Immigrant Visa Applicants May Face Questions on Housing, Employment and Insurance
A new U.S. public charge rule is set to take effect Sept. 18, giving immigration officers broader discretion to evaluate whether certain applicants are likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance.
At the same time, the U.S. Department of State has been emphasizing public charge screening for immigrant visa applicants. A questionnaire issued by the U.S. Embassy in France outlines topics applicants may be asked about during their immigrant visa interviews, including where they will live, how they plan to support themselves financially, what work they intend to do and whether they have health insurance.
The questionnaire does not say that every applicant will be asked every question. Instead, it identifies areas that may be discussed as consular officers assess whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge.
Immigrant visa applicants may be asked where they plan to live in the United States and should be prepared to provide a specific address if one is available.
Applicants who have not yet secured housing may be asked how they plan to find a place to live after arriving in the United States. They may also be asked who else will live with them.
Adult applicants may be asked what type of work they plan to do in the United States and what education, training or work experience they have for that career.
If additional training, licenses or certifications are required, applicants may be asked who will financially support them and accompanying family members while they complete those requirements.
Applicants who have already started looking for work may be asked to describe their job-search efforts. They may also be asked how much they expect to earn during their first year in the United States.
Health insurance is another area applicants may be asked about for themselves and each family member accompanying them to the United States.
Applicants may be asked whether they currently have health insurance that will cover them and their dependents in the United States. They may also be asked whether they and their accompanying family members can be added to an existing health insurance plan held by a family member.
If applicants do not already have coverage, they may be asked for detailed information about potential health insurance plans, including the specific monthly premium.
Under the DHS rule taking effect Sept. 18, USCIS officers will have greater flexibility to consider relevant information when making public charge determinations.
The 2022 rule defined a public charge primarily through receipt of certain cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. The new rule rescinds that regulatory framework and directs officers back to the statutory factors in Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills. Officers are directed to consider the totality of the circumstances.
The change also means that the receipt of certain means-tested public benefits can be considered under the broader assessment. The 2026 rule removes the 2022 regulatory framework that excluded many such benefits from consideration.
New York-based immigration attorney Keshab Raj Seadie said the rule does not replace the 2022 framework with another detailed test. Instead, he said, officers will rely more directly on the statutory factors and evaluate an applicant’s circumstances as a whole.
USCIS issued implementing guidance in its Policy Manual on Aug. 18, with the updated guidance taking effect Sept. 18.
Seadie also noted that the rule applies to applications for admission made on or after Sept. 18 and to Form I-485 applications postmarked or electronically submitted on or after that date. Benefits received before Sept. 18 are to be evaluated under the 2022 framework.
A new edition of Form I-485 is also required for filings beginning Sept. 18, according to Seadie. Applicants preparing adjustment-of-status filings should check the current USCIS form edition and filing instructions before submitting an application.
Seadie said another issue that could receive attention is how benefits received by family members are treated.
The DHS rule generally addresses whether benefits received by a household member are attributable to the applicant under the public charge analysis. The treatment can depend on who is applying for an immigration benefit and the circumstances of the household.
Because the rule is new, Seadie said questions about how benefits received by U.S. citizen or other family members will be treated could become the subject of further litigation.
The DHS rule governing USCIS public charge determinations is separate from the State Department’s process for immigrant visa applicants at U.S. embassies and consulates.
The State Department’s Feb. 26 guidance says consular officers may consider an applicant’s overall circumstances, including age, health, family status, financial status, education and skills, as well as current or past use of U.S. public benefits.
Seadie said the housing, employment and health insurance questions in the Paris questionnaire are part of this separate State Department process and are not created by the DHS rule taking effect Sept. 18.
For immigrant visa applicants, the State Department also has procedures under which a consular officer may require an applicant found inadmissible on public charge grounds to obtain a public charge bond through USCIS. The bond can provide a mechanism for certain applicants to overcome a public charge inadmissibility determination if the applicable requirements are met.
The new DHS rule is already facing legal challenges.
On Sept. 14, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 21 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A separate lawsuit was filed the same day by New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Seattle, King County, Washington, and the Public Rights Project.
The state coalition argues that the rule exceeds DHS’s statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The city-led lawsuit likewise asks the court to block the rule. Those are allegations by the plaintiffs, not findings by the court.
Seadie said the lawsuits could seek a stay or other court-ordered relief before the rule takes effect. As of Sept. 17, however, the rule remains scheduled to take effect Sept. 18.
Seadie said applicants who are ready to file an adjustment-of-status application should be aware of the Sept. 18 effective date and the requirement to use the appropriate Form I-485 edition. The rule itself, however, determines which filings fall under the old or new framework based on the postmark or electronic submission date.