Willy Allen, a highly respected immigration attorney based in Florida, voiced his concerns on his weekly CiberCuba program that some officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) might attempt to use the "public charge" argument, or issues of "good moral character," as a way to deny applications for the Cuban Adjustment Act to those benefiting from the CHNV (Humanitarian Parole granted to nationals from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti). According to Allen, this could be a strategy used by certain USCIS officials when dealing with these cases.
On Monday, a CiberCuba viewer requested Allen to clarify the implications of the stricter enforcement of the public charge rule, which involves receiving state aid. This question arose after USCIS released a memorandum mandating a more rigorous application of the "public charge" rule, potentially hindering the approval of green card applications and residency processes.
Announced on September 4th, the new measure directs immigration officers to closely scrutinize factors like age, health, income, employment, and educational level to determine if an immigrant may become a "public charge." Essentially, this means assessing whether someone who relies primarily on government assistance can regularize their immigration status in the United States.
Allen explained that under humanitarian parole, recipients were not supposed to resort to public charges, as this was an integral part of the parole agreement. However, this requirement conflicts with a law from the 1980s, championed by Florida congressmen Dante Bruno Fascell and Claude Denson Pepper, which provided aid to Cuban entrants who needed protection.
"The Cuban Adjustment generally permits the use of public charges to obtain residency. That's why many individuals with disabilities or difficulties, who were unlikely to work in the United States, could legalize their status under the Cuban Adjustment," Allen elaborated. He referenced a case from 1967, affirming that the Cuban Adjustment Act applies even to individuals who might become public charges.
In this context, Allen believes that being a public charge shouldn't pose an issue, although he acknowledges its significance in current evaluations. "In the future, officials plan to interview applicants for residency. It's crucial to attend these interviews with an interpreter and a lawyer to argue effectively," Allen stressed. He emphasized that even if the parole were revoked, legal entry and public assistance shouldn't disqualify someone from the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Allen cited an instance of a judge in Dallas postponing a case until 2027, arguing that his client, who entered on a parole, doesn't qualify for the Cuban Adjustment Act because the parole expired. "I suspect that USCIS officials may use public charge, moral reasons, or parole cancellations as arguments against the Cuban Adjustment Act," Allen warned. He advised staying prepared and not succumbing to fear, except of snakes or occasionally cockroaches and mice.
Understanding the Impact of Public Charge on Cuban Adjustment Act Applications
What is the public charge rule in the context of immigration?
The public charge rule assesses whether an immigrant is likely to rely primarily on government assistance, which could impact their ability to regularize their immigration status in the United States.
How does the Cuban Adjustment Act relate to the public charge rule?
The Cuban Adjustment Act generally allows individuals to obtain residency even if they are considered a public charge, which has historically enabled many to legalize their status despite relying on government assistance.
What should applicants for the Cuban Adjustment Act do to prepare for interviews?
Applicants should attend interviews with an interpreter and legal counsel to effectively argue their case, ensuring they highlight legal entry and any public assistance received under the Cuban Adjustment Act.