USA: Rule Change Could Increase Green Card Denials for Benefit-Using Households

Related Articles

U.S. and Cameroon Agree to Deepen Security and Development Cooperation

November 19, 2025

FECAFOOT Election Showdown: Eto’o Pushes Forward as FIFA and CAF Step In

November 19, 2025

FC Bayern : un partenariat qui fait grandir le football féminin au Cameroun

November 19, 2025

CameroonOnline.ORG | The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is moving forward with a proposed rule that would make it easier to deny lawful permanent-resident (green-card) applications for immigrants based on their use of, or likely future use of, public benefits. Under the proposed change, immigration officers would gain broader discretion to assess whether an applicant might become a “public charge”—a person who relies primarily on the government for subsistence.

What is changing

Currently, the public-charge test for adjustment of status focuses mainly on cash benefits for income maintenance or long-term institutional care at government expense. Under the new proposal, DHS plans to rescind the 2022 regulations that limited these grounds and restore a more expansive evaluation of the “totality of the circumstances”—including non-cash programs like certain health, nutrition, housing or other public assistance programs.

Why it matters

This shift would mark a return to the tougher standard from earlier years, where use of public benefits beyond immediate cash assistance could render an applicant inadmissible. Critics say the increased discretion may lead to inconsistent outcomes and could discourage immigrant families from using benefits for which they qualify. Supporters of the proposal argue it reinforces the principle that immigrants should be financially self-sufficient.

Impacts and concerns

• Immigrant families—especially those with lower incomes or relying on assistance programs—may face greater uncertainty about their ability to adjust status if benefit use becomes a more significant factor.

• There is concern about a “chilling effect”: eligible immigrants might avoid using health care, nutrition or housing supports out of fear their future immigration status could be at risk.

• Employers, healthcare providers and social-service agencies may see indirect effects if fewer people enroll in eligible programs.

• The broader discretion granted to immigration officers raises questions about transparency, consistency of decision-making, and potential legal challenges.

Looking ahead

The rule is expected to enter a public comment period. Key issues to watch include how “public benefit” is defined, what specific benefits will be considered, how the “totality of the circumstances” test will be operationalised and how applicants and their families navigate the increased risk of denial.