# Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2025-20278 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** November 19, 2025 - **Citation:** 90 FR 52168 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 103 and 212 [CIS No. 2836-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0304] RIN 1615-AD06 Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: DHS proposes to rescind the 2022 public charge ground of inadmissibility regulations. The 2022 regulations are not the best implementation of the statute, inconsistent with congressional intent, unduly restrictive, and hamper DHS's ability to make accurate, precise, and reliable determinations of whether certain aliens are likely at any time to become a public charge. Rescission would restore broader discretion to evaluate all pertinent facts and align with long-standing policy that aliens in the United States should be self-reliant and government benefits should not incentivize immigration. DHS also proposes to address the breach and cancellation of public charge bonds. DATES: NPRM comment period: Written comments on the NPRM must be submitted on or before December 19, 2025. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight eastern time at the end of that day. Information collection comment period: Comments on the information collection described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below must be received by January 20, 2026. ADDRESSES: Comments on the NPRM: You may submit comments on this NPRM, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0304, through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), the summary of this rule found above may also be found at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the website instructions for submitting comments. Comments on the Information Collection: Submit comments on the information collections to the same docket as the NPRM. In addition, all comments on the information collections must include the following OMB Control Numbers: Form I-485 (1615-0023), Form I-945 (1615-0143), and Form I-356 (1615-0141). Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments submitted in a manner other than via http://www.regulations.gov, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the NPRM and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using http://www.regulations.gov, please contact Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation II. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of Legal Authority C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action D. Costs and Benefits III. Background A. Legal Authority B. Grounds of Inadmissibility Generally C. Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility 1. Public Charge Statutes and Case Law, Pre-IIRIRA 2. Public Benefits Under PRWORA 3. Changes Under IIRIRA 4. INS 1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Interim Field Guidance 5. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 6. DHS 2018 Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 2019 Final Rule 7. DHS 2022 Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Final Rule IV. Basis and Purpose of the NPRM A. The Prior Rules Were Overly Restrictive B. Removal of the Existing Public Charge Inadmissibility Framework V. Discussion of the NPRM A. Introduction B. Discussion of the Amendments and Removals in the NPRM 1. Cancellation and Breach of Public Charge Bonds—8 CFR 103.6(c) 2. Proposed Removal of Definitions and Regulatory Framework for Making Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations—8 CFR 212.21 3. Removal of Regulations Outlining the Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination—8 CFR 212.22 4. Exemptions and Waivers for Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility—8 CFR 212.23 5. Applicability of Public Charge Inadmissibility—8 CFR 212.20 VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) 1. Summary 2. Background and Purpose 3. Population 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) F. Family Assessment G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) H. National Environmental Policy Act I. Paperwork Reduction Act Table of Abbreviations ANPRM—Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking APA—Administrative Procedure Act ASC—Application Support Center BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals CBP—U.S. Customs and Border Protection CFR—Code of Federal Regulations CHIP—Children's Health Insurance Program COVID-19—Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPI-U—Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland Security DOJ—Department of Justice DOS—U.S. Department of State E.O.—Executive Order FAM—Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual FFP—Federal Financial Participation FMAP—Federal Medical Assistance Percentages FR—Federal Register FY—Fiscal Year HCV—Housing Choice Voucher HHS—U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HSA—Homeland Security Act HUD—U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development IIRIRA—Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 INA—Immigration and Nationality Act INS—Immigration and Naturalization Service IRCA—Immigration Reform and Control Act LPR—Lawful Permanent Resident NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OMB—Office of Management and Budget PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act PRWORA—Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SSA—Social Security Administration SSI—Supplemental Security Income TANF—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TPS—Temporary Protected Status UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture I. Public Participation DHS invites all interested parties 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, 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 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 support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0304 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 and Security Notice available at 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-2025-0304. 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. II. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to remove the current public charge inadmissibility provisions promulgated by the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility final rule (2022 Final Rule), 1 as these provisions straitjacket DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that are consistent with Congress's express national policy on welfare and immigration enacted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). See Public Law 104-193, section 400, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601). The 2022 Final Rule imposes narrow definitions of statutory terms and the statutory minimum factors and limits the public benefits that DHS can consider in a public charge inadmissibility determination, which prevents DHS officers from considering all factors and information relevant to an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge, as Congress intended. Indeed, the 2022 Final Rule created a framework under which officers were directed to consider seven factors (five of those required by statute) rather than being explicitly empowered to consider any other factors or information relevant to determining an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge in the totality of the alien's circumstances. 2 Compare that to the 2019 Final Rule, in which officers were directed to consider “all factors that are relevant” and listed “minimum factors to consider,” stating that the public charge inadmissibility determination “must at least entail consideration” of those minimum factors. 8 CFR 212.22 (2019). 1 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). 2 For example, when considering the challenge to the 2019 Final Rule, the Fourth Circuit emphasized that the language in the provision indicates that the executive has extensive and ultimate discretion over the relevant determination, especially since Congress embedded discretion into the statutory scheme such as by identifying minimum, but not exclusive, factors for consideration. See CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, 971 F.3d 220, 242-244 (4th Cir. 2020) (request for rehearing en banc granted but case was dismissed). DHS believes that this rescission will be more consistent with Congressional intent as it would restore ultimate discretion for officers to consider not just the minimum statutory factors but also any other information the officer deems relevant to a public charge inadmissibility determination. DHS intends to remove the regulatory provisions in the 2022 Final Rule with the exception of certain public charge bond provisions and technical corrections, which will pave the way for DHS to, in the future, formulate appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide DHS officers in making individualized, fact-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations, based on a totality of the alien's circumstances, that are consistent with the statute and congressional intent, and comply with past precedent. 3 3 See Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (BIA 1977) (“The elements constituting likelihood of an alien becoming a public charge are varied. They are not defined by statute, but rather are determined administratively upon consideration of all the factors bearing on the alien's ability or potential ability to be self-supporting.” ) (emphasis added); Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 588 (BIA 1974) (“Since the elements constituting likelihood of becoming a public charge are varied, there should be no attempt to define the term in the law, but rather to establish the specific qualification that the determination of whether an alien falls into that category rests within the discretion of the consular officers or the Commissioner.”). DHS notes that while it is proposing to remove the public charge inadmissibility regulations in the short-term, DHS intends, after the removal of these regulations, to formulate appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide public charge inadmissibility determinations while empowering officers to consider: (1) the mandatory statutory factors in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B); (2) all individualized case-specific factors and circumstances relevant to an alien's case; and (3) any empirical data relevant to an alien's self-sufficiency. Consideration of these, in the totality of the circumstances, will allow officers to more accurately assess an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge using their good judgment and discretion, as Congress intended. Consequently, through this NPRM, DHS proposes to move away from a bright line primary dependence standard, which would allow officers to make public charge inadmissibility determinations consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A) and reflected in established administrative case law prior to the 2022 Final Rule, and removing limitations on the types of public resources that are relevant for considering whether an alien is dependent, including the references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. DHS welcomes feedback and recommendations on what to include in future policy and interpretive tools on public charge inadmissibility. B. Summary of Legal Authority The authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) for the proposed rescissions and regulatory amendments is found in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), which governs public charge inadmissibility determinations; section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, which addresses applicants for admission; and section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, which addresses eligibility criteria for applications for adjustment of status. In addition, section 103(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3), authorizes the Secretary to establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out the Secretary's authority under the INA. C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action DHS proposes the following changes: • Amend 8 CFR 103.6(c), Cancellation and breach • Remove 8 CFR 212.20, Applicability of public charge inadmissibility • Remove 8 CFR 212.21, Definitions • Remove 8 CFR 212.22, Public charge inadmissibility determination • Remove 8 CFR 212.23, Exemptions and waivers for public charge ground of inadmissibility D. Costs and Benefits DHS proposes to remove most provisions implemented in the 2022 Final Rule to allow DHS to better implement the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The proposed rule is expected to impose new benefits and transfers. To assess the impacts of the proposed rule, DHS considers the potential impacts of the rule relative to a no-action baseline, which reflects the current state of the world absent this regulatory action. The primary source of unquantified benefits of this proposed rule is the removal of overly-restrictive provisions promulgated in the 2022 Final Rule that hinder officers in making public charge inadmissibility determinations. By removing rigid regulatory definitions and standards, this proposed rule would ensure that officers would be able to make highly individualized, fact-specific, case-by-case public charge inadmissibility decisions based on the totality of each alien's individual circumstances. This approach would prevent the application of overly restrictive criteria that unnecessarily limits DHS officers' ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations. 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 forgo enrollment in a public benefits program. Individuals who might choose to disenroll from or forgo future enrollment in a public benefits program include aliens as well as U.S. citizens who are members of mixed-status households. DHS estimates that the total reduction in transfer payments from the Federal and State governments could be approximately $8.97 billion annually due to disenrollment or forgone enrollment in public benefits programs by members of households that include aliens who may be receiving public benefits. DHS estimates that the 10-year discounted Federal and State transfer payments reduction of this proposed rule could be approximately $76.48 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $62.97 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. This total includes DHS' estimate that Federal transfer payments could decrease by approximately $45.12 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $37.15 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. Using the average Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), DHS further estimates that State transfer payments could decrease by approximately $31.35 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $25.82 billion at a 7-percent discount rate. DHS notes there may be additional reductions in transfer payments that we are unable to quantify. DHS also recognizes that the estimated reductions in transfer payments are approximations and could be influenced by external factors unrelated to this proposed rule. For example, the recent enrollment changes to Medicaid and SNAP implemented in the H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill are expected to impact enrollment rates, adding complexity to quantification efforts. 4 DHS anticipates that disenrollment or forgone enrollment rates may fluctuate independently of this proposed rule, potentially affecting the transfer payment estimates presented in this analysis. However, it is too early to assess the impact of these policies on public benefit usage, and consequently, on the impact on overall estimates presented in this analysis. 4 See H.R. 1 Reconciliation Bill, e.g., secs. 10108 (SNAP Eligibility); 71109 (Alien Medicaid Eligibility); Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025). Finally, DHS recognizes that reductions in Federal and State transfers under Federal benefits 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, such as hospitals and nonprofits, participating in Medicaid, 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. Table II.1 provides a detailed summary of the regulatory changes of the proposed rule and the estimated costs, benefits, and transfers associated with the expected impacts. 5 5 For a complete summary of regulatory changes and additional guidance in this proposed rule, please see Section V. “Discussion of the NPRM.” BILLING CODE 9111-97-P EP19NO25.012 EP19NO25.013 EP19NO25.014 BILLING CODE 9111-97-C III. Background A. Legal Authority The Secretary's authority for issuing this rule is found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ), and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). 6 Section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. Section 101 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 111, establishes that part of DHS's primary mission is to ensure that efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland do not diminish either the overall economic security of the United States or the civil rights and civil liberties of persons. 6 See Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (Nov. 25, 2002). In addition to establishing the Secretary's general authority for the administration and enforcement of immigration laws, section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, enumerates various related authorities, including the Secretary's authority to establish such regulations, prescribe such forms of bond, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority. Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), provides that any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. In general, under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has the discretion to admit into the United States an alien who is determined to be inadmissible based only on the public charge ground upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary. Under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, certain aliens are required to submit a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA executed by a sponsor who agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable. The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA is intended to ensure that an intending immigrant has adequate means of financial support and is not likely to rely on the U.S. government for financial support. Section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, addresses the inspection of applicants for admission, including inadmissibility determinations of such aliens. Section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, generally establishes eligibility criteria for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR). B. Grounds of Inadmissibility Generally The United States has a long history of permitting aliens to enter the United States, whether permanently or on a temporary basis. At the same time, Congress has sought to exclude aliens who pose a threat to the safety or general welfare of the country or who seek to violate immigration laws. 7 7 See Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 787 (1977) (The Supreme Court has “long recognized [that] the power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control”). Congress has exercised this authority in part by establishing the concepts of admission 8 and inadmissibility in the INA. 9 Aliens are inadmissible due to a range of acts, conditions, and conduct. 10 If an alien is inadmissible as described in section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), that alien is ineligible to be admitted to the United States and ineligible to receive a visa, unless they apply for and receive a waiver of inadmissibility or other form of relief. Congress has extended the applicability of the inadmissibility grounds beyond the context of applications for admission and visas by making admissibility an eligibility requirement for certain immigration benefits, including adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 11 If an alien is inadmissible, that alien is also ineligible for those benefits unless the alien is eligible to apply for and is granted a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility or other form of relief to overcome the inadmissibility, where available and appropriate. 12 8 Admission is defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A). 9 See INA sec. 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). 10 Id. 11 For example, adjustment of status. See INA sec. 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2). 12 See, e.g., INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v); INA sec. 212(h), 8 U.S.C. 1182(h); INA sec. 212(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(i); INA sec. 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii); see also USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 9, Waivers, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-9. 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. Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), states that any alien who applies for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if in the opinion of the consular officer or immigration officer, as applicable, the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies to aliens applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily or permanently, for admission at or between ports of entry, and for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 13 Under the statute, some categories of aliens are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, while others, if found inadmissible under the public charge ground, may apply for a waiver of the public charge ground of inadmissibility or submit a public charge bond. 14 13 See INA sec. 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Three different agencies are responsible for applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility, each in a different context or contexts. DHS primarily applies the public charge ground of inadmissibility to applicants for admission at or between ports of entry and when adjudicating certain applications for adjustment of status. DOS consular officers are responsible for applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility as part of the visa application process and for determining whether a visa applicant is ineligible for a visa on public charge grounds at the time of application for a visa. This rule does not revise DOS standards or processes. DOJ is responsible for applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility with respect to aliens in immigration court. Immigration Judges adjudicate matters in removal proceedings, and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and, in some cases, the Attorney General, adjudicate appeals arising from such proceedings. This rule does not revise DOJ standards or processes. 14 See INA sec. 245(j), 8 U.S.C. 1255(j). See 8 CFR 245.11. See INA sec. 245(d)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1255(d)(2)(B). See INA sec. 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A). See INA sec. 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. See 8 CFR 213.1. The INA does not define the terms “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.” However, it does specify that when determining whether 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. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(i). Additionally, section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii), permits the consular officer or the immigration officer to consider any Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA submitted on the alien's behalf, when determining whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. 15 In fact, with very limited exceptions, most aliens seeking family-based immigrant visas and adjustment of status, and to a lesser extent, some aliens seeking employment-based immigrant visas or adjustment of status, must submit a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA in order to avoid being found inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D). In general, under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has the discretion to admit into the United States an alien who is determined to be inadmissible only on the public charge ground upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Secretary. See INA sec. 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. 15 See INA sec. 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 or Form I-864EZ). 1. Public Charge Statutes and Case Law, Pre-IIRIRA The United States has denied admission to aliens on public charge grounds since at least 1882. 16 The 1882 law excluded “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge” but notably the 1882 law did not provide any definition of a “public charge” or any guidelines for determining who would become one. 17 The Immigration Act of 1891 completed the federalization of immigration regulation and retained the exclusion of “paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.” 18 In 1903 Congress added “professional beggars” to the class of exclusion, 19 a 1907 law added those with certain mental or physical defects “which may affect the ability of such an alien to earn a living,” 20 and a 1917 law added “vagrants” to the public charge provision. 21 This version of the public charge provision remained substantively unchanged until it was incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 16 See Immigration Act of 1882, ch. 376, secs. 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 their 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. See also, e.g., Immigration Act of 1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084, 1084; Immigration Act of 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, 899; Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, sec. 3, 39 Stat. 874, 876; INA of 1952, ch. 477, sec. 212(a)(15), 66 Stat. 163, 183; Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Public Law 104-208, sec. 531(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-674-75 (1996); Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law 113-4, 127 Stat. 54. 17 See Act of August 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 214. 18 See Act of March 3, 1891, ch. 551, 26 Stat. 1084, 1084. 19 See Act of February 14, 1903, 32 Stat. 825. 20 See Act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, 899. 21 See Act of February 5, 1917, ch. 29, sec. 3, 39 Stat. 874, 876; INA of 1952, ch. 477, sec. 212(a)(15), 66 Stat. 163, 183. While the INA of 1952 left the public charge ground of inadmissibility unchanged, it added language explicitly emphasizing officers' discretionary authority in determining an alien's likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. 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, were likely at any time to become public charges. 22 The government has long interpreted the words “in the opinion of” as evincing the inherently discretionary nature of the determination. 23 The determination is also necessarily subjective due to its prospective nature. A series of administrative decisions after the passage of the INA of 1952 clarified that a totality of the circumstances review was the proper framework for making public charge determinations and that receipt of public benefits would not, alone, lead to a finding of likelihood of becoming a public charge. 24 22 See INA of 1952, ch. 477, sec. 212(a)(15), 66 Stat. 163, 183. 23 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)); see also Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421 (BIA 1962; Att'y Gen. 1964) (“[U]nder the statutory language the question for visa purposes seems to depend entirely on the consular officer's subjective opinion.”). 24 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.” 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-23 (BIA 1962; Att'y Gen. 1964) (emphasis added). 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.” 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974). As stated in Matter of Harutunian, 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. 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589 (Reg'l Comm'r 1974). The totality of the circumstances framework for 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 adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident to certain aliens who had resided in the United States continuously prior to January 1, 1982. 25 No changes were made to the language of the public charge exclusion ground under former section 212(a)(15) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(15), but IRCA contained special public charge rules for aliens seeking legalization under section 245A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255a. Although IRCA provided otherwise eligible aliens an exemption or waiver for some grounds of excludability, the aliens generally remained subject to the public charge ground of exclusion. See INA sec. 245A(d)(2)(B)(ii)(IV), 8 U.S.C. 1255a(d)(2)(B)(ii)(IV). Under IRCA, however, if an alien demonstrated a history of self-support through employment and without receiving public cash assistance, they would not be ineligible for adjustment of status based on being inadmissible on the public charge ground. See INA sec. 245A(d)(2)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1255a(d)(2)(B)(iii). In addition, IRCA contained a discretionary waiver of public charge inadmissibility for aliens who were “aged, blind or disabled” as defined in section 1614(a)(1) of the Social Security Act who applied for lawful permanent resident status under IRCA and were determined to be inadmissible based on the public charge ground. 26 The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) promulgated 8 CFR 245a.3, 27 which established that immigration officers would make public charge inadmissibility determinations for aliens seeking legalization under section 245A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255a by examining the “totality of the alien's circumstances at the time of his or her application for legalization.” See 8 CFR 245a.3(g)(4)(i). 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. Id. Further, the regulation provided that the determination is a “prospective evaluation based on the alien's age, health, income, and vocation.” Id. A special provision in the rule stated that aliens with incomes below the poverty level were not excludable if they were consistently employed and show the ability to support themselves. Id. Finally, an alien's past receipt of public cash assistance would be a significant factor in a context that also considered the alien's consistent past employment. Id. 25 See IRCA of 1986, Public Law 99-603, sec. 201, 100 Stat. 3359, 3394. 26 See INA sec. 245A(d)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1255a(d)(2)(B)(ii); see also 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(1). This discretionary waiver applies only to IRCA legalization and not to adjustment of status under INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). 27 See “Adjustment of Status for Certain Aliens,” 54 FR 29442 (July 12, 1989). This regulation does not apply to adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255, or to applications for admission with CBP. It is limited to adjustment from temporary to permanent resident status under the legalization provisions of IRCA. In Matter of A-, INS again pursued a totality of the circumstances approach in public charge determinations for applicants for legalization. “Even though the test is prospective,” INS “considered evidence of receipt of prior public assistance as a factor in making public charge determinations.” 28 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. 29 These administrative practices surrounding public charge inadmissibility determinations began to crystallize into legislative changes in the 1990s. 28 Id. 29 See 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988). The Immigration Act of 1990 reorganized section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), and redesignated the public charge provision as section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). 30 In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) added to section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), the mandatory statutory factors and the enforceable affidavit of support. Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat 3009-546. Also in 1996, in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which is commonly known as the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress stated that aliens generally should not depend on public resources and that the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States. See Public Law 104-193, section 400, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601). Congress also created section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and made a sponsor's Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA for an alien beneficiary legally enforceable. 31 The Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA provides a mechanism for public benefit granting agencies to seek reimbursement in the event a sponsored alien received means-tested public benefits. See INA sec. 213A(b), 8 U.S.C. 1183a(b). 30 See Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, sec. 601(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5072. In 1990, Congress reorganized INA sec. 212(a), redesignating the public charge provision as INA sec. 212(a)(4). 31 See Public Law 104-193, section 423, 110 Stat. 2105, 2271 (codified at INA sec. 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a). The provision was further amended with the passage of IIRIRA. 2. Public Benefits Under PRWORA PRWORA significantly restricted alien eligibility for many Federal, State, and local public benefits. See 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646. When Congress enacted PRWORA, it set forth a self-sufficiency policy statement that aliens should be able to financially support themselves with their own resources or by relying on the aid of family members, sponsors, and private organizations, without depending on government assistance. See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2). Although not defined in PRWORA, in context, self-sufficiency is tied to an alien's ability to meet their needs without depending on public resources. Id. With certain exceptions, Congress defined the term “Federal public benefit” broadly as: (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. 32 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.” See Public Law 104-193, tit. IV, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260-77. 32 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). Among the exceptions established by Congress allowing for eligibility for all aliens are provision of medical assistance for the treatment of an emergency medical condition; 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. 33 33 See 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1). See 66 FR 3613 (Jan. 16, 2001); see also 62 FR 61344 (Nov. 17, 1997). PRWORA identified three types of benefits and related eligibility rules. First, there are “specified Federal programs,” for which even “qualified aliens” are generally not eligible. 8 U.S.C. 1612(a). Second, there are “Federal means-tested public benefits,” for which “qualified aliens” are generally eligible after a 5-year waiting period. 8 U.S.C. 1613(a). And finally, there are “designated federal programs,” for which States are allowed to determine whether and when a “qualified alien” is eligible, subject to certain restrictions. 8 U.S.C. 1612(b). Subsequent legislation has added additional categories of aliens, many with humanitarian statuses, to PRWORA's various exceptions and special provisions in order to meet the needs of those vulnerable populations. The following is a list of immigration categories that are “qualified aliens” under PRWORA, who, as noted above and subject to certain exceptions, are generally eligible for Federal public benefits after 5 years: • An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(1). • An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(2). • A refugee who is admitted to the United States under section 207 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(3). • An alien who is paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d), for a period of at least 1 year. 34 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(4). 34 Aliens who have been paroled have not been admitted. See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B); see also INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). • An alien whose deportation is being withheld under section 243(h) 35 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1253, or section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), as amended. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(5). 35 As in effect immediately before the effective date of section 307 of division C of Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546. • An alien who is granted conditional entry under section 203(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7), as in effect before April 1, 1980. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(6). • An alien who is a Cuban and Haitian entrant as defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980. 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(7). • An individual who lawfully resides in the United States in accordance with the Compacts of Free Association between the Government of the United States and the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau referred to in 8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(2)(G) (but only with respect to Medicaid). 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(8). • An alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or a parent or by a member of the spouse or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented to, or acquiesced in, such battery or cruelty but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending that sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(1). • An alien whose child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or a parent of the alien (without active participation by the alien in such battery or cruelty), or by a member of the spouse or parent's family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented to, or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty (and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty), but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending which sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(2). • An alien child who resides in the same household as a parent who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by that parent's spouse or by a member of the spouse's family residing in the same household as the parent, and the spouse consented to, or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, but only if (in the opinion of the agency providing such benefits) there is a substantial connection between such battery or cruelty and the need for the benefits to be provided, and the alien has been approved or has a petition pending which sets forth a prima facie case for status under section 204(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or classification pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), or suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(3), or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(3). • An alien who has been granted nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T), or who has a pending application that sets forth a prima facie case for eligibility for such nonimmigrant status. 8 U.S.C. 1641(c)(4). There are additional categories of aliens who may be eligible for certain benefits notwithstanding limitations set under PRWORA. For instance, the following aliens are treated as though they are refugees for benefits eligibility purposes, under other provisions of law: • 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), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(ii). 22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(A). • An Iraqi or Afghan alien granted special immigrant status under section 101(a)(27) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27). Public Law 111-118, Div. A., Tit. VIII., sec. 8120, 123 Stat. 3409, 3457 (2009). • A citizen or national of Afghanistan (or a person with no nationality who last habitually resided in Afghanistan) paroled into the United States after July 31, 2021, who meets certain requirements, until March 31, 2023, or the term of parole granted, whichever is later. Public Law 117-43, sec. 2502(b) (Sept. 30, 2021). In addition, in the Medicaid context, States may also elect to provide medical assistance under Title XIX of the Social Security Act to cover all lawfully residing children under age 21 or pregnant individuals. See section 1903(v)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)(4)). Under PRWORA, States may enact their own legislation to provide State and local public benefits to certain aliens not lawfully present in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1621(d). Some States and localities have funded public benefits for some aliens who may not be eligible for Federal public benefits. 36 While PRWORA allows certain aliens to receive certain public benefits, Congress, except in very limited circumstances, 37 did not prohibit DHS from considering the receipt of such benefits in a public charge inadmissibility determination under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), or direct DHS to do so. 36 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation, “Overview of Immigrants Eligible for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid and CHIP” (Mar. 26, 2012), https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/overview-immigrants-eligibility-snap-tanf-medicaid-chip-0. 37 See INA sec. 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(s). 3. Changes Under IIRIRA Congress, in IIRIRA, 38 codified in the public charge inadmissibility statute the following minimum factors that must be considered when making public charge inadmissibility determinations: 39 38 Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat 3009-546 (1996). 39 See Public Law 104-208, div. C, sec. 531, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-674 (1996) (amending INA sec. 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)). • Age; • Health; • Family status; • Assets, resources, and financial status; and • Education and skills. 40 40 See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B). Section 531(a) of IIRIRA amended section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), to require an enforceable affidavit of support under newly added section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, 41 for certain aliens to avoid a finding of inadmissibility under that section. 42 The law required submission of an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA for most family-based immigrants and certain employment-based immigrants and provided that these aliens are inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), unless a sufficient affidavit is filed on their behalf. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D). Congress also permitted, but did not require, consular and immigration officers to consider the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA as a factor in the public charge inadmissibility determination. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii). In the House Conference Report on IIRIRA, the committee indicated that the amendments to section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), were designed to “expand” the public charge ground of inadmissibility by requiring DHS to find inadmissible those who lack a sponsor willing to support them. 43 DHS may appropriately consider the policy goals articulated in PRWORA and IIRIRA when administratively implementing the public charge ground of inadmissibility, and may also consider other important goals including, but not limited to, clarity, fairness, and administrability. 41 Section 551 of IIRIRA created INA sec. 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and specified the requirements for a sponsor's affidavit, including making it enforceable. See INA sec. 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a; sec. 551 of IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). 42 See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(C) and (D), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D). See INA sec. 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. 43 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). Furthermore, in enacting PRWORA and IIRIRA very close in time, Congress made certain public benefits available to limited categories of aliens who are also subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, because Congress recognized that certain aliens present in the United States who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility might find themselves in need of public benefits. Except in very limited circumstances, 44 Congress did not prohibit DHS from considering the receipt of such benefits in a public charge inadmissibility determination under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). Consequently, although an alien may receive public benefits for which he or she is eligible, the receipt of those benefits can be properly considered an adverse factor for public charge inadmissibility determination purposes. 44 See INA sec. 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(s). 4. INS 1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Interim Field Guidance On May 26, 1999, INS issued a proposed rule, Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public Charge Grounds (1999 NPRM) (64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999)), and on that same day issued interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (1999 Interim Field Guidance). 45 In the 1999 NPRM, 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.” See 64 FR 28676, 28676 (May 26, 1999). 45 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Due to a printing error, the Federal Register version of the 1999 Interim 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. INS sought to reduce negative public health and nutrition consequences generated by that 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 determination. See 64 FR 28676, 28676-77 (May 26, 1999). INS also sought to address the public's concerns about immigrants' fears of accepting public benefits for which they remained eligible, specifically in regard to medical care, children's immunizations, basic nutrition, and treatment of medical conditions that may jeopardize public health. See 64 FR 28676, 28676 (May 26, 1999). When developing the 1999 NPRM, INS consulted with Federal benefit-granting agencies, such as the U.S. 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. See 64 FR 28676, 28686-87 (May 26, 1999). The Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs at SSA agreed that the receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) “could show primary dependence on the government for subsistence fitting the INS definition of public charge.” See 64 FR 28676, 28687 (May 26, 1999). Furthermore, 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.” See 64 FR 28676, 28688 (May 26, 1999). While these letters supported the approach taken in the 1999 NPRM and 1999 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, and could not, foreclose the INS from adopting a different definition consistent with statutory authority. INS defined public charge in the 1999 NPRM, as well as in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, to mean, for purposes of admission and adjustment of status, “an alien who is likely to become . . . primarily dependent 46 on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either (i) the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” 47 The 1999 NPRM provided that non-cash benefits, as well as “supplemental, special-purpose cash benefits should not be considered” for public charge purposes, in light of INS's decision to define public charge by reference to primary dependence on public benefits. See 64 FR 28676, 28692-93 (May 26, 1999). Ultimately, however, INS did not publish a final rule conclusively addressing these issues. 48 46 Former INS defined “primarily dependent” as “the majority” or “more than 50 percent.” 47 See 64 FR 28676, 28681 (May 26, 1999); 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). The 1999 NPRM also defined public charge to mean, “for purposes of removal as a deportable alien means an alien who has become primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence as demonstrated by either: (i) The receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance purposes, or (ii) Institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense (other than imprisonment for conviction of a crime).” 64 FR 28676, 28684 (May 26, 1999). 48 The 1999 NPRM was never finalized and never went into effect, but it provides insight into INS's thinking about how to administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility at that time. The 1999 NPRM was formally withdrawn in 2018. See 83 FR 51114 (Oct. 10, 2018). The 1999 Interim Field Guidance was issued as an attachment to the 1999 NPRM in order to “provide additional information to the public on the Service's implementation of the public charge provisions of the immigration laws . . . in light of the recent changes in law.” See 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). The 1999 Interim Field Guidance explained how the agency would determine if a person is likely to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 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 INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). See 64 FR 28689, 28692-93 (May 26, 1999). The 1999 Interim Field Guidance also was intended to stem the fears that were causing aliens to refuse certain supplemental public benefits, such as transportation vouchers and childcare assistance, that were intended to help recipients become better able to obtain and retain employment and establish self-sufficiency. See 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). The Department of State (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. See 64 FR 28676, 28680 (May 26, 1999). Until both agencies published new regulations and policy guidance, including changes to the FAM, in 2018 and 2019, USCIS continued to follow the 1999 Interim Field Guidance in its adjudications and DOS continued following the public charge guidance set forth in the FAM in 1999. 49 49 See 9 FAM 302.8, https://fam.state.gov/fam/09fam/09fam030208.html (last visited Aug. 21, 2025). 5. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 50 50 Public Law 106-386 (Oct. 28, 2000). In 2000, Congress amended section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, to include a provision that prohibited consideration of the receipt of public benefits by ”certain battered aliens” in a public charge inadmissibility determination. 51 Congress' prohibition of consideration of prior receipt of benefits by a specific class of aliens suggests that Congress understood and accepted that consideration of an alien's past receipt of public benefits in other circumstances was appropriate when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. 51 This provision was originally in INA sec. 212(p), 8 U.S.C. 1182(p). It was permanently redesignated as INA sec. 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(s) in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108-447, 423 (Dec. 8, 2004) 6. DHS 2018 Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 2019 Final Rule In October 2018, DHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (2018 NPRM) (83 FR 51114 (Oct. 10, 2018)), which proposed regulatory changes regarding the definition of public charge and related terms and public charge ground inadmissibility determinations. DHS also included in the 2018 NPRM a withdrawal of the proposed regulation on public charge, the 1999 NPRM, that the former INS published on May 26, 1999. Following public comments on the 2018 NPRM, DHS issued a final rule in August 2019, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (2019 Final Rule). The 2019 Final Rule changed DHS's public charge standards and procedures. See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019), as amended by 84 FR 52357 (Oct. 2, 2019). The 2019 Final Rule defined the term public charge to mean “an alien who receives one or more public benefits, as defined in [the 2019 Final Rule], for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in 1 month counts as 2 months).” See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). It also defined the term public benefit to mean any Federal, State, local, or Tribal cash assistance for income maintenance (other than tax credits), SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and certain other forms of subsidized housing. Id. DHS tailored the 2019 Final Rule to limit the rule's effects in certain ways, such as with respect to the consideration of public benefits received by active-duty military members and their spouses and children, and consideration of public benefits received by children in certain contexts. 52 52 See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). For example, under that rule, public benefits did not include public benefits received by those who, at the time of receipt, filing the application for admission or adjustment of status, or adjudication, is enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, or the spouse of children of such service members. Also under that rule, public benefits did not include benefits received by children of U.S. citizens whose lawful admission for permanent residence would result in automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship. The 2019 Final Rule also provided an evidentiary framework under which USCIS would determine public charge inadmissibility and explained how DHS would interpret the statutory minimum factors for determining whether “in the opinion of” 53 the officer, an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. Specifically, for adjustment of status applications before USCIS, DHS created a new Declaration of Self Sufficiency, Form I-944, which collected information from aliens applying for adjustment of status relevant to the 2019 Final Rule's approach to the statutory factors and other factors identified in the rule that would be considered in the totality of the circumstances. 54 53 See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). 54 The Declaration of Self-Sufficiency requirement only applied to adjustment applicants and not applicants for admission at a port of entry. The 2019 Final Rule also contained a list of negative and positive factors that DHS would consider as part of this inadmissibility determination and directed officers to consider these factors “in the totality of the circumstances.” See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). These negative and positive factors, as well as the “heavily weighted” positive and negative factors, operated as guidelines to help the officer determine whether the alien was likely at any time to become a public charge. Id. In the 2019 Final Rule, DHS indicated that apart from the lack of an Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, where required, the presence of a single positive or negative factor, or heavily weighted negative or positive factor, would never, on its own, create a presumption that an alien was inadmissible as likely at any time to become a public charge or determine the outcome of the public charge inadmissibility determination. Id. Rather, a public charge inadmissibility determination would be based on the totality of the circumstances presented in an alien's case. Id. Additionally, the 2019 Final Rule added provisions that rendered certain nonimmigrants ineligible for extension of stay or change of status if they received one or more public benefits, as defined in the rule, for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period since obtaining the nonimmigrant status they wished to extend or change. See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). The 2019 Final Rule also revised DHS regulations governing the Secretary's discretion to accept a public charge bond under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, for those seeking adjustment of status. Id. The 2019 Final Rule did not interpret or change DHS's implementation of the public charge ground of deportability. 55 55 See INA sec. 237(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). See 84 FR 41292, 41295 (Aug. 14, 2019). The 2019 Final Rule was set to take effect on October 15, 2019, but, before it did, numerous plaintiffs filed suits challenging the 2019 Final Rule in five district courts, across four circuits. 56 All five district courts preliminarily enjoined the 2019 Final Rule. 57 Following a series of stays of the preliminary injunctions, 58 DHS began applying the 2019 Final Rule on February 24, 2020. On March 9, 2021, DHS announced its determination that continuing to defend the 2019 Final Rule before the Supreme Court and in the lower courts would not be in the public interest or an efficient use of government resources. 59 Consistent with that determination, the government filed motions and stipulations with the various courts leading to the dismissal of its appeals of the lower court decisions. As a consequence of one such dismissal, a district court's vacatur of the 2019 rule went into effect. See 87 FR 55472, 55486 (Sept. 9, 2022) (detailing the litigation history of the 2019 Final Rule). DHS subsequently published a notice in the Federal Register formally removing the 2019 Final Rule from the CFR. 86 FR 14221 (Mar. 15, 2021). 56 CASA de Maryland, Inc., et al., v. Trump, 19-cv-2715 (D. Md.); City and County of San Francisco, et al., v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-04717 (N.D. Ca.); City of Gaithersburg, et al. v. Trump, et al., 19-cv-02851 (D. Md.); Cook County et al. v. McAleenan et al., 19-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill.); La Clinica De La Raza, et al., v. Trump, et al., 19-cv-4980 (N.D. Ca.); Make the Road New York, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 19-cv-07993 (S.D.N.Y.); New York, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-07777 (S.D.N.Y.); State of California, et al., v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-04975 (N.D. Cal.); State of Washington, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-05210 (E.D. Wa.). 57 See 87 FR 55472, 55486 (Sept. 9, 2022) (detailing the litigation history of the 2019 Final Rule). 58 See Wolf v. Cook County, 140 S. Ct. 681 (2020) (staying preliminary injunction from the Northern District of Illinois); DHS v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020) (staying preliminary injunctions from the Southern District of New York); City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2019) (staying preliminary injunctions from the Eastern District of Washington and Northern District of California); CASA de Md. v. Trump, No. 19-2222 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) (staying preliminary injunction from the District of Maryland). 59 See DHS Secretary Statement on the 2019 Public Charge Rule (Mar. 9, 2021) available at https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2021/03/09/dhs-secretary-statement-2019-public-charge-rule. 7. DHS 2022 Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Final Rule In 2021, DHS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2021 ANPRM), see 86 FR 47025 (Aug. 23, 2021), requesting broad public feedback on the public charge ground of inadmissibility to inform its development of a future regulatory proposal. DHS welcomed input from individuals, organizations, government entities and agencies, and all other interested members of the public. See 86 FR 47025, 47028-32 (Aug. 23, 2021). DHS also provided notice of virtual public listening sessions on the public charge ground of inadmissibility and the 2021 ANPRM. USCIS held two public listening sessions, one specifically for the general public, and one for State, territorial, local, and Tribal benefits-granting agencies and nonprofit organizations. The public comments DHS received were considered and discussed in the subsequent notice of proposed rulemaking, Public Charge of Inadmissibility (2022 NPRM). See 87 FR 10570, 10597-99 (Feb. 24, 2022). Following public comments on the 2022 NPRM, DHS published a final rule, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2022 Final Rule). See 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). The final rule implemented a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule, more closely aligned with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. 60 60 See “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. The 2022 Final Rule defined public charge more narrowly than in the 2019 Final Rule as likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, and did not include mandatory consideration of past, current, and future receipt of certain supplemental public benefits that did not represent a primary dependence on such benefits for subsistence. See 8 CFR 212.21(a). Additional key definitions in the 2022 Final Rule included definitions for the terms “public cash assistance for income maintenance”, “long-term institutionalization at government expense”, “receipt (of public benefits)”, “government”, and “household”. The 2022 Final Rule also required a different information collection than the 2019 Final Rule, including the information collection for public charge inadmissibility determinations in USCIS' Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485, rather than in a separate form. The 2022 Final Rule did not designate “heavily weighted” positive or negative factors for making a public charge inadmissibility determination, but instead constrained the public charge inadmissibility determination to seven factors outlined in the regulation: the five statutory factors that must be considered under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182; the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA where required; and current and/or past receipt of TANF; SSI; State, Tribal, territorial, or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance; and long-term institutionalization at government expense. See 8 CFR 212.22. Additionally, the 2022 Final Rule clarified DHS's approach to consideration of disability and long-term institutionalization at government expense 61 and stated a bright-line rule prohibiting consideration of the receipt of public benefits by an alien's dependents, such as a U.S. citizen child in a mixed-status household. See 87 FR 55472, 55474 (Sept. 9, 2022). The 2022 Final Rule also listed the statutory exemptions from and waivers for the public charge ground of inadmissibility established by Congress. See 8 CFR 212.23. 61 See 8 CFR 212.22(a)(3) and (4). The 2022 Final Rule did not revise DOS or DOJ standards or processes related to public charge inadmissibility determinations, and does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking extension of stay or change of status in the United States. See 87 FR 55472, 55502-03 (Sept. 9, 2022). See 87 FR 10570, 10600-01 (Feb. 24, 2022). The 2022 Final Rule only applies to aliens applying for admission or adjustment of status. See 87 FR 55472, 55491 (Sept. 9, 2022). The 2022 Final Rule did not interpret or change DHS's implementation of the public charge ground of deportability. 62 62 See INA sec. 237(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). See 87 FR 55472, 55509 (Sept. 9, 2022). In January 2023, the State of Texas filed a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging DHS' repeal of the 2019 Final Rule and the promulgation of the 2022 Final Rule. On September 30, 2024, the District Court found the plaintiff lacked standing, denied the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and terminated the case. The plaintiff appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 2, 2024. On February 25, 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted the joint motion to stay further proceedings until May 27, 2025. On May 29, 2025, the Fifth Circuit further extended the stay of proceedings until August 27, 2025. On September 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted DHS motion for abeyance for an additional 90 days until December 2, 2025. IV. Basis and Purpose of the NPRM As reflected in Executive Order 14218, Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders, the Trump administration is taking steps to “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.” See 90 FR 10581, 10581 (Feb. 25, 2025). Through this NPRM, DHS is proposing to rescind the regulations implemented by the 2022 Final Rule related to the public charge ground of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). 63 Both the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule erred in too narrowly defining the relevant terms in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), resulting in the inability of DHS to apply the public charge ground of inadmissibility consistent with administration policy and congressional intent. 63 See 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). This NPRM does not propose to rescind or amend certain elements of the 2022 Final Rule: regulations at 8 CFR 213.1 related to admission after submitting a public charge bond, and technical updates related to adjustment of status by T nonimmigrants at 8 CFR 212.18 and 8 CFR 245.23. This NPRM does not propose to revise DOS or DOJ standards or processes related to public charge inadmissibility determinations. Further, this NPRM does not propose to interpret or change DHS's application of the public charge ground of deportability at section 237(a)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). A. The Prior Rules Were Overly Restrictive The regulations implemented by the 2022 Final Rule and its predecessor, the 2019 Final Rule, are inconsistent with the national policy contained Executive Order 14218 and PRWORA and the spirit of the broad statutory text in section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), in that both rules severely and unduly limited the factors that DHS could consider in making a public charge inadmissibility determination. This discouraged officers from considering relevant evidence essential to making an accurate and valid public charge inadmissibility determination that is consistent with the statute, the spirit of PRWORA, and past precedent decisions. This may have resulted in USCIS finding aliens eligible for adjustment of status even when their past receipt of means-tested public benefits may have demonstrated that they lacked self-sufficiency and were likely at any time to become a public charge, due to officers' inability to consider all benefits the alien depended on and any other relevant case-specific factor that has bearing on the inadmissibility determination. Section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), states that “any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the [immigration officer] at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), lists the minimum, non-exhaustive list of factors the consular officer or immigration officer must consider when making a public charge inadmissibility determination: the alien's age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. In addition to those five factors, the consular officer or immigration officer may also consider any Affidavit of Support under section 213A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, when making a public charge inadmissibility determination. As the statutory language makes clear by stating that officers “shall at a minimum” consider these five factors, Congress clearly intended for officers to consider case-specific additional factors and information relevant to the public charge inadmissibility determination. However, both the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule provided a finite list of factors that officers are required to consider without expressly providing officers with the authority to consider other factors that are relevant in any individual case. The 2022 Final Rule, in particular, failed to clarify for officers that their public charge inadmissibility determination was not limited to consideration of the factors enumerated in 8 CFR 212.22(a). While section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), clearly lists the “minimum” and non-exhaustive factors that officers must consider when making inadmissibility determinations, the 2022 Final Rule unduly restricts officers primarily to these five factors plus two additional factors, leaving little opportunity for discretion or deviation from considering these seven factors in the totality of the circumstances. Indeed, the current regulation at 8 CFR 212.22(a) has no provision for officers to consider any other factors than the express factors listed. See 8 CFR 212.22(a). Significantly, the 2022 Final Rule failed to include a provision in 8 CFR 212.22(a) that expressly permits officers to consider any other relevant case-specific factors in the totality of the circumstances. 64 In other words, there was no “catch-all” provision added to the limited, narrow scope of factors enumerated in either the 2019 Final Rule or the 2022 Final Rule. DHS has the authority to enumerate exclusive factors to be considered in making public charge inadmissibility determinations without a catch all provision and did so in the 2022 Final Rule. 65 While enumerating factors in this manner is a permissible use of DHS's rulemaking authority, the effect of the specific factors that DHS enumerated restricts public charge inadmissibility determinations in such a way that the rule contravenes the clear congressional intent of the statute. 66 To ensure that officers retain their statutorily-mandated ability to determine, in their opinion, whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, DHS believes it must remove regulations that fail to explicitly permit officers to consider any case-specific factors that bear on an alien's likelihood of becoming a public charge at any time in the future. 64 Compare the 2022 Final Rule to the 2019 Final Rule, in which officers were directed to consider “all factors that are relevant” and listed “minimum factors to consider,” stating that the public charge inadmissibility determination “must at least entail consideration” of those minimum factors. 8 CFR 212.22 (2019). 65 See 8 CFR 212.22(a). 66 Even if the 2022 Final Rule could be construed to implicitly contain a catch-all provision, DHS would still propose to rescind it, because the 2022 Final Rule contains other unnecessary restrictions on officers' inadmissibility determinations. Moreover, both the 2019 Final Rule and 2022 Final Rule, in providing narrow and finite lists of factors that officers were required to consider, are in significant tension with the inherently discretionary nature of the public charge inadmissibility determination. Indeed, because the statute requires the officer to determine inadmissibility in his or her opinion, the officer may, in his or her discretion, determine what factors other than the statutory minimum factors are relevant to any individual case. This includes a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, if one is required, and any other factors relevant to this ground of inadmissibility as tailored to the specific facts of a given case. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted in 1950, “[s]ince the elements constituting likelihood of becoming a public charge are varied, there should be no attempt to define the term in the law, but rather to establish the specific qualification that the determination of whether an alien falls into that category rests within the discretion of the consular officers or [former INS].” 67 67 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). Additionally, both the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule provided narrow and finite lists of public benefits that could be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. The 2019 Final Rule limited consideration of receipt of public benefits to Federal, State, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, 68 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 69 Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 70 Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate Rehabilitation), 71 most Medicaid; 72 and Public Housing under section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. See 8 CFR 212.21(b) (2019). However, the 2019 Final Rule expressly excluded from consideration the receipt of public benefits by certain groups, even though Congress did not exclude consideration of benefits received by these groups. 73 See 8 CFR 212.22(b)(7)-(9) (2019). 68 This included Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and Federal, State or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the State context, but which also exist under other names). 69 7 U.S.C. 2011 to 2036c. 70 As administered by HUD under 42 U.S.C. 1437f. 71 See Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f). 72 As set forth in section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), except for: benefits received for an emergency medical condition as described in 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)(2)-(3), 42 CFR 440.255(c), services or benefits funded by Medicaid but provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., and school -based services or benefits provided to individuals who are at or below the oldest age eligible for secondary education as determined under State or local law, and benefits received by an alien under 21 years of age, or a woman during pregnancy (and during the 60- day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy). 73 The 2019 Final Rule excluded from consideration the receipt of benefits by certain military servicemembers and their spouses and children, benefits received while in the alien was present in the United States in an immigration category that is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility or for which the alien received a waiver of public charge inadmissibility, and benefit received by certain other children. The 2022 Final Rule limits consideration of public benefits to only the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance 74 and long-term institutionalization at government expense. 75 See 8 CFR 212.21. Unlike the 2019 rule, the 2022 Final Rule does not exempt consideration of the receipt of public benefits by servicemembers and their spouses and children or certain other children. Still, the rule excludes consideration of the receipt of, or certification or approval for future receipt of, certain excluded benefits. These excluded benefits include SNAP or other nutrition programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid (other than for long-term use of institutional services under section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act), housing benefits, any benefits related to immunizations or testing for communicable diseases, or other supplemental or special-purpose benefits. Congress did not expressly exclude receipt of such benefits. 74 This included Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Cash assistance for income maintenance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; and State, Tribal, territorial, or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the State context, but which also exist under other names). 75 Long-term institutionalization at government expense means government assistance for long-term institutionalization (in the case of Medicaid, limited to institutional services under section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act) received by a beneficiary, including in a nursing facility or mental health institution. Long-term institutionalization does not include imprisonment for conviction of a crime or institutionalization for short periods for rehabilitation purposes. B. Basis for the Removal of the Existing Public Charge Inadmissibility Framework In addition to being inconsistent with administration policy and congressional intent, DHS notes that any narrow and finite lists of public benefits that may be considered as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination and similar limitations on the types of information that immigration officers may consider are incongruent with past agency guidance and public-facing communications materials documenting the expansive, fact-specific, totality of the circumstances, and discretionary nature of the public charge analysis, including: • A March 1946 INS article discussing the inherently fact-specific nature of the public charge analysis. “The proof in these cases usually consists of what is known as a Form I-234 (formerly 534), `Proof that alien has become a public charge,' which is executed by the proper hospital officials, showing that the alien is being maintained or has been maintained at public expense. This form shows the demand for payment and obligations due. The proof also consists of evidence, documentary or oral, establishing whether the cause arose before or after entry, which is necessary to a definitive determination of the issue in accordance with the statutory prerequisite. In medical cases, it is customary for the record to contain clinical findings, medical certificates and testimony of the alien, relatives, or friends on the factual issues . . .” 76 76 Montaquila, Anthony L. “Status of Aliens Who Become Public Charges.” Immigration and Naturalization Service Monthly Review, vol. III, no. 9 (March 1946): 278-280. • A March 1949 INS article describing the administrative discretion inherent in the public charge analysis. “In executing his mandate to exclude `persons likely to become a public charge,' the immigration officer at a seaport or border is confronted with a difficult task. The statute's terms are highly ambiguous but they must be construed in consonance with the Congressional design and the American tradition. Moreover, the statute speaks of one `likely' to become a public charge, and thus it thrusts upon the immigration officer's shoulders the mantle of prophecy. Manifestly this determination necessarily entails the exercise of sound discretion. ” 77 (emphasis supplied) 77 Gordon, Charles. “Aliens and Public Assistance.” Immigration and Naturalization Service Monthly Review, vol. VI, no. 9 (March 1949): 115-120. • A May 1950, INS article documenting aliens deported as public charges to instruct INS officers on how to appropriately evaluate public charge, expressly stating that “further light may be thrown on the matter by a detailed examination of the actual cases deported in recent years.” The article noted that “likely to become a public charge” is a delineated term in immigration law and offered a highly factual analysis of recent cases, specifically addressing the types of charges, the cause of disability in the reported cases, status at last entry, length of residence in the United States before entering an institution, and facts regarding the social characteristics of the aliens ( e.g., age, marital status, etc.) for such aliens. The article noted for officers that before the INS acts in any such cases, “a careful investigation is made.” 78 78 Miller, Watson B. “Aliens Deported as Public Charges.” Immigration and Naturalization Service Monthly Review, vol. VII, no. 11 (May 1950): 144-148. • On May 25, 1999, INS issued a Public Charge Fact Sheet that discussed the 1999 NPRM's criteria for public charge determinations, but then expressly stated “The law requires that INS and DOS officials consider several additional issues as well. Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis.” 79 79 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Office of Public Affairs, “Public Charge Fact Sheet” (May 25, 1999). • In 2009, the USCIS Public Charge web page was updated to provide additional guidance, including “Inadmissibility based on the public charge ground is determined by the totality of the circumstances. This means that the adjudicating officer must weigh both the positive and negative factors when determining the likelihood that someone might become a public charge. At a minimum, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer must consider the following factors when making a public charge determination: Age, Health, Family status, Assets, Resources, Financial status, and Education and skills . . . In assessing the totality of the circumstances, including the statutory factors above, an officer may consider the individual's receipt of certain publicly funded benefits.” 80 80 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Public Charge” web page, as updated September 3, 2009. • In 2011, USCIS issued a Public Charge Fact Sheet stating “Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances. In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care—such as a nursing home or mental health institution—may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations.” 81 81 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “Public Charge Fact Sheet” (April 29, 2011). Even if some past agency policy or practice is inconsistent with these examples, DHS notes these examples of past practice as the most consistent with the statute and best means of reaching accurate, precise, and reliable determinations. Indeed, even the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which the 2022 Final Rule substantively tracks in most other respects, emphasized “Officers must consider, at a minimum,” the statutory factors and mandated “Every denial order based on public charge must reflect consideration of each of these factors and specifically articulate the reasons for the officer's determination.” 82 The guidance continued, “In determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge, Service officers should assess the financial responsibility of the alien by examining the `totality of the alien's circumstances' . . . The determination of financial responsibility should be a prospective evaluation based on the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, education, and skills, among other factors . . . In addition, the Attorney General has ruled that `[s]ome specific circumstances, 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.' ” 83 (emphasis in original) 82 Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (1999 Interim Field Guidance) 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). 83 Id. at 28690. These examples of past agency guidance and public-facing materials relating to public charge support DHS's position that the public charge determination is extremely fact-specific and discretionary in nature, but also that the 2019 Final Rule and the 2022 Final Rule were far too narrow in terms of reducing officer discretion and that the 2022 Final Rule continues to straitjacket DHS officers because it unduly limits the scope of factors officers may consider when arriving at a case-by-case determination in the totality of each alien's circumstances. For these reasons, DHS believes that it must completely remove the public charge inadmissibility framework established by the 2022 Final Rule in order to be more consistent with PRWORA's directive that “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,” as well as with section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), which directs DHS to deny admission and adjustment of status to aliens who are likely at any time to become a public charge. Indeed, DHS believes that the 2022 Final Rule's public charge inadmissibility provisions do not faithfully implement PRWORA and section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), insofar as they straitjacket DHS officers by limiting what public benefits DHS can consider in the totality of the circumstances and by precluding officers from considering factors beyond the seven factors outlined in the regulations. To address the 2022 Final Rule's inconsistency with administration policy and the clear directives in PRWORA and section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), in this NPRM, DHS proposes to remove 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, 212.22, and 212.23. In removing 8 CFR 212.21 and 8 CFR 212.22, DHS will eliminate the unduly and inappropriately restrictive framework established by the 2022 Final Rule that results in officers being required to ignore aliens' receipt of certain public benefits such as Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and housing benefits. Eliminating this narrow approach allows DHS to formulate appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide DHS officer determinations, as envisioned by Congress in PRWORA and in the INA, where the receipt of any type of public benefits by a qualified alien is relevant and indeed critical to determining whether an alien is actually self-sufficient and able to rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations rather than depending on public resources to meet their needs. See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A); INA sec. 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(s). Additionally, DHS believes that it should remove the limitation on factors to be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations in order to more faithfully implement PRWORA and section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS believes that the current regulations are inconsistent with section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), by focusing on consideration of seven exclusive factors. Instead, DHS contends that Congress clearly signaled the inadmissibility determination must be a subjective, individualized, and case-specific determination based on consideration of all relevant factors rather than an enumerated, finite set of factors. See INA sec. 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B). Even if the 2022 Final Rule could be viewed as a faithful implementation of the INA as a legal matter, DHS would still move to rescind the rule in light of current administration policy and the national policies articulated in PRWORA with respect to welfare and immigration. 84 84 See 8 U.S.C. 1601. Simply put, DHS believes that the narrow definitions as well as the limitations on what public benefits and what factors can be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations that exist in 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, and 212.22 impede DHS's ability to robustly execute administration and congressional policy concerning aliens who depend on public resources to meet their needs instead of relying on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. Put another way, the administration and clear congressional national policy on welfare and immigration point to the view that an alien who lacks self-sufficiency should not be admitted to the United States or be granted adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 85 Accordingly, DHS's expeditious removal of these regulations would allow DHS to more accurately, precisely, and reliably assess public charge inadmissibility, and would bolster DHS's ability to make individualized and case-specific public charge inadmissibility determinations that are required under the statute and are consistent with our national policy with respect to welfare and immigration. 85 See 8 U.S.C. 1601. DHS believes that the existing regulatory framework can lead to irrational outcomes where officers are precluded from finding aliens inadmissible under the public charge ground when it is evident that these aliens are clearly not self-sufficient, which can lead to both more aliens remaining in the United States who are likely at any time to become a public charge and more aliens being dependent on public benefits programs. For example, under the 2022 Final Rule, DHS officers could find aliens who receive multiple forms of means-tested benefits to meet their needs not inadmissible due to the restrictive definition of “likely at any time to become a public charge,” which exclusively focuses on public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense and ignores the vast majority of public assistance aliens could potentially depend on in the future. If this proposed rule is finalized, while DHS works on formulating appropriate policy and interpretive tools that will guide DHS officers for public charge inadmissibility determinations, officers will be empowered to consider not only the mandatory statutory factors, but also all evidence and information specific to the alien and relevant to the public charge ground of inadmissibility that is before them as they determine whether that alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. This will restore an inadmissibility determination process that trusts in and relies on DHS officers' good judgment and sound discretion as envisioned by Congress. DHS also believes that removing the current regulations would provide DHS greater flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, such as Federal and State changes to aliens' eligibility for means-tested public benefits as well as changes to the value of those benefits, as occurred with the enactment of H.R. 1-One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (“HR-1”). As the administration persists in its efforts to reduce the siloing of data, 86 DHS anticipates working toward the integration of immigration records with records from Federal benefit-granting agencies. The analysis of that data will inform the development of the flexible and adaptive policy and interpretive tools that will guide future public charge inadmissibility determinations. 86 See Executive Order 14243, Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos, 90 FR 1368 (Mar. 25, 2025) (The purpose of the E.O. is “removing unnecessary barriers to Federal employees accessing Government data and promoting inter-agency data sharing are important steps toward eliminating bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency while enhancing the Government's ability to detect overpayments and fraud.”). Upon removal of 8 CFR 212.20, 212.21, and 212.22, and until such time that DHS establishes its new public charge inadmissibility policy and interpretive tools, DHS will ensure that public charge inadmissibility determinations are made consistent with the statute and in accordance with the totality of the circumstances including those established by past precedent decisions. 87 DHS notes that it is not proposing to replace the rescinded public charge inadmissibility regulations at this time. Notably, while INS published the 1999 NPRM, 88 there were no regulations governing public charge inadmissibility determination from 1882 89 until the 2019 Final Rule. 90 DHS also proposes to remove 8 CFR 212.23, which clarifies in one place the categories of aliens to whom the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply and the categories of aliens to whom the ground applies but for whom a waiver of inadmissibility is available. DHS believes that this regulatory text is unnecessary and redundant. 87 See e.g. 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, 421-22 (Att'y Gen. 1962) ((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 circumstances reasonably tending to show that the burden of supporting he alien is likely to be case on the public.); see also Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988) (applying “[t]he traditional test . . . to determine whether an alien is likely to become a public charge . . . `based on the totality of the alien's circumstances' as presented in the individual case.”) (citations omitted); Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) (“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.”) (emphasis added). 88 See 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999). 89 See Immigration Act of 1882, ch. 376, secs. 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 their 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. 90 See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019), as amended by 84 FR 52357 (Oct. 2, 2019). V. Discussion of the NPRM A. Introduction DHS proposes to remove its regulations governing the public charge ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), because those regulations conflict or are in significant tension with congressional intent, administration and congressional national policy with respect to welfare and immigration, 91 and past precedent decisions. 92 The removal of these regulations, reflected in this NPRM, rescind the key policies implemented in the 2022 Final Rule while modifying provisions relating to public charge bonds to align with the removal of the other provisions and for clarity. 91 8 U.S.C. 1601. 92 See e.g. Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 588 (Reg'l Cmm'r 1974) (emphasizing that the term public charge refers to individuals who are “without sufficient funds to support [themselves], who ha[ve] no one under any obligation to support [them] and who, being older, ha[ve] an increasing chance of becoming dependent, disabled and sick.”); Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-423 (BIA 1962; Att'y Gen. 1962) (A public charge inadmissibility determination “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 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.”); Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) (“The 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.”). See also Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm'r 1988) (33 year old employed mother of three not likely to become a public charge notwithstanding having previously received public benefits. The BIA considered other relevant factors such as that a mother's temporary absence from the work force to care for her children is not by itself sufficient basis to find the mother likely to become a public charge. There may be circumstances beyond the control of the alien which temporarily prevent an alien from joining the work force. For example, as the applicant states in her appeal, she lives in an area where jobs are scarce and she had been unable to find a job.); Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977)). And see Ex parte Hosaye Sakaguchi, 277 F. 913, 916 (9th Cir. 1922) (holding that an alien could not be deemed a public charge absent evidence of “mental or physical disability or any fact tending to show that the burden of supporting the [alien] is likely to be cast upon the public.”). By removing overly restrictive provisions, DHS seeks to ensure that DHS officers more accurately and appropriately evaluate an alien's likelihood of becoming dependent on public resources to meet their needs by following the plain language of the statute and past precedent decisions that have guided public charge inadmissibility determinations for decades. DHS believes that removal of these overly restrictive provisions would lead to fewer aliens remaining in the United States who are likely at any time to become a public charge, which would also result in a reduction in the number of aliens dependent on public benefits programs, as intended by Congress in PRWORA. B. Discussion of the Amendments and Removals in the NPRM 1. Proposed Amendments to Cancellation and Breach of Public Charge Bonds Provisions—8 CFR 103.6(c) DHS proposes to amend its regulations governing the cancellation and breach of public charge bonds at 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) to reflect the rescission of 8 CFR 212.21 as well as to more fully address when a public charge bond will be considered breached, and to explicitly address administrative appeals from a determination that the alien breached a bond. Under the proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(A), a public charge bond posted for an alien will continue to be cancelled when the alien dies, departs permanently from the United States, or is naturalized, provided the alien did not breach the bond as described in proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B). However, under proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B), a public charge bond submitted on or after the effective date of a forthcoming final rule would be breached if the bonded alien were to receive any means-tested public benefits prior to death, permanent departure, or naturalization, or otherwise violate a condition of the bond. Since DHS proposes to remove references to public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination, DHS relatedly proposes to replace that language prohibiting the cancellation of a public charge bond if the bonded alien has received public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense with language that prohibits cancellation if the bonded alien has breached the bond by receiving any means-tested public benefits or is otherwise noncompliant with any conditions of the bond. This amendment is intended to ensure that the government 93 is held harmless if a bonded alien breaches his or her public charge bond, as required by the statute. See INA sec. 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. An alien who submitted his or her public charge bond before the effective date of any forthcoming final rule that is issued based on this NPRM, and whose bond is accepted by USCIS, would be held to the regulatory standards from the 2022 Final Rule, which are also reflected on the bond form. That is, the alien would only breach the bond if he or she received public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense, or otherwise violated the conditions of the bond, before meeting one of the requirements for cancellation. In addition, cancellation of that bond submitted prior to the effective date of any final rule stemming from this NPRM (if accepted by USCIS) would be based on the version of 8 CFR 103.6 established by the 2022 Final Rule. Further, the proposed changes to this provision make explicit that final breach bond determinations are appealable by sureties under 8 CFR 103.6(f), and by aliens under 8 CFR 103.3. 93 Under INA sec. 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183, “the United States and all States, territories, counties, towns, municipalities, and districts thereof.” DHS also proposes to amend 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) to modify the standard for cancellation of a public charge bond after the fifth anniversary of the alien's admission or adjustment of status to reflect the removal of 8 CFR 212.21. Under the proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1), if an alien files Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, USCIS may cancel the bond if USCIS determines that the alien did not breach the bond by receiving any means-tested public benefit or otherwise being noncompliant with the conditions of the bond. In addition, DHS proposes to remove language from 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) stating that DHS can cancel a public charge bond at any time if it determines “that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge” because that provision is misleading and not feasible. For aliens who have been admitted to the United States as LPRs or adjusted to LPR status within the United States after submitting a suitable and proper public charge bond under section 213 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, DHS does not sua sponte make a second, post-adjudication public charge inadmissibility determination under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A). 94 The existing regulatory language suggests that USCIS may periodically review and reconsider its previous public charge inadmissibility determination and cancel the public charge bond, or that aliens who had submitted a public charge bond may request such a review. However, neither of these suggestions are accurate. 95 Once USCIS or DOS determines that an alien is inadmissible under the public charge ground but adjusts the alien's status or grants their immigrant visa after the alien submits a suitable and proper bond, DHS would not cancel the bond except as otherwise noted in proposed 8 CFR 103.6(c). If the proposal is finalized, the removal of this language would result in regulatory text that clearly and transparently communicates to the regulated public about the circumstances under which a public charge bond may be cancelled. 94 Under INA sec. 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C), an LPR may only be considered an applicant for admission, and subject to an inadmissibility determination, in certain narrow circumstances outlined by Congress in the statute. These include situations in which the alien has abandoned their LPR status or has engaged in illegal activity after departing. 95 DHS notes that in general, once it makes an inadmissibility determination and the alien is no longer applying for admission at a port of entry or a benefit before USCIS it does not reevaluate inadmissibility after granting admission at a POE or after approving an alien's application to adjust status to that of an LPR. The exception to this general rule is if the LPR becomes an applicant for admission through the operation of INA 101(a)(13)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C) for example, if the abandoned his or her LPR status, has been absent from the United States for more than 180 days, etc. However, in the context of naturalization, for example, USCIS may, in assessing whether an applicant was lawfully admitted for permanent residence, evaluate whether the alien was admissible at the time of admission or adjustment of status. See INA sec. 316, 8 US.C. 1427; INA sec. 245(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(2). DHS also proposes to restructure the current 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1) for clarity. It proposes to move content relating to the breach of bonds to a new 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(B). This proposed paragraph explains how the receipt of means-tested public benefits (or, for public charge bonds accepted before the effective date of the final rule, public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense), as well as any other noncompliance with a condition of the bond, will result in a breach. DHS also proposes to re-order and restructure 8 CFR 103.6(c)(1)(A), which outlines the bases for cancellation of a public charge bond. If finalized, this will help officers and the public better understand the separate bases for bond cancellation and the related requirements, and understand that cancellation requires the submission of a request on the form designated by DHS. Apart from these changes, DHS is retaining the technical amendments from the 2022 Final Rule in 8 CFR 213.1 that facilitate the efficient administration of public charge bonds as well as the clarification concerning DHS's authority to offer public charge bonds, in its discretion, to certain adjustment of status applicants. 2. Proposed Removal of Definitions and Regulatory Framework for Making Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations—8 CFR 212.21 DHS is proposing to remove 8 CFR 212.21, which contains definitions codified by the 2022 Final Rule. The definitions DHS proposes to remove include “likely at any time to become a public charge,” “receipt (of public benefits),” “public cash assistance for income maintenance,” and “long-term institutionalization at government expense.” DHS also proposes to eliminate the definitions for “government” and “household.” a. Proposed Removal of Definition for Likely at Any Time To Become a Public Charge The INA does not define “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.” See INA sec. 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). It instead provides an orientational framework for making public charge inadmissibility determinations by identifying five mandatory factors and one discretionary factor for officers to consider when determining whether an alien is inadmissible under the public charge ground in the totality of the circumstances. The 2019 Final Rule specifically defined a public charge as “an alien who receives one or more public benefits, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).” See 8 CFR 212.21(a) (2019). The 2019 Final Rule also defined likely at any time to become a public charge to mean “more likely than not at any time in the future to become a public charge, as defined in 212.21(a), based on the totality of the alien's circumstances.” See 8 CFR 212.21(c) (2019). These definitions were based on the longstanding national policy that aliens inside the United States must be self-sufficient and not rely on public benefits to meet their needs. See 84 FR 41292, 41295 (August 14, 2019). The 2022 Final Rule did not define public charge, but defined “likely at any time to become a public charge” t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2025-20278. Public record. Not legal advice.