Page 19 - Cleveland Vol 5 No 3

KATHLEEN FISH | Immigration Law
Permanent Residency: Sponsor Requirements
Iand Responsibilities
mmigration attorneys frequently for the immigrant’s permanent resi- nd themselves presented with dency; and (E) provide evidence of the same question – “But has the the ability to maintain an annual in-
system have argued for years that the recoupment provision in the INA has gone ignored by the agencies respon- sible for requesting reimbursement. President Trump’s plan, as demon- strated by the Memorandum, is to put this issue back on the table.
On its surface, the Memorandum instructs multiple federal agencies, including, among many others, the Department of Health and Human Services and Social Security, to either update or issue procedures, guidance, and regulations to con rm that ineli- gible immigrants do not receive pub- lic bene ts that they are not entitled to receive. And if they do, take legal action against the sponsor.
Immigrants’ rights groups contend that immigrants are not unlawfully obtaining public bene ts to the de- gree frequently alleged in the me- dia. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all public bene ts with the limited exception for emergency medical care. In the case of lawful im- migrants who are eligible for bene ts, statistics show that the group utilizes bene ts available to a lesser degree than U.S.-born citizens.
For the Trump administration, the bene ts for this Memorandum are multifaceted. Clearly, the Memoran- dum indicates the administration’s dedication to ensuring no unlawful instance of obtaining public bene ts and the intent to have all relevant federal agencies refocus their e orts to ensure the same. But, perhaps to a greater impact, the Memorandum will ultimately decrease many im- migrants’ abilities to nd a cospon- sor willing to agree to reimburse the government in the unlikely event that the immigrant
unlawfully obtains public bene ts, thus achieving the administration’s goal of diminishing family-based im- migration.
Trump administration really changed anything with respect to immigration law?” While it may feel as though the resounding answer is “yes,” in reality, President Trump’s administration has only strengthened the enforcement of the same immigration laws that were enacted years ago.
With published memorandums, the travel ban, law enforcement pri- orities, and public comments, Presi- dent Trump and his administration have made it evident that they seek to shi the U.S. immigration system to that of a merit-based system and sup- press family-based (“chain”) immi- gration, whereby U.S. citizens or per- manent residents petition for certain family members to obtain permanent residency in the United States. An ef- fective way for the administration to make family-based immigration in- creasingly di cult is by instilling fear in immigrant sponsors and cospon- sors. In part with that hope in mind, the White House issued on May 23, 2019, the Presidential Memorandum entitled “Memorandum on Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens” (Memorandum).
at said, the sponsor requirement for certain permanent residency ap- plicants is by no means a new com- ponent to the permanent residency process.
For decades, certain immigrants seeking green card issuance at a for- eign U.S. embassy or before USCIS (legacy Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service) must be “sponsored” by an individual in order to meet one of many requirements for permanent residency as listed under the Immi- gration and Nationality Act (INA). A sponsor, as outlined in INA §213A(f ) (1), must: (A) be a U.S. citizen, na- tional, or permanent resident; (B) be at least 18 years old; (C) be domiciled in the United States, or United States territory or possession; (D) petition
come equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line.
In circumstances where the pri- mary sponsor’s income does not meet the threshold amount accord- ing to the annual Federal poverty line standards, a cosponsor can be used to meet the requirements under INA §213A. Similarly, that cosponsor must also be a U.S. citizen or perma- nent resident and meet all the other criterion listed under INA §213A(f ) (1).
For most immigrants applying for permanent residency, there is no ex- ception to this rule; without a quali- ed nancial sponsor, the immigrant is not eligible for permanent resi- dency.
According to INA §213A, an im- migrant must submit with their permanent residency application an A davit of Support, also known as an “I-864 A davit of Support Un- der Section 213A of the INA.” is ten-page form serves as a contract between the sponsor and the U.S. government; it is the sponsor’s agree- ment to provide nancial resources to the intending immigrant in order for the immigrant to avoid seeking means-tested public bene ts.
In the event that an immigrant obtains and utilizes public bene ts when they are not eligible to do so, the INA mandates that the federal, state, or local entity that issued the public bene t request reimburse- ment from the sponsor. e INA fur- ther states that the issuing entity may bring legal action against the sponsor to recoup the reimbursement owed if the sponsor fails to comply with the request within a speci c amount of time. Obviously, this is usually the sticking point when an immigrant is searching for a cosponsor when the initial sponsor’s income fails meet the nancial requirements.
Many critics of the immigration
AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com
Attorney Kathleen S. Fish received her Juris Doctorate from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is admitted to practice law in Michigan and Ohio. Kathleen has worked with Robert Brown LLC since 2016 and primarily focuses her practice in removal defense, family-based petitions, and citizenship. For more information, visit https://www.brown-immigration.com.
19