New USCIS rule could benefit immigrants

The rule of «blank spaces» will no longer be taken into account to reject an application

However, they warned that other issues could ‘delay’ immigrants applications

New rule from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) could benefit immigrants who submit forms with “blank spaces,” however the federal agency warned that they could still «reject» or delay immigrants applications.

«USCIS confirmed today that for every application they have returned to the criteria for refusal of applications that was operative before October 2019 in relation to blank spaces,» says an official statement from the American immigration agency.

Who will benefit from the new USCIS rule on forms?

PHOTO Shutterstock

According to the official report, during 2019, under the mandate of Republican Donald Trump, the USCIS changed the criteria for rejecting forms for some immigrants who presented the «Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.»

As well as: “Form I-612, Application for Exemption from the Foreign Residence Requirement (under Section 212 (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended); and «Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status», so immigrants with these applications would benefit.

They warn that rejections could continue

PHOTO Shutterstock

Not everything was ‘victory’ since some immigrants could be rejected by the USCIS when submitting their forms if they do not fill out the applications properly, since the agency has only “returned to the rejection criteria (of blanks) that existed for these forms before October 2019 ”.

The Official site The USCIS recommends that for more information on the filing requirements and the required initial evidence or documents you might need, consult the instructions for each of the different forms.

Recommendations to prevent USCIS from rejecting your forms

PHOTO Shutterstock

The agency warned that despite having eliminated the blank space rule that completely disqualified these applications, some forms could be rejected by the USCIS, for which it issued a series of recommendations to avoid it and make the process more agile.

The USCIS asked to avoid leaving blank spaces that are required to be completed on the forms, as well as not answering questions related to filing requirements or omitting any initial evidence required. Following

USCIS announces the withdrawal of another rule to ‘facilitate’ access to citizenship

PHOTO Shutterstock

On March 19, the USCIS announced the withdrawal of another rule that prevented or reduced the efforts of immigrants to obtain legal status. According to a official statement, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the withdrawal of the «proposed financial sponsorship affidavit rule.»

The foregoing with Biden’s new commitment to «reduce existing barriers in the legal immigration system,» as this rule placed «additional burdens on American families who wish to sponsor people who immigrate to the United States,» according to the announcement.

What was the rule removed by the USCIS?

PHOTO Shutterstock

The proposed rule of October 2, 2020, under former President Donald Trump, «would have changed the evidence requirements for US citizens or nationals and lawful permanent residents who wish to sponsor a person immigrating to the United States.»

This «by means of an affidavit of financial sponsorship under Section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the name of the interested immigrant.» The foregoing as part of an order by Biden for «Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,» the statement said.

Such a rule may have placed costly new burdens on immigrants.

PHOTO Shutterstock

Additionally, the announcement notes that both DHS and USCIS «are committed to removing barriers that prevent legal immigrants from accessing government services that are available to them.» The proposed financial sponsorship affidavit rule «would have imposed higher qualification and evidence requirements,» USCIS notes.

«These requirements would have placed costly new burdens, estimated at $ 2.4 billion over the next decade, on US citizens, US nationals, and lawful permanent residents who sign an affidavit of financial sponsorship on behalf of the immigrants they are trying to sponsor.» warns the agency.

For their part, Republican prosecutors seek to reestablish Trump’s ‘public charge’ rule

PHOTO AP

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a coalition of 14 states before the Supreme Court in defense of former President Donald Trump’s «public charge» rule after lower courts rejected his attempt to rescue this anti-immigrant measure, Efe said.

Paxton assured that Texas taxpayers pay «hundreds of millions of dollars» a year to serve undocumented immigrants, for which he considered necessary the «public charge», a federal law that prohibits the immigration of foreigners who probably depend on government programs .

Biden refused to defend this measure

PHOTO Shutterstock

Previously, an Illinois county and the non-profit organization Casa Maryland sued the Trump Administration in January 2020 challenging the «public charge» rule, and the court blocked its application, however now they seek to ‘revive’ it.

The case finally reached the Supreme Court, where the federal government, after the arrival of President Joe Biden, refused to defend it, so the «public charge» ceased to be in force and the judicial processes related to it were suspended.

They go to the Supreme Court to defend the rule

PHOTO Getty Images

Faced with this government decision, Texas and the other conservative states first sought to defend the rule in the Seventh Circuit court of appeals, but their request was denied, so they are now appealing directly to the Supreme Court.

As in the previous lawsuit, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia are joining Texas in this new attempt to hamper Biden’s immigration agenda, indicates Eph.

They seek to reestablish measure against immigrants

PHOTO: Shutterstock

«Without the public charge rule, our budget for Medicaid and other vital services will skyrocket and get dramatically cut, costing taxpayers millions more and reducing the quality of service we can provide,» Paxton said.

Like Trump, prosecutors in these states consider this measure necessary, which facilitates the rejection of low-income legal immigrants who may become a public charge in the future, or withdraw the legal residence permit from those who subsequently access immigration programs. help and depend on them to survive.