose direct costs on these petitioners and entities.\862\ 
As previously discussed in the E.O. 12866 section of this NPRM, DHS 
estimates an annual population of 336,335 beneficiaries seeking 
extension of stay or change of status through a petitioning employer 
using Form I-129. In addition, DHS estimates an annual population of 
6,307 beneficiaries seeking extension of stay or change of status 
through a petitioning employer using Form I-129CW. DHS estimates that 
the 30-minute increase in the estimated time burden for these 
populations would increase the opportunity cost of time for completing 
and filing Form I-129 and Form I-129CW and would result in about $184 
million and about $5 million in costs, respectively. For this 
population, DHS is unable to estimate the actual number of requests for 
evidence (RFEs) that adjudication officers may issue to Form I-129 
beneficiaries to complete Form I-944 to provide evidence that they are 
not likely to become a public charge when they are extending stay or 
changing status. Therefore, DHS cannot determine the number of small 
entities that might be impacted by potential requests to complete the 
Form I-944 as part of an RFE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \862\ In the context of Form I-129, a petitioner is typically an 
employer or the representative of an employer who files on behalf of 
a nonimmigrant worker (or beneficiary) to come to the United States 
temporarily to perform services or labor, or to receive training. 
See https://www.uscis.gov/i-129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed provisions on the bond process included in this rule 
would allow a surety company to become an obligor on a public charge 
bond (proposed Form I-945) and, later, to request a cancellation of 
such a bond (proposed Form I-356). Therefore, this proposed rule could 
have some impacts to surety companies, some of which are small 
entities. A request for cancellation of a public bond using Form I-356 
includes a time burden of 15 minutes per request and a fee to DHS of 
$25.00. It is not known the number of surety bond companies that might 
complete and file Forms I-945 and I-356 due to a lack of historical 
data and uncertainty in the number individuals that may be granted the 
opportunity to post for public charge bond. However, DHS estimates that 
the filing volume for Form I-945 might be about 960 and the filing 
volume for Form I-356 might be approximately 25. While DHS cannot 
predict the exact number of surety companies that might be impacted by 
this proposed rule, nine out of 273 Treasury-certified surety companies 
in fiscal year 2015 posted new immigration bonds with DHS ICE.\863\ DHS 
found that of the nine surety companies, four entities were considered 
``small'' based on the number of employees or revenue being less than 
their respective Small Business Administration size standard.\864\ 
Assuming these nine surety companies post public charge bonds with 
USCIS, we can assume that four surety companies may be considered as 
small entities. However, USCIS cannot predict the exact impact to these 
small entities at this time. We expect that obligors would be able to 
pass along the costs of this rulemaking to the aliens. DHS welcomes any 
public comments or data on the number of small entities that would be 
surety companies likely to post public charge bonds and any direct 
impacts on those small surety companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \863\ See DHS, Procedures and Standards for Declining Surety 
Immigration Bonds and Administrative Appeal Requirement for Breaches 
NPRM, 83 FR 25951, 25962-25965 (June 5, 2018).
    \864\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) Codes, February 26, 2016. https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record.
    In addition to time burden costs discussed in Section C of this 
IFRA, DHS recognizes that a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW beneficiary, for 
whom a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW petitioner (i.e., the employer) 
sought either an extension of stay or a change of status, may have to 
leave the U.S. if the employer's request was denied. In these cases, 
the petitioner may lose the beneficiary as an employee and may incur 
labor turnover costs. A 2012 report published by the Center for 
American Progress surveyed several

[[Page 51276]]

dozen studies that considered both direct and indirect costs and 
determined that turnover costs per employee ranged from 10 to 30 
percent of the salary for most salaried workers.\865\ An employer paid 
an average of about 20 percent of the worker's salary in total labor 
turnover costs. Specifically, for workers earning $50,000 or less, and 
for workers earning $75,000 or less, the average turnover cost was 
about 20 percent for both earning levels. According to the study, these 
earning levels corresponded to the 75th and 90th percentiles of typical 
earnings, respectively. Assuming Form I-129 and Form I-129CW 
beneficiaries are employed, DHS believes it is reasonable to assume an 
annual mean wage of $50,620 across all occupations.\866\ Assuming an 
average labor turnover cost of 20 percent of $50,620, on average, an 
employer could incur costs of approximately $10,124 per beneficiary 
that would be separated from employment as a result of a denied request 
for an extension of stay or change of status. However, DHS does not 
know the number of small entities within this population of petitioners 
that might incur labor turnover costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \865\ See ``There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing 
Employees,'' by Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn (2012), Center 
for American Progress, available: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/.
    \866\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017 National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates, All Occupations, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DHS also recognizes that a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW 
beneficiary, for whom a Form I-129 or Form I-129CW petitioner (i.e., 
the employer) sought either an extension of stay or a change of status 
and the request was denied, may still be able to get a visa and return 
to the U.S., including pursuant to other means. DHS welcomes any public 
comments or data on the impact to the petitioners or employers of Form 
I-129 or Form I-129CW beneficiaries who are denied an extension of stay 
or change of status due to public charge inadmissibility.
    DHS does not believe that it would be necessary for Form I-129 or 
Form I-129CW petitioners, or for surety bond companies (obligors) to 
acquire additional types of professional skills as a result of this 
proposed rule. These petitioners and obligors should already possess 
the expertise to fill out the associated forms for this proposed rule. 
Additionally, these petitioners and obligors would be familiar with the 
proposed rule and such familiarization costs are accounted for the in 
the E.O. 12866 sections.
    5. An identification of all relevant Federal rules, to the extent 
practical, that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed 
rule.
    DHS is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting 
Federal rules, but invites any public comment and information regarding 
any such rules. Elsewhere in the preamble to the proposed rule, DHS 
addresses the relationship between this proposed rule and the standards 
governing alien eligibility for public benefits, as outlined in PRWORA.
    6. Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule 
that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities.
    DHS considered a range of potential alternatives to the proposed 
rule. First, under a ``no action'' alternative, DHS would continue 
administering the public charge ground of inadmissibility under the 
1999 Guidance. For reasons explained more fully elsewhere in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, DHS determined that this alternative 
would not adequately ensure the self-sufficiency of aliens subject to 
the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Second, DHS considered 
including a more expansive definition of ``public benefit,'' 
potentially to include a range of non-cash benefit programs falling in 
specific categories (such as programs that provide assistance for basic 
food and nutrition, housing, and medical care). For reasons explained 
more fully elsewhere in the preamble to the proposed rule, DHS chose 
the approach contained in this proposed rule--a more limited list of 
high-expenditure non-cash benefits. DHS expects that, as compared to 
the broader alternative, the proposed approach may reduce the overall 
effect of the rule on transfers, but enhance its administrability and 
predictability. Employers filing Form I-129 and surety companies would 
have a better understanding of the types of non-cash benefits that may 
be covered under this proposed rule than they would under the broader 
alternative, and may realize cost savings as a result. In addition, 
certain indirect effects of the rule may be different as a result of 
the decision to reject this alternative.

C. Congressional Review Act

    This proposed rule is a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, also 
known as the ``Congressional Review Act,'' as enacted in section 251 of 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public 
Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. Accordingly, this rule, if 
enacted as a final rule, would be effective at least 60 days after the 
date on which Congress receives a report submitted by DHS under the 
Congressional Review Act, or 60 days after the final rule's 
publication, whichever is later.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may directly result in a $100 million or more expenditure 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The 
inflation-adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is approximately $161 
million in 2017 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
Consumers.\867\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \867\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items, 
available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/historical-cpi-u-201712.pdf (last visited Jan. 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The 
requirements of Title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has 
not prepared a statement under UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. DHS does not expect that this proposed rule would 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments, or preempt State law. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under 
Executive

[[Page 51277]]

Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

H. Family Assessment

    DHS has reviewed this proposed rule in line with the requirements 
of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public 
Law 105-277. With respect to the criteria specified in section 
654(c)(1), DHS has determined that the proposed rule may decrease 
disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and 
children, including U.S. citizen children. For the reasons stated 
elsewhere in this preamble, however, DHS has determined that the 
benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family. 
Further, the proposed action would expand the list of public benefits 
that DHS may consider for purposes of inadmissibility under section 
212(a)(4) of the Act. As a result, the proposed regulatory action, if 
finalized, may increase the number of aliens found inadmissible under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act. As described under the Supplementary 
Information section of this rule, DHS has compelling legal and policy 
reasons for the proposed regulatory action, including, but not limited 
to, better ensuring the self-sufficiency of aliens admitted or 
immigrating to the United States, and minimizing the financial burden 
of aliens on the U.S. social safety net.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    DHS analyzes actions to determine whether NEPA applies to them and 
if so what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 
Rev. 01 and Instruction (Inst.) 023-01-001 rev. 01 establish the 
procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 
NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ regulations allow federal 
agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of 
actions (``categorical exclusions'') which experience has shown do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 
1508.4. DHS Instruction 023-01-001 Rev. 01 establishes such Categorical 
Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Inst. 023-01-001 
Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, 
DHS Inst. 023-01-001 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the 
following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within 
one or more of the Categorical Exclusions; (2) the action is not a 
piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist 
that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Inst. 
023-01-001 Rev. 01 section V.B(1)-(3).
    DHS analyzed this action and has concluded that NEPA does not apply 
due to the excessively speculative nature of any effort to conduct an 
impact analysis. Nevertheless, if NEPA did apply to this action, the 
action clearly would come within our categorical exclusion A.3(d) as 
set forth in DHS Inst. 023-01-001 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1.
    This proposed rule applies to applicants for admission or 
adjustment of status, as long as the individual is applying for an 
immigration status that is subject to the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility. In addition, the proposed rule would potentially 
affect individuals applying for an extension of stay or change of 
status because these individuals would have to demonstrate that they 
are neither receiving, nor likely to receive, public benefits as 
defined in the proposed rule. As discussed in detail above, this rule 
proposes to establish a definition of public charge and expand the 
types of public benefits that DHS would consider as part of its public 
charge inadmissibility determinations. The rule also proposes to 
establish a regulatory framework based on the statutory factors that 
must be considered in public charge determinations, including enhanced 
evidentiary requirements for public charge inadmissibility 
determinations by USCIS. Finally, the rule proposes to revise the 
public charge bond process. Overall, the proposed regulatory changes, 
if finalized, would require a more in-depth adjudication of public 
charge issues and have the potential to result in more findings of 
inadmissibility, ineligibility for adjustment of status, or denials of 
requests for extension of stay or change of status, on public charge 
grounds.
    Historically, there is a high demand for both immigrant and 
nonimmigrant visas. Even if larger numbers of aliens were now found to 
be inadmissible on public charge grounds as a result of this rule, 
there may be some replacement effect from others who would, in turn, be 
considered for the existing visas. Therefore, DHS cannot estimate with 
any degree of certainty to what extent the potential for increased 
findings of inadmissibility on public charge grounds would result in 
fewer individuals being admitted to the United States. DHS is also 
unable to estimate with any degree of certainty whether the proposed 
rule would result in increased denial of applications for extension of 
stay or change of status. DHS does not, however, anticipate that this 
proposed rule will cause an increase in the number of individuals found 
to be admissible, or eligible for an extension of stay, or adjustment 
or change of status. Even if DHS could estimate these numerical 
effects, any assessment of derivative environmental effect at the 
national level would remain unduly speculative.
    This rule is not part of a larger action and presents no 
extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant 
environmental effects. Therefore, if NEPA were determined to apply, 
this rule would be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. Table 57 shows the summary 
of forms that are part of this rulemaking.

[[Page 51278]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.086


[[Page 51279]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.087


[[Page 51280]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.088


[[Page 51281]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.089


[[Page 51282]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.090


[[Page 51283]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.091


[[Page 51284]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10OC18.092

USCIS Form I-944
    DHS invites comment on the impact to the proposed collection of 
information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection 
notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments 
regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-NEW in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    Overview of information collection:
    1. Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Declaration of Self-Sufficiency 
and Public Benefits Worksheet.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-944; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
will require an individual applying to adjust status to lawful 
permanent residence (Form I-485) and who is subject to the public 
charge ground of inadmissibility to file Form I-944. On a case by case 
basis, USCIS may request that a nonimmigrant seeking to extend stay or 
change status (Form I-539 or Form I-129) and persons filing USCIS Form 
I-129CW to file Form I-944. The data collected on these forms will be 
used by USCIS to determine the likelihood of a declarant becoming a 
public charge based on the factors regarding health; family status; 
assets, resource, and financial status; and education and skills. The 
forms serve the purpose of standardizing public charge evaluation 
metrics and ensure that declarants provide all essential information 
required for USCIS to assess self-sufficiency and adjudicate the 
declaration. If USCIS determines that a declarant is likely to become a 
public charge, the declarant may need to provide additional resources 
or evidence to overcome this determination.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-944 
is 382,264 and

[[Page 51285]]

the estimated hour burden per response is 4 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,720,188 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $59,931,350.
USCIS Form I-485
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS invites comment on the impact to the proposed collection of 
information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection 
notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments 
regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0023 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-485 and Supplements A and J; 
USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The 
information collected is used to determine eligibility to adjust status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-485 
is 382,264 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6.42 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for information collection 
Supplement A is 36,000 respondents and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for 
information collection Supplement J is 28,309 respondents and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total 
number of respondents for information collection biometrics processing 
is 305,811 respondents and estimated hour burden is 1.17 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 2,885,242 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $131,116,650.
USCIS Forms I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS invites comment on the impact to the proposed collection of 
information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection 
notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments 
regarding the proposed discontinuation of the USCIS Form I-864W 
information collection instrument. The instructions for Form I-864 and 
I-864EZ were modified to remove references to Form I-864W. There are no 
changes to the Form I-864A.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0075 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support Under Section 
213A of the INA; Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member; 
Affidavit of Support under Section 213 of the Act.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
864: USCIS uses the data collected on Form I-864 to determine whether 
the sponsor has the ability to support the sponsored alien under 
section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This form 
standardizes evaluation of a sponsor's ability to support the sponsored 
alien and ensures that basic information required to assess eligibility 
is provided by petitioners.
    Form I-864A: Form I-864A is a contract between the sponsor and the 
sponsor's household members. It is only required if the sponsor used 
income of his or her household members to reach the required 125 
percent of the FPG. The contract holds these household members jointly 
and severally liable for the support of the sponsored immigrant.

[[Page 51286]]

The information collection required on Form I-864A is necessary for 
public benefit agencies to enforce the Affidavit of Support in the 
event the sponsor used income of his or her household members to reach 
the required income level and the public benefit agencies are 
requesting reimbursement from the sponsor.
    Form I-864EZ: USCIS uses Form I-864EZ in exactly the same way as 
Form I-864; however, USCIS collects less information from the sponsors 
as less information is needed from those who qualify in order to make a 
thorough adjudication.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-864 is 
453,345 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
864A is 215,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.75 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection I-864EZ is 100,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 2.5 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 3,347,720 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $135,569,525.
USCIS Form I-912
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. Although this rule does not 
impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the PRA, 
this rule will require non-substantive edits to USCIS Form I-912, 
Request for Fee Waiver. These edits make clear to those who request fee 
waivers that an approved fee waiver can negatively impact eligibility 
for an immigration benefit that is subject to the public charge 
inadmissibility determination. Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a 
Paperwork Reduction Act Change Worksheet, Form OMB 83-C, and amended 
information collection instruments to OMB for review and approval in 
accordance with the PRA.
USCIS Form I-945
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-NEW in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: New Collection; Revision of a 
Currently Approved Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Public Charge Bond.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-945; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. In 
certain instances, a bond can be posted on behalf of the alien to 
guarantee a set of conditions set by the government concerning an 
alien, i.e. that the alien will not become a public charge as defined 
in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(a) because he or she will not receive public 
benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 213.21(b) after the alien's adjustment of 
status to that of a lawful permanent resident. An acceptable surety is 
generally any company listed on the Department of the Treasury's 
Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570) in effect on the 
date the bond is requested or an individual or an entity that deposits 
cash or a cash equivalent, such as a cashier's check or money order for 
the full value of the bond.\868\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \868\ See 8 CFR 103.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection (Enter form 
number) is 960 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 960 hours. (Multiply the burden for each 
submission by the number of respondents.)
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $0 as the company performing the bond 
service receives a fee.
USCIS Form I-356
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-NEW in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:

[[Page 51287]]

    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Cancellation of Public 
Charge Bond.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-356; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Aliens (on whose behalf a public 
charge bond has been posted) or the obligor (surety) (who is the 
obligor who posted a bond on the alien's behalf). The form is used to 
request cancellation of the public charge bond because of the alien's 
naturalization, permanent departure, or death. The form is also used by 
the alien or the obligor to request cancellation of the public charge 
bond upon the fifth anniversary of the alien's admission to the United 
States as a lawful permanent resident.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection (Enter form 
number) is 25 and the estimated hour burden per response is .75 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 18.75 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $6,250.
USCIS Form I-129
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0009 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. USCIS 
uses the data collected on this form to determine eligibility for the 
requested nonimmigrant petition and/or requests to extend or change 
nonimmigrant status. An employer (or agent, where applicable) uses this 
form to petition USCIS for an alien to temporarily enter as a 
nonimmigrant. An employer (or agent, where applicable) also uses this 
form to request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of 
the alien worker. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests 
for nonimmigrant workers, and ensuring that basic information required 
for assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner while 
requesting that beneficiaries be classified under certain nonimmigrant 
employment categories. It also assists USCIS in compiling information 
required by Congress annually to assess effectiveness and utilization 
of certain nonimmigrant classifications.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129 
is 552,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.84 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection E-1/E-2 Classification Supplement to Form I-129 is 4,760 and 
the estimated hour burden per response is 0.67; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection Trade Agreement 
Supplement to Form I-129 is 3,057 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 0.67; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection H Classification Supplement to Form I-129 is 
255,872 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2; the estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection H-1B and H-
1B1 Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement is 243,965 and 
the estimated hour burden per response is 1; the estimated total number 
of respondents for the information collection L Classification 
Supplement to Form I-129 is 37,831 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1.34; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection O and P Classifications Supplement to Form I-129 
is 22,710 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Q-
1 Classification Supplement to Form I-129 is 155 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 0.34; the estimated total number of respondents 
for the information collection R-1 Classification Supplement to Form I-

[[Page 51288]]

129 is 6,635 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.34.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 2,417,609 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $132,368,220.
USCIS Form I-129CW
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies 
to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In 
accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published 
in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the proposed edits 
to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0009 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Form I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-
Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129CW; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. USCIS 
uses the data collected on this form to determine eligibility for the 
requested immigration benefits. An employer uses this form to petition 
USCIS for an alien to temporarily enter as a nonimmigrant into the CNMI 
to perform services or labor as a CNMI-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1). 
An employer also uses this form to request an extension of stay or 
change of status on behalf of the alien worker. The form serves the 
purpose of standardizing requests for these benefits, and ensuring that 
the basic information required to determine eligibility, is provided by 
the petitioners.
    USCIS collects biometrics from aliens present in the CNMI at the 
time of requesting initial grant of CW-1 status. The information is 
used to verify the alien's identity, background information and 
ultimately adjudicate their request for CW-1 status.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129CW 
is 3,749 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.5 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 13,121.5 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $459,253.
USCIS Form I-539
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule.
    DHS invites comment on the impact to the proposed collection of 
information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection 
notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments 
regarding the proposed edits to the information collection instrument.
    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the 
publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must 
include the OMB Control Number 1615-0003 in the body of the letter and 
the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of 
the methods under the ADDRESSES and I. Public Participation section of 
this rule to submit comments. Comments on this information collection 
should address one or more of the following four points:
    1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 
the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Overview of Information Collection
    1. Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change 
Nonimmigrant Status.
    3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-539 and Supplement A; USCIS.
    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form 
will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a 
change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V 
nonimmigrant classification.
    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-539 
is 248,985 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.38 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Supplement A is 54,375 respondents and the estimated hour 
burden per response is .50 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection biometrics processing is

[[Page 51289]]

373,477 and the estimated hour burden is 1.17 hours.
    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,056,740 hours.
    7. An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with 
the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with 
this collection of information is $42,701,050.
USCIS Form I-407
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This rule requires the use 
of USCIS Form I-407 but does not require any changes to the form or 
instructions and does not impact the number of respondents, time or 
cost burden. This form has previously been approved by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB control number(s) for this information 
collection is 1615-0130.

List of Subjects and Regulatory Amendments

8 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

8 CFR Part 212

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 213

    Immigration, Surety bonds.

8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange 
programs, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Students.

8 CFR Part 245

    Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 248

    Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; 
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356, 1365b; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 
U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 
Comp., p.166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112-54.

0
2. Section 103.6 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (c)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  103.6  Surety bonds.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Extension agreements; consent of surety; collateral security. 
All surety bonds posted in immigration cases must be executed on the 
forms designated by DHS, a copy of which, and any rider attached 
thereto, must be furnished to the obligor. DHS is authorized to approve 
a bond, a formal agreement for the extension of liability of surety, a 
request for delivery of collateral security to a duly appointed and 
undischarged administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased 
depositor, and a power of attorney executed on the form designated by 
DHS, if any. All other matters relating to bonds, including a power of 
attorney not executed on the form designated by DHS and a request for 
delivery of collateral security to other than the depositor or his or 
her approved attorney in fact, will be forwarded to the appropriate 
office for approval.
    (2) Bond riders--(i) General. A bond rider must be prepared on the 
form(s) designated by DHS, and submitted with the bond. If a condition 
to be included in a bond is not on the original bond, a rider 
containing the condition must be executed.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Public charge bonds. Special rules for the cancellation of 
public charge bonds are described in 8 CFR 213.1.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Public charge bonds. The threshold bond amount for public 
charge bonds is set forth in 8 CFR 213.1.
    (e) Breach of bond. Breach of public charge bonds is governed by 8 
CFR 213.1. For other immigration bonds, a bond is breached when there 
has been a substantial violation of the stipulated conditions. A final 
determination that a bond has been breached creates a claim in favor of 
the United States which may not be released by the officer. DHS will 
determine whether a bond has been breached. If DHS determines that a 
bond has been breached, it will notify the obligor of the decision, the 
reasons therefor, and inform the obligor of the right to appeal the 
decision in accordance with the provisions of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 103.7 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(LLL) and 
(MMM) to read as follows:


Sec.  103.7  Fees.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (LLL) Public Charge Bond, Form I-945. $25.
    (MMM) Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, Form I-356. 
$25.

PART 212--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; 
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

0
4. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 
1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 
108-458), 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 CFR part 2.

0
5. Add Sec. Sec.  212.20 through 212.24 to read as follows:


Sec.  212.20  Applicability of public charge inadmissibility.

    8 CFR 212.20 through 212.24 address the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Act. Unless the alien 
requesting the immigration benefit or classification has been exempted 
from section 212(a)(4) of the Act as listed in 8 CFR 212.23(a), the 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  212.20 through 212.24 of this part apply to an 
applicant for admission or adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.


Sec.  212.21   Definitions for public charge.

    For the purposes of 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.24, the following 
definitions apply:
    (a) Public Charge. Public charge means an alien who receives one or 
more public benefit, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Public benefit. Public benefit means:
    (1) Any of the following monetizable benefits, where the cumulative 
value of one or more of the listed benefits exceeds 15 percent of the 
Federal

[[Page 51290]]

Poverty Guidelines (FPG) for a household of one within any period of 12 
consecutive months, based on the per-month FPG for the months during 
which the benefits are received.
    (i) Any Federal, State, local, or tribal cash assistance for income 
maintenance, including:
    (A) Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.;
    (B) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 42 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.; or
    (C) Federal, State or local cash benefit programs for income 
maintenance (often called ``General Assistance'' in the State context, 
but which may exist under other names); and
    (ii) Non-cash benefits, monetized as set forth in 8 CFR 212.24:
    (A) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly 
called ``Food Stamps''), 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036c;
    (B) Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher 
Program, as administered by HUD under 24 CFR part 984; 42 U.S.C. 1437f 
and 1437u;
    (C) Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate 
Rehabilitation) under 24 CFR parts 5, 402, 880 through 884 and 886; and
    (2) Any of one or more of the following non-monetizable benefits if 
received for more than 12 months in the aggregate within a 36 month 
period (such that, for instance, receipt of two non-monetizable 
benefits in one month counts as two months):
    (i) Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., except for:
    (A) Benefits paid for an emergency medical condition as described 
in section 1903(v) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1396b(v), 42 CFR 440.255(c);
    (B) Services or benefits funded by Medicaid but provided under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. 1400 et 
seq.;
    (C) School-based benefits provided to children who are at or below 
the oldest age of children eligible for secondary education as 
determined under State law;
    (D) Medicaid benefits received by children of U.S. citizens whose 
lawful admission for permanent residence and subsequent residence in 
the legal and physical custody of their U.S. citizen parent will result 
automatically in the child's acquisition of citizenship or whose lawful 
admission for permanent residence will result automatically in the 
child's acquisition of citizenship upon finalization of adoption in the 
United States by the U.S. citizen parent(s) or, once meeting other 
eligibility criteria as required by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, 
Public Law 106-395 (section 320(a)-(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1431(a)-
(b)), in accordance with 8 CFR part 320;
    (E) Medicaid benefits received by the children of U.S. citizens who 
are entering the United States for the primary purpose of attending an 
interview under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Public Law 106-395 
(section 322 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1433), in accordance with 8 CFR part 
322.
    (ii) Any benefit provided for institutionalization for long-term 
care at government expense;
    (iii) Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Part D, 42 
U.S.C. 1395w-114;
    (iv) Subsidized Housing under the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 
1437 et seq.
    (3) The receipt of a combination of monetizable benefits under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section where the cumulative value of such 
benefits is equal to or less than 15 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines for a household size of one within any period of 12 
consecutive based on the per-month FPG for the months during which the 
benefits are received, together with one or more non-monetizable 
benefits under paragraph (b)(2) of this section if such non-monetizable 
benefits are received for more than 9 months in the aggregate within a 
36 month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two non-
monetizable benefits in one month counts as two months);
    (4) DHS will not consider any benefits, as defined in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section, received by an alien who, at the 
time of receipt, filing, or adjudication, is enlisted in the U.S. armed 
forces under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B) or 10 U.S.C. 
504(b)(2), serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of 
the U.S. Armed Forces, or if received by such an individual's spouse or 
child as defined in section 101(b) of the Act, in the public charge 
inadmissibility determination.
    (c) Likely at any time to become a public charge. Likely at any 
time to become a public charge means likely at any time in the future 
to receive one or more public benefit as defined in paragraph (b) of 
this section based on the totality of the alien's circumstances.
    (d) Alien's household. For purposes of public charge 
inadmissibility determinations under section 212(a)(4) of the Act:
    (1) If the alien is 21 years of age or older, or under the age of 
21 and married, the alien's household includes:
    (i) The alien;
    (ii) The alien's spouse, if physically residing with the alien;
    (iii) The alien's children, as defined in 101(b)(1) of the Act, 
physically residing with the alien;
    (iv) The alien's other children, as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act, not physically residing with the alien for whom the alien 
provides or is required to provide at least 50 percent of the 
children's financial support, as evidenced by a child support order or 
agreement a custody order or agreement, or any other order or agreement 
specifying the amount of financial support to be provided by the alien;
    (v) Any other individuals (including a spouse not physically 
residing with the alien) to whom the alien provides, or is required to 
provide, at least 50 percent of the individual's financial support or 
who are listed as dependents on the alien's federal income tax return; 
and
    (vi) Any individual who provides to the alien at least 50 percent 
of the alien's financial support, or who lists the alien as a dependent 
on his or her federal income tax return.
    (2) If the alien is a child as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the 
Act, the alien's household includes the following individuals:
    (i) The alien;
    (ii) The alien's children as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the 
Act physically residing with the alien;
    (iii) The alien's other children as defined in section 101(b)(1) of 
the Act not physically residing with the alien for whom the alien 
provides or is required to provide at least 50 percent of the 
children's financial support, as evidenced by a child support order or 
agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any other order or 
agreement specifying the amount of financial support to be provided by 
the alien;
    (iv) The alien's parents, legal guardians, or any other individual 
providing or required to provide at least 50 percent of the alien's 
financial support to the alien as evidenced by a child support order or 
agreement, a custody order or agreement, or any other order or 
agreement specifying the amount of financial support to be provided to 
the alien;
    (v) The parents' or legal guardians' other children as defined in 
section 101(b)(1) of the Act physically residing with the alien;
    (vi) The alien's parents' or legal guardians' other children as 
defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act, not physically residing with 
the alien for whom the parent or legal guardian provides or is required 
to provide at least 50 percent of the other children's

[[Page 51291]]

financial support, as evidenced by a child support order or agreement, 
a custody order or agreement, or any other order or agreement 
specifying the amount of financial support to be provided by the 
parents or legal guardians; and
    (vii) Any other individuals to whom the alien's parents or legal 
guardians provide, or are required to provide at least 50 percent of 
the individuals' financial support or who are listed as a dependent on 
the parent's or legal guardian's federal income tax return.


Sec.  212.22  Public Charge inadmissibility determination.

    This section relates to the public charge ground of inadmissibility 
under section 212(a)(4) of the Act.
    (a) Prospective determination based on the totality of 
circumstances. The determination of an alien's likelihood of becoming a 
public charge must be based on the totality of the alien's 
circumstances by weighing all factors that make the alien more or less 
likely at any time in the future to become a public charge, as outlined 
in this section.
    (b) Minimum factors to consider. A public charge inadmissibility 
determination must entail consideration of the alien's age; health; 
family status; education and skills; and assets, resources, and 
financial status, as follows:
    (1) The alien's age--(i) Standard. When considering an alien's age, 
DHS will consider whether the alien is between the age of 18 and the 
minimum ``early retirement age'' for Social Security set forth in 42 
U.S.C. 416(l)(2), and whether the alien's age otherwise makes the alien 
more or less likely to become a public charge, such as by impacting the 
alien's ability to work.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) The alien's health--(i) Standard. DHS will consider whether the 
alien's health makes the alien more or less likely to become a public 
charge, including whether the alien has been diagnosed with a medical 
condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien's ability to 
provide and care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to work upon 
admission or adjustment of status.
    (ii) Evidence. USCIS' consideration includes but is not limited to 
the following:
    (A) A report of an immigration medical examination performed by a 
civil surgeon or panel physician where such examination is required; or
    (B) Evidence of a medical condition that is likely to require 
extensive medical treatment or institutionalization after arrival or 
that will interfere with the alien's ability to provide and care for 
him or herself, to attend school, or to work upon admission or 
adjustment of status.
    (3) The alien's family status--(i) Standard. When considering an 
alien's family status, DHS will consider the alien's household size, as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(d), and whether the alien's household size 
makes the alien more or less likely to become a public charge.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The alien's assets, resources and financial status--(i) 
Standard. When considering an alien's assets, resources, and financial 
status, DHS will consider whether:
    (A) The alien's household's annual gross income is at least 125 
percent of the most recent Federal Poverty Guidelines based on the 
alien's household size as defined by Sec.  212.21(d), or if the alien's 
household's annual gross income is under 125 percent of the recent 
Federal Poverty Guidelines, whether the total value of the alien's 
household assets and resources is at least 5 times the difference 
between the alien's household's gross annual income and the Federal 
Poverty Guideline for the alien's household size;
    (B) The alien has sufficient household assets and resources to 
cover any reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to a medical 
condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien's ability to 
provide care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to work; and
    (C) The alien has any financial liabilities or past receipt of 
public benefits as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b) that make the alien more 
or less likely to become a public charge.
    (ii) Evidence. USCIS' consideration includes but is not limited to 
the following:
    (A) The alien's annual gross household income excluding any income 
from public benefits as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b);
    (B) Any additional income from individuals not included in the 
alien's household who physically reside with the alien and whose income 
will be relied on by the alien to meet the standard at 8 CFR 
212.22(b)(4)(i);
    (C) Any additional income provided to the alien by another person 
or source not included in the alien's household on a continuing monthly 
or yearly basis for the most recent calendar year excluding any income 
from public benefits as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b);
    (D) The household's cash assets and resources, including as 
reflected in checking and savings account statements covering 12 months 
prior to filing the application;
    (E) The household's non-cash assets and resources that can be 
converted into cash within 12 months, such as net cash value of real 
estate holdings minus the sum of all loans secured by a mortgage, trust 
deed, or other lien on the home; annuities; securities; retirement and 
educational accounts; and any other assets that can easily be converted 
into cash;
    (F) Whether the alien has:
    (1) Applied for or received any public benefit, as defined in 8 CFR 
212.21(b), on or after [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE]; or
    (2) Been certified or approved to receive public benefits, as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), on or after [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE];
    (G) Whether the alien has applied for or has received a fee waiver 
for an immigration benefit request on or after [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE];
    (H) The alien's credit history and credit score; and
    (I) Whether the alien has private health insurance or the financial 
resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to a 
medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment 
or institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien's ability 
to provide care for him- or herself, to attend school, or to work;
    (5) The alien's education and skills. (i) Standard. When 
considering an alien's education and skills, DHS will consider whether 
the alien has adequate education and skills to either obtain or 
maintain employment sufficient to avoid becoming a public charge, if 
authorized for employment.
    (ii) Evidence. USCIS' consideration includes but is not limited to 
the following:
    (A) The alien's history of employment;
    (B) Whether the alien has a high school degree (or its equivalent) 
or higher education;
    (C) Whether the alien has any occupational skills, certifications, 
or licenses; and
    (D) Whether the alien is proficient in English or proficient in 
other languages in addition to English.
    (6) The alien's prospective immigration status and expected period 
of admission. (i) Standard. The immigration status that the alien seeks

[[Page 51292]]

and the expected period of admission as it relates to the alien's 
ability to financially support for himself or herself during the 
duration of their stay, including:
    (A) Whether the alien is applying for adjustment of status or 
admission in a nonimmigrant or immigrant classification; and
    (B) If the alien is seeking admission as a nonimmigrant, the 
nonimmigrant classification and the anticipated period of temporary 
stay.
    (ii) [Reserved];
    (7) An affidavit of support, when required under section 212(a)(4) 
of the Act, that meets the requirements of section 213A of the Act and 
8 CFR 213a--(i) Standard. A sufficient affidavit of support must meet 
the sponsorship and income requirements of section 213A of the Act and 
comply with 8 CFR 213a.
    (A) Evidence. USCIS' consideration includes but is not limited to 
the following:
    (1) The sponsor's annual income, assets, and resources;
    (2) The sponsor's relationship to the applicant; and
    (3) The likelihood that the sponsor would actually provide the 
statutorily-required amount of financial support to the alien, and any 
other related considerations.
    (c) Heavily weighed factors. The factors below will generally weigh 
heavily in a public charge inadmissibility determination. The mere 
presence of any one enumerated circumstance is not, alone, 
determinative.
    (1) Heavily weighed negative factors. The following factors will 
generally weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely 
to become a public charge:
    (i) The alien is not a full-time student and is authorized to work, 
but is unable to demonstrate current employment, recent employment 
history or no reasonable prospect of future employment;
    (ii) The alien is currently receiving or is currently certified or 
approved to receive one or more public benefit, as defined in 
212.21(b);
    (iii) The alien has received one or more public benefit, as defined 
in 212.21(b), within the 36 months immediately preceding the alien's 
application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
    (iv)(A) The alien has been diagnosed with a medical condition that 
is likely to require extensive medical treatment or 
institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien's ability to 
provide for him- or herself, attend school, or work; and
    (B) The alien is uninsured and has neither the prospect of 
obtaining private health insurance, or the financial resources to pay 
for reasonably foreseeable medical costs related to a the medical 
condition; or
    (v) The alien had previously been found inadmissible or deportable 
on public charge grounds.
    (2) Heavily weighed positive factors. The following factors will 
generally weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is not 
likely to become a public charge:
    (i) The alien's household has financial assets, resources, and 
support of at least 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a 
household of the alien's household size; or
    (ii) The alien is authorized to work and is currently employed with 
an annual income of at least 250 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines for a household of the alien's household size.
    (d) Benefits received before [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF THE FINAL RULE]. For purposes of this regulation, DHS will consider 
as a negative factor any amount of cash assistance for income 
maintenance, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), State and local cash assistance 
programs that provide benefits for income maintenance (often called 
``General Assistance'' programs), and programs (including Medicaid) 
supporting aliens who are institutionalized for long-term care, 
received, or certified for receipt, before [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], as provided under the 1999 Interim 
Field Guidance, also known as the 1999 Field Guidance on Deportability 
and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. DHS does not consider any 
other public benefits received, or certified for receipt, before such 
date.


Sec.  212.23   Exemptions and waivers for public charge ground of 
inadmissibility.

    (a) Exemptions. The public charge ground of inadmissibility does 
not apply, based on statutory or regulatory authority, to the following 
categories of aliens:
    (1) Refugees at the time of admission under section 207 of the Act 
and at the time of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident 
under section 209 of the Act;
    (2) Asylees at the time of grant under section 208 of the Act and 
at the time of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under 
section 209 of the Act;
    (3) Amerasian immigrants at the time of application for admission 
as described in sections 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1988, Public Law 
100-202, 101 Stat. 1329-183, section 101(e) (Dec. 22, 1987), as 
amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 note;
    (4) Afghan and Iraqi Interpreter, or Afghan or Iraqi national 
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government as described in section 
1059(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 Public Law 109-163 (Jan. 6, 2006), as amended, and section 602(b) 
of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, Public Law 111-8, title VI 
(Mar. 11, 2009), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, and section 1244(g) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as amended 
Public Law 110-181 (Jan. 28, 2008);
    (5) Cuban and Haitian entrants applying for adjustment of status 
under in section 202 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
(IRCA), Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986), as amended, 8 
U.S.C. 1255a note;
    (6) Aliens applying for adjustment of status under the Cuban 
Adjustment Act, Public Law 89-732 (Nov. 2, 1966), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 
1255 note;
    (7) Nicaraguans and other Central Americans applying for adjustment 
of status under sections 202(a) and section 203 of the Nicaraguan 
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Public Law 105-
100, 111 Stat. 2193 (Nov. 19, 1997), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1255 note;
    (8) Haitians applying for adjustment of status under section 902 of 
the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, Public Law 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21, 1998), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1255 note;
    (9) Lautenberg parolees as described in section 599E of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 
of 1990, Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195, title V (Nov. 21, 1989), 
as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1255 note;
    (10) Special immigrant juveniles as described in section 245(h) of 
the Act;
    (11) Aliens who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1972 
and who meet the other conditions for being granted lawful permanent 
residence under section 249 of the Act and 8 CFR part 249 (Registry);
    (12) Aliens applying for or re-registering for Temporary Protected 
Status as described in section 244 of the Act under section 
244(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 CFR 244.3(a);
    (13) A nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(A)(i) and 
(A)(ii) of the

[[Page 51293]]

Act (Ambassador, Public Minister, Career Diplomat or Consular Officer, 
or Immediate Family or Other Foreign Government Official or Employee, 
or Immediate Family), pursuant to section 102 of the Act, and 22 CFR 
41.21(d);
    (14) A nonimmigrant classifiable as C-2 (alien in transit to U.N. 
Headquarters) or C-3 (foreign government official), 22 CFR 41.21(d);
    (15) A nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(G)(i), (G)(ii), 
(G)(iii), and (G)(iv), of the Act (Principal Resident Representative of 
Recognized Foreign Government to International Organization, and 
related categories), pursuant to section 102 of the Act pursuant to 22 
CFR 41.21(d);
    (16) A nonimmigrant classifiable as NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4 
(NATO representatives), and NATO-6 pursuant to 22 CFR 41.21(d);
    (17) A nonimmigrant classified under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the 
Act, in accordance with section 212(d)(13)(A) of the Act;
    (18) An applicant for, or individual who is granted, nonimmigrant 
status under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the Act in accordance with 
section 212(a)(4)(E)(ii) of the Act;
    (19) Nonimmigrants classified under section 101(a)(15)(U) of the 
Act applying for adjustment of status under section 245(m) of the Act 
and 8 CFR 245.24;
    (20) An alien who is a VAWA self-petitioner under section 
212(a)(4)(E)(i) of the Act;
    (21) A qualified alien described in section 431(c) of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 8 
U.S.C. 1641(c), under section 212(a)(4)(E)(iii) of the Act;
    (22) Applicants adjusting status who qualify for a benefit under 
section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 108-
136, 117 Stat. 1392 (Nov. 24, 2003), 8 U.S.C. 1151 note (posthumous 
benefits to surviving spouses, children, and parents);
    (23) American Indians born in Canada determined to fall under 
section 289 of the Act;
    (24) Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians of the Kickapoo Tribe of 
Oklahoma, Public Law 97-429 (Jan. 8, 1983);
    (25) Nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos applying for 
adjustment of status under section 586 of Public Law 106-429 under 8 
CFR 245.21;
    (26) Polish and Hungarian Parolees who were paroled into the United 
States from November 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991 under section 646(b) 
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, Div. C, Title VI, Subtitle D (Sept. 
30, 1996), 8 U.S.C. 1255 note; and
    (27) Any other categories of aliens exempt under any other law from 
the public charge ground of inadmissibility provisions under section 
212(a)(4) of the Act.
    (b) Waiver. A waiver for the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility may be authorized based on statutory or regulatory 
authority, for the following categories of aliens:
    (1) Nonimmigrants who were admitted under section 101(a)(15)(T) of 
the Act applying for adjustment of status under section 245(l)(2)(A) of 
the Act;
    (2) Applicants for admission as nonimmigrants under 101(a)(15)(S) 
of the Act;
    (3) Nonimmigrants admitted under section 101(a)(15)(S) of the Act 
applying for adjustment of status under section 245(j) of the Act 
(witnesses or informants); and
    (4) Any waiver of public charge inadmissibility that is authorized 
under law or regulation.


Sec.  212.24  Valuation of monetizable benefits.

    In determining the cumulative value of one or more monetizable 
benefits listed in 8 CFR 212.21(b)(1)(ii) for purposes of a public 
charge inadmissibility determination under 8 CFR 212.22, DHS will rely 
on benefit-specific methodology as follows:
    (a) With respect to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP, formerly called ``Food Stamps''), 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036c, DHS 
will calculate the value of the benefit attributable to the alien in 
proportion to the total number of people covered by the benefit, based 
on the amount(s) deposited within the applicable period of 12 
consecutive months in which the benefits are received in the Electronic 
Benefits Transfer (EBT) card account;
    (b) With respect to the Section 8 Housing Assistance under the 
Housing Choice Voucher Program, as administered by HUD under 24 CFR 
part 984; 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 1437u, DHS will calculate value of the 
voucher attributable to the alien in proportion to the total number of 
people covered by the benefit, based on the amount(s) within the 
applicable period of 12 consecutive months in which the benefits are 
received;
    (c) With respect to Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance 
(including Moderate Rehabilitation) under 24 CFR parts 5, 402, 880-884 
and 886, DHS will calculate the value of the rental assistance 
attributable to the alien in proportion to the total number of people 
covered by the benefit, based on the amount(s) received within the 
applicable period of 12 consecutive months in which the benefits are 
received; and
    (d) With respect to any cash benefit received by the alien on a 
household (rather than individual) basis, DHS will calculate the value 
of the benefit attributable to the alien in proportion to the total 
number of people covered by the benefit, based on the amount(s) 
received within the applicable period of 12 consecutive months in which 
the benefit is received.

PART 213--PUBLIC CHARGE BONDS

0
6. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103; 1183; 8 CFR part 2.

0
7. Revise the part heading to read as set forth above.
0
8. Revise Sec.  213.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  213.1  Adjustment of status of aliens on submission of a public 
charge bond.

    (a) Inadmissible aliens. In accordance with section 213 of the Act, 
after an alien seeking adjustment of status has been found inadmissible 
as likely to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 
DHS may allow the alien to submit a public charge bond, if the alien is 
otherwise admissible, in accordance with the requirements of 8 CFR 
103.6 and this section. The public charge bond submitted on the alien's 
behalf must meet the conditions set forth in 8 CFR 103.6 and this 
section.
    (b) Discretion. The decision to allow an alien inadmissible under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act to submit a public charge bond is in DHS's 
discretion. If an alien has one or more heavily weighed negative 
factors as defined in 8 CFR 212.22 present in his or her case, DHS 
generally will not favorably exercise discretion to allow submission of 
a public charge bond.
    (c) Public Charge Bonds. (1) Types. DHS may require an alien to 
submit a surety bond, or cash or any cash equivalent, as listed in 8 
CFR 103.6, and agreement, to secure a bond. DHS will notify the alien 
of the type of bond that may be submitted. All bonds, and agreements 
covering cash or cash equivalents, as listed in 8 CFR 103.6, to secure 
a bond, must be executed on a form designated by DHS and in accordance 
with form instructions. When a surety bond is accepted, the bond must 
comply with requirements applicable to surety bonds in 8 CFR 103.6 and 
this section. If cash or a cash equivalent, as listed in 8 CFR 103.6, 
is being provided to secure a bond, DHS

[[Page 51294]]

must issue a receipt on a form designated by DHS.
    (2) Amount. Any public charge bond, or agreements to secure a 
public charge bond on cash or cash equivalents, as listed in 8 CFR 
103.6, must be in an amount decided by DHS, not less than $10,000, 
annually adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for 
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), and rounded up to the nearest dollar. The 
bond amount may not be appealed by the alien or the obligor.
    (d) Conditions of the bond. A public charge bond must remain in 
effect until the alien naturalizes or otherwise obtains U.S. 
citizenship, permanently departs the United States, or dies, the alien 
requests cancellation after 5 years of being a lawful permanent 
resident, the alien changes immigration status to one not subject to 
public charge ground of inadmissibility, and the bond is cancelled in 
accordance with paragraph (g) of this section. An alien on whose behalf 
a public charge bond has been submitted may not receive any public 
benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment 
of status to that of a lawful permanent resident, until the bond is 
cancelled in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section. An alien 
must also comply with any other conditions imposed as part of the bond.
    (e) Submission. A public charge bond may be submitted on the 
alien's behalf only after DHS notifies the alien and the alien's 
representative, if any, that a bond may be submitted. The bond must be 
submitted to DHS in accordance with the instructions of the form 
designated by DHS for this purpose, with the fee prescribed in 8 CFR 
103.7(b), and any procedures contained in the DHS notification to the 
alien. DHS will specify the bond amount and duration, as well as any 
other conditions, as appropriate for the alien and the immigration 
benefit being sought. USCIS will notify the alien and the alien's 
representative, if any, that the bond has been accepted, and will 
provide a copy to the alien and the alien's representative, if any, of 
any communication between the obligor and the U.S. government. An 
obligor must notify DHS within 30 days of any change in the obligor's 
or the alien's physical and mailing address.
    (f) Substitution. A bond not eligible for cancellation under 
paragraph (g) of this section must be substituted prior to the 
expiration of the validity of the bond previously submitted to DHS.
    (1) Substitution Process. Either the obligor of the bond previously 
submitted to DHS or a new obligor may submit a substitute bond on the 
alien's behalf. If the bond previously submitted to DHS is a limited 
duration bond because it expires on a date certain, the substitute bond 
must be submitted no later than 180 days before the bond previously 
submitted to USCIS expires and the substitute bond must be valid and 
effective on or before the day the bond previously submitted to DHS 
expires. If the bond previously submitted to DHS is a bond of unlimited 
duration because it does not bear a specific end date, the substitute 
bond must specify an effective date. The substitute bond must meet all 
of the requirements applicable to the initial bond as required by this 
section and 8 CFR 103.6, and if the obligor is different from the 
original obligor, the new obligor must assume all liabilities of the 
initial obligor. The substitute bond must also cover any breach of the 
bond conditions which occurred before DHS accepted the substitute bond, 
in the event DHS did not learn of the breach until after the expiration 
or cancellation of the bond previously submitted to DHS.
    (2) Acceptance. Upon submission of the substitute bond, DHS will 
review the substitute bond for sufficiency. If the bond on file has not 
yet expired, DHS will cancel the bond previously submitted to DHS, and 
replace it with the substitute bond, provided the substitute bond is 
sufficient. If the substitute bond was submitted before the previously 
submitted bond expired, but is insufficient, DHS will notify the 
obligor of the substitute bond to correct the deficiency within the 
timeframe specified in the notice. If the deficiency is not corrected 
within the timeframe specified, and the previously submitted bond has 
not yet expired, the previously submitted bond will remain in effect.
    (g) Cancellation of the Public Charge Bond. (1) An alien or obligor 
may request that DHS cancel a public charge bond if the alien:
    (i) Naturalized or otherwise obtained United States citizenship;
    (ii) Permanently departed the United States;
    (iii) Died;
    (iv) Reached his or her 5-year anniversary since becoming a lawful 
permanent resident; or
    (v) Obtained a different immigration status not subject to public 
charge inadmissibility, as listed in 8 CFR 212.23, following the grant 
of lawful permanent resident status associated with the public charge 
bond.
    (2) Permanent Departure Defined. For purposes of this section, 
permanent departure means that the alien lost or abandoned his or her 
lawful permanent resident status, whether by operation of law or 
voluntarily, and physically departed the United States. An alien is 
only deemed to have voluntarily lost lawful permanent resident status 
when the alien has submitted a record of abandonment of lawful 
permanent resident status, on the form prescribed by DHS, in accordance 
with the form's instructions.
    (3) Cancellation Request. An alien must request that a public 
charge bond be cancelled by submitting a form designated by DHS, in 
accordance with that form's instructions and the fee prescribed in 8 
CFR 103.7(b). If a request for cancellation of a public charge bond is 
not filed, the bond shall remain in effect until the form is filed, 
reviewed, and a decision is rendered.
    (4) Adjudication and Burden of Proof. The alien and the obligor 
have the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
one of the conditions for cancellation of the public charge bond listed 
in paragraph (g)(1) of this section has been met. If DHS determines 
that the information included in the cancellation request is 
insufficient to determine whether cancellation is appropriate, DHS may 
request additional information as outlined in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8). DHS 
must cancel a public charge bond if DHS determines that the conditions 
of the bond have been met, and that the bond was not breached, in 
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section. For cancellations under 
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, the alien or the obligor must 
establish that the public charge bond has not been breached during the 
5-year period preceding the alien's fifth anniversary of becoming a 
lawful permanent resident.
    (5) Decision. DHS will notify the obligor, the alien, and the 
alien's representative, if any, of its decision regarding the request 
to cancel the public charge bond. When the public charge bond is 
cancelled, the obligor is released from liability. If the public charge 
bond has been secured by a cash deposit or a cash equivalent, DHS will 
refund the cash deposit to the obligor. If DHS denies the request to 
cancel the bond, DHS will notify the obligor and the alien, and the 
alien's representative, if any, of the reasons why, and of the right of 
the obligor to appeal in accordance with the requirements of 8 CFR part 
103, subpart A. An obligor may file a motion pursuant to 8 CFR 103.5 
after an unfavorable decision on appeal. Neither the alien nor the 
alien's representative may appeal a denial to cancel the public charge 
bond or file a motion.
    (h) Breach--(1) Breach and Claim in Favor of the United States. An

[[Page 51295]]

administratively final determination that a bond has been breached 
creates a claim in favor of the United States. Such claim may not be 
released or discharged by an immigration officer. A breach 
determination is administratively final when the time to file an appeal 
with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) pursuant to 8 CFR part 
103, subpart A, has expired or when the appeal is dismissed or 
rejected.
    (2) Breach of Bond Conditions. (i) The conditions of the bond are 
breached if the alien has received public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 
212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful 
permanent resident and before the bond is cancelled under paragraph (g) 
of this section. Public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), 
received during periods while an alien is present in the United States 
in a category that is exempt from the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility, as set forth in 8 CFR 212.23, following the initial 
grant of status as a lawful permanent resident, and public benefits 
received after the alien obtained U.S. citizenship, may not be 
considered when determining whether the conditions of the bond have 
been breached. DHS will not consider any benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 
212.21 (b)(1) through (b)(3), received by an alien who, at the time of 
receipt filing, adjudication or bond breach or cancellation 
determination, is enlisted in the U.S. armed forces under the authority 
of 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B) or 10 U.S.C. 504(b)(2), serving in active 
duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, or if 
received by such an individual's spouse or child as defined in section 
101(b) of the Act.; or
    (ii) The conditions of the bond otherwise imposed by DHS as part of 
the public charge bond are breached.
    (3) Adjudication. DHS will determine whether the conditions of the 
bond have been breached. If DHS determines that it has insufficient 
information from the benefit granting agency to determine whether a 
breach occurred, DHS may request additional information from the 
benefit granting agency. If DHS determines that it has insufficient 
information from the alien or the obligor, it may request additional 
information as outlined in 8 CFR part 103 before making a breach 
determination. If DHS intends to declare a bond breached based on 
information that is not otherwise protected from disclosure to the 
obligor, DHS will disclose such information to the obligor to the 
extent permitted by law, and provide the obligor with an opportunity to 
respond and submit rebuttal evidence, including specifying a deadline 
for a response. DHS will send a copy of this notification to the alien 
and the alien's representative, if any. After the obligor's response, 
or after the specified deadline has passed, DHS will make a breach 
determination.
    (4) Decision. DHS will notify the obligor and the alien, and the 
alien's representative, if any, of the breach determination. If DHS 
determines that a bond has been breached, DHS will inform the obligor 
of the right to appeal in accordance with the requirements of 8 CFR 
part 103, subpart A. The obligor may only file a motion in accordance 
with 8 CFR 103.5 of an unfavorable decision on appeal. The alien or the 
alien's representative, if any, may not appeal the breach determination 
or file a motion.
    (5) Demand for Payment. Demands for amounts due under the terms of 
the bond will be sent to the obligor or any agent/co-obligor after a 
declaration of breach becomes administratively final.
    (6) Amount of Bond Breach and Effect on Bond. The bond must be 
considered breached in the full amount of the bond.
    (i) Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Unless administrative 
appeal is precluded by regulation, a party has not exhausted the 
administrative remedies available with respect to a public charge bond 
under this section until the party has obtained a final decision in an 
administrative appeal under 8 CFR part 103, subpart A.
    (ii) [Reserved]

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
9. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, 
Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 
1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the 
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 
Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 
1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.

0
10. Section 214.1 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(iv),
0
b. Removing the term, ``and'' in paragraph (c)(4)(iii);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4)(iv) as paragraph (c)(4)(v); and
0
d. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4)(iv).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  214.1  Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of 
status.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Except where the nonimmigrant classification for which the 
alien applies, or seeks to extend, is exempt from section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act or that section has been waived, as a condition for approval of 
extension of status, the alien must demonstrate that he or she has not 
received since obtaining the nonimmigrant status he or she seeks to 
extend, is not receiving, nor is likely to receive, a public benefit as 
defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b). For the purposes of this determination, DHS 
will consider such public benefits received on or after [DATE 60 DAYS 
FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]. In assessing whether the 
alien has met his or her burden, DHS will consider the nonimmigrant 
classification the alien is seeking to extend, the reasons for seeking 
the extension of stay and the expected period of stay. For purposes of 
this determination, DHS may require the submission of a declaration of 
self-sufficiency on a form designated by DHS, in accordance with form 
instructions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) As set forth in 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3)(iv), except where the 
alien's nonimmigrant classification is exempted by law from section 
212(a)(4) of the Act, the alien has not received since obtaining the 
nonimmigrant status for which he or she seeks to extend, is not 
currently receiving, nor is likely to receive, public benefits as 
described in in 8 CFR 212.21(b). For the purposes of this 
determination, DHS will consider public benefits received on or after 
[DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]; and
* * * * *

PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF A PERSON ADMITTED FOR 
PERMANENT RESIDENCE

0
11. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; Pub. L. 105-100, 
section 202, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; Pub. L. 105-277, section 902, 112 
Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 110-229, tit. VII, 122 Stat. 754; 8 CFR part 2.
0
12. Section 245.4 is amended by redesignating the undesignated text as 
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  245.4   Documentary requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) For purposes of public charge determinations under section 
212(a)(4) of the Act and 8 CFR 212.22, an alien who is seeking 
adjustment of status under this part must submit a declaration of self-
sufficiency on a form designated by DHS, in accordance with form 
instructions.

[[Page 51296]]

PART 248--CHANGE OF NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION

0
13. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1258; 8 CFR part 2.

0
14. Section 248.1 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c) through 
(f), respectively; and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (b); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  248.1  Eligibility.

    (a) General. Except for those classes enumerated in Sec.  248.2 of 
this part, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant, including an alien who acquired such status in accordance 
with section 247 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1257, who is continuing to 
maintain his or her nonimmigrant status, may apply to have his or her 
nonimmigrant classification changed to any nonimmigrant classification 
other than that of a spouse or fiance(e), or the child of such alien, 
under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K), or as 
an alien in transit under section 101(a)(15)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(C). Except where the nonimmigrant classification to which 
the alien seeks to change is exempted by law from section 212(a)(4) of 
the Act, as a condition for approval of a change of nonimmigrant 
status, the alien must demonstrate that he or she has not received 
since obtaining the nonimmigrant status from which he or she seeks to 
change, is not currently receiving, nor is likely to receive, public 
benefits as described in 8 CFR 212.21(b). DHS will consider public 
benefits received on or after [DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE]. An alien defined by section 101(a)(15)(V), or 
101(a)(15)(U) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(V) or 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(U), may be accorded nonimmigrant status in the United 
States by following the procedures set forth in 8 CFR 214.15(f) and 
214.14, respectively.
    (b) Decision in change of status proceedings. Where an applicant or 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for a requested change of status, 
it may be granted at the discretion of DHS. There is no appeal from the 
denial of an application for change of status.
    (c) * * *
    (4) As a condition for approval, an alien seeking to change 
nonimmigrant classification must demonstrate that he or she has not 
received since obtaining the nonimmigrant status from which he or she 
seeks to change, is not receiving, nor is likely to receive, a public 
benefit as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b). For purposes of this 
determination, DHS will consider such benefits received on or after 
[DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]. In assessing 
whether the alien has met his or her burden, DHS will consider the 
prospective nonimmigrant classification, the reasons for seeking the 
change of status, and the expected period of stay. DHS may require the 
submission of a declaration of self-sufficiency on a form designated by 
DHS, in accordance with form instructions. This provision does not 
apply to classes of nonimmigrants who are explicitly exempt by law from 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act.
* * * * *

Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21106 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-10-P