Translate
The Emerald Isle Immigration Center's highly qualified staff assists clients in many aspects of immigrant life and law. The EIIC prides itself on the extraordinary services it provides.

DHS Rescinds the 2022 Public Charge Rule: What Immigrants and Families Need to Know

By James O’Dowd, EIIC legal intern

Prepared as a community explainer. This is general information, not legal advice. Anyone with a pending or upcoming application should speak with an immigration attorney or accredited representative about their specific facts.

What Is Public Charge

“Public charge” is a ground of inadmissibility that has existed in United States immigration law for more than a century. Under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person applying for a visa, admission to the United States, or adjustment of status to a green card may be denied if an immigration or consular officer decides that the person is likely, at any point in the future, to become primarily dependent on the government for support.

The statute does not define “public charge” or specify exactly which benefits count toward it. It does, however, require officers to consider, at minimum, an applicant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, and education and skills. Everything else, including which benefits matter and how heavily they should be weighed, has historically been shaped by regulation, agency guidance, and case law.

Public charge applies to people seeking green cards through adjustment of status, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants, and people seeking admission at the border. It does not apply to everyone. Several categories of people are exempt by statute, including asylees and refugees adjusting status, certain survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and other crimes who hold Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitions or T or U visas, and children adjusting status through Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Naturalization, the process of becoming a United States citizen, is not affected by public charge.

What Changed

On July 16, 2026, USCIS announced, and on July 20, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security formally published in the Federal Register, a final rule titled ‘Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’ that rescinds the 2022 regulation issued under the Biden administration. The rule takes effect on September 18, 2026.

The 2022 rule defined public charge narrowly as someone primarily dependent on the government, generally meaning a person receiving cash assistance for income maintenance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It also excluded noncash benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) from consideration against an applicant, and it directed officers to weigh a defined set of seven factors within a structured totality-of-the-circumstances framework.

The new rule removes that framework. It does not replace it with a new list of countable or excluded benefits, a new definition of public charge, or a new definition of what it means to be likely to become a public charge. According to DHS, officers will instead decide each case individually, considering the statutory minimum factors, an applicant’s receipt of means-tested public benefits, any other individualized facts and circumstances specific to the case, and any relevant empirical data bearing on the applicant’s self-sufficiency. DHS has indicated that means-tested public benefits may include both cash and noncash benefits.

USCIS also removed the regulatory list of exemptions and waivers previously found at Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations 212.23. DHS says this list was a redundant restatement of exemptions that already exist in statute, meaning the exemptions for asylees, refugees, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status-based applicants, and VAWA, T, and U survivors should remain in force. However, advocates have noted that removing the plain-language regulatory guidance may create confusion.

DHS has said USCIS will issue subregulatory guidance, likely through the USCIS Policy Manual, before the rule takes effect. That guidance will not carry the force of law, and DHS is not required to publish all of it.

Why DHS Says It Is Doing This

DHS says the 2022 regulation was too restrictive and did not reflect Congress’s intent under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which emphasized self-sufficiency and sought to ensure that public benefits would not encourage immigration. DHS argues that a fixed list of countable benefit categories limited officers’ ability to consider the full circumstances of each applicant.

The agency received 8,846 public comments on the proposal, the majority of which opposed it, and finalized the rule largely as proposed. DHS also estimates that the rule could reduce federal and state transfer payments by roughly $13 billion annually, or between $91 billion and $111 billion over ten years, largely because of anticipated disenrollment from benefits programs.

Why Advocates Are Concerned

Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations, including the American Immigration Council, have raised serious concerns about the change. Because DHS removed the 2022 framework without issuing a replacement, officers now have greater discretion but less guidance, which advocates worry could lead to inconsistent decisions and renewed fear in immigrant communities.

That concern is not theoretical. Under the first Trump administration’s 2019 public charge rule, many immigrant families, including U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households, avoided or disenrolled from benefits they were legally entitled to, out of fear that doing so could affect future immigration applications. Advocates expect a similar chilling effect here, especially because DHS has not issued a clear public list of which benefits will count.

Questions also remain about how a family member’s receipt of benefits, including a U.S. citizen child’s benefits, may be treated in an applicant’s case. That issue was raised repeatedly during the public comment period, but DHS’s published materials do not fully explain how it will be handled.

Key Dates and What Is Not Retroactive

The rule was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2026, and will become effective on September 18, 2026. It applies to applications for admission made on or after that date, and to adjustment of status applications filed on Form I-485 on or after that date, whether postmarked or submitted electronically.

Applications filed before September 18, 2026 will continue to be reviewed under the narrower 2022 standard. In general, benefits received before that date will be considered under the 2022 framework, which focuses on cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization. USCIS is expected to issue a revised Form I-485 and related forms, and older versions submitted on or after the effective date may be rejected.

What People Can Do Now

People who may be affected should first confirm whether public charge applies to their case at all. The statutory exemptions for asylees, refugees, SIJS recipients, and certain VAWA, T, and U survivors should still apply, and a brief screening with an accredited representative or attorney can help clarify a person’s category.

Anyone preparing to file for adjustment of status should speak with a qualified attorney or accredited representative now about whether filing before September 18, 2026 makes sense, and how any current or past benefit use may be viewed under either standard. People should not disenroll from benefits they or their family members are legally entitled to receive without first getting individualized legal advice. Doing so could harm eligible family members, including U.S. citizen children, without improving an immigration case.

Community members should also watch for USCIS subregulatory guidance and the revised Form I-485 as the effective date approaches. Legal challenges to the rule are likely given the level of opposition in the public comment record, although none had been confirmed as of this writing.

DHS Tightens J-1 Stay Rules: What Exchange Visitors Need to Know

By James O’Dowd, EIIC Legal Intern


The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a final rule that changes how J-1 exchange visitors are admitted to the United States. Under the new framework, most J-1 exchange visitors will no longer be admitted for “duration of status” (D/S). Instead, they will be admitted for a fixed period, generally tied to the end date of their exchange program as reflected on Form DS-2019, subject to a maximum period of admission under the rule.


For many exchange visitors, the ability to participate in an exchange program will not change. The principal practical change is that visitors and sponsors will need to monitor admission end dates more closely and, where additional time is needed, seek an extension of stay before the authorized period expires.


What is changing


Under the current system, most J-1 exchange visitors are admitted for the duration of their exchange program, followed by a 30-day grace period to prepare for departure. The final rule replaces this with a fixed admission period. A J-1 visitor who needs to remain in the United States beyond the authorized admission period generally must obtain an extension of stay from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), provided the underlying exchange program remains eligible for extension under Department of State regulations.


DHS states that the change is intended to improve oversight of nonimmigrant status and provide more regular review of continued eligibility.


Why J-1 exchange visitors should pay attention


The most significant practical change is that J-1 exchange visitors should monitor both their Form I-94 admission record and their Form DS-2019. If additional time will be needed to complete the exchange program, visitors should work with their program sponsor well before the authorized admission period expires to determine whether both the exchange program and the immigration status may be extended.
The rule also retains the existing 30-day grace period following completion of the exchange program. That period is intended to allow visitors to prepare for departure or take other lawful steps but does not authorize continued participation in the exchange program or employment.


If an exchange program ends earlier than expected, the applicable grace period generally begins from the revised program end date.


Employment and training


For J-1 categories whose employment or training is authorized incident to status, the rule permits continued authorized activities in certain circumstances while a timely filed extension of stay application is pending, generally for up to 240 days or until USCIS adjudicates the application, whichever occurs first.
Because eligibility depends on the specific J-1 category and the requirements of both DHS and the Department of State, visitors should consult their program sponsor before relying on this provision.


Transition for current J-1 exchange visitors


The rule includes transition provisions for individuals who are already maintaining J-1 status when it becomes effective. In general, current J-1 exchange visitors may continue through the authorized period provided under the transition rules, after which the new fixed-period admission framework will apply.
Visitors who travel internationally after the rule takes effect should also be aware that the new admission framework may apply upon readmission to the United States.


What sponsors should do


Exchange program sponsors should review program timelines, update internal guidance, and implement systems to monitor admission and program end dates. Sponsors should also ensure that participants understand the new filing requirements and begin discussing potential extensions sufficiently in advance of expiration dates.


Because J-2 dependents’ status is derived from the principal J-1 exchange visitor, families should also plan when an extension of stay may be required.


Effective date


The final rule is scheduled to take effect on September 15, 2026, unless its implementation is delayed or otherwise affected through the congressional review process. Exchange visitors and sponsors should use the transition period to review program end dates and identify any cases that may require future action.

Four Recent U.S. Supreme Court Rulings You Should Know About on Immigration

by James O’Dowd, EIIC Legal Intern

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court issued four major decisions that touch nearly every part of the immigration system, from the southern border to green card renewals to the citizenship of children born here. Whatever your own immigration status, these rulings may affect family members, friends, or neighbors in our community. Below, we break down what each case decided and what it could mean for you.

This summary is provided for general information only and is not legal advice. If any of these rulings may affect your case, please contact EIIC to speak with a member of our legal team.

1. Asylum Seekers at the Border: Metering Is Back On the Table

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

The Court ruled that a person only “arrives in the United States,” and is therefore entitled to inspection and the right to apply for asylum, once they physically cross the border. Simply standing at the border on the Mexican side, even in front of a U.S. official, does not count.

This clears the way for the government to resume “metering”: stationing officers at ports of entry to physically block asylum seekers from crossing until officials decide there is capacity to process them.

What this means:

  • Asylum seekers may again face long waits on the Mexican side of the border, often in border towns known to be dangerous for migrants.
  • Advocates warn this could push more people toward dangerous illegal crossings rather than waiting at official ports of entry.
  • Family members abroad who are considering presenting themselves at the border to seek asylum should get legal guidance beforehand, since conditions and wait times may change with little notice.

2. Temporary Protected Status: Courts Step Back

Mullin v. Doe

This case asked whether courts can review a decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a country. TPS has allowed hundreds of thousands of Haitians (protected since the 2010 earthquake) and Syrians (protected since 2012, amid the civil war) to live and work legally in the U.S.

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Court held that a federal law largely bars courts from second-guessing DHS’s TPS decisions. The dissenting justices argued the law should be read more narrowly and that DHS had not properly consulted the required agencies or considered evidence of discriminatory motive before ending protections.

What this means:

  • Termination of TPS for Haitian and Syrian nationals is set to take effect on July 27, 2026.
  • Affected individuals will lose both legal status and work authorization, and most will have no legal path to remain unless they qualify for another form of relief, such as asylum.
  • Estimates suggest over 40,000 people in New York City alone could be affected.
  • If you or someone you know holds TPS under either designation, please reach out to EIIC now to review other possible options before status expires.

3. Green Card Holders: Traveling With a Pending Criminal Case Is Riskier Than Ever

Blanche v. Lau

This case involved a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) who left the U.S. while a criminal charge was still pending against him, and was paroled back into the country as an “applicant for admission” rather than treated as already admitted.

The Court laid out a two-step process for cases like this:

  • Step One: If a green card holder has committed a crime involving “moral turpitude,” even if they have only been charged, not convicted, a border officer may treat them as seeking admission rather than as an already admitted resident.
  • Step Two: If that person is later convicted (or admits to the offense), they can be found inadmissible and face removal, using the conviction as proof, even though it came after the border decision was made.

Justice Jackson’s dissent warned that this allows the government to demote a green card holder’s status first and justify it later, leaving people in limbo, often for years, with a temporary paper document instead of their actual green card, and real difficulty accessing employment, healthcare, banking, and housing in the meantime.

What this means:

  • Green card holders with any pending criminal charge, even a minor one, even one that may not ultimately qualify as a disqualifying offense, should think carefully before traveling internationally.
  • Returning to the U.S. while a charge is unresolved could result in your green card being confiscated and replaced with a temporary document, along with the start of removal proceedings.
  • If you have a pending charge and upcoming travel plans, please speak with EIIC or an immigration attorney first.

4. Birthright Citizenship: Upheld and Protected

Trump v. Barbara

In the one piece of good news among these four rulings, the Court struck down the administration’s executive order that sought to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, reaffirming the Court’s landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Justice Kavanaugh agreed the order could not stand, though he reached that conclusion through federal statute rather than the Constitution itself. Three justices dissented.

What this means:

  • Children born in the United States remain U.S. citizens at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
  • Because this ruling is grounded in the Constitution, undoing it would require a constitutional amendment, not just a new law or executive order, making this protection durable for the foreseeable future.

The Bigger Picture

With the exception of the birthright citizenship case, these rulings generally expand the government’s discretion at the border and in immigration enforcement, while narrowing the situations in which courts will step in to review those decisions. Where the Constitution speaks clearly and directly, as with birthright citizenship, the Court held the line. Elsewhere, the trend this term has been toward deference to the executive branch.

Need help understanding how these rulings affect you or your family? Contact the Emerald Isle Immigration Center to schedule a consultation with our legal team.