The Public Charge Rule 2026: A Complete Guide for Green Card Applicants

What USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-09 changes, who it affects, and what applicants should do before September 18, 2026

In brief. On August 18, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Alert PA-2026-09, replacing its guidance on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The guidance implements the 2026 Final Rule, 91 FR 45324 (July 20, 2026), which rescinded the 2022 Final Rule. It applies to Forms I-485 postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18, 2026; for those filings the new Policy Manual guidance controls and supersedes prior related USCIS guidance, including the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. Earlier filings remain governed by the framework in place when they were filed. For cases governed by the 2026 guidance, the headline change is that USCIS may consider any means-tested public benefit received on or after September 18, 2026, rather than only cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization. The change is narrower than the headlines suggest, and several protective principles survive intact.

1. What Actually is Public Charge Rule 2026

USCIS updated Volume 8, Part G of the USCIS Policy Manual — the chapters governing how officers decide whether an applicant for adjustment of status is "likely at any time to become a public charge" under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The sequence:

• September 9, 2022 — DHS published the 2022 Final Rule (87 FR 55472), which defined "public charge" narrowly and limited the benefits officers could consider.

• July 20, 2026 — DHS published the 2026 Final Rule (91 FR 45324), rescinding the operative provisions of the 2022 Rule and amending the regulations governing cancellation and breach of public charge bonds.

• August 18, 2026 — USCIS issued PA-2026-09, the policy guidance implementing that rule.

• September 18, 2026 — The effective date.

The legal authorities

Authority	Subject
INA 212(a)(4); 8 CFR 212	Public charge inadmissibility
INA 213A; 8 CFR 213a	Sponsor's affidavit of support
INA 213; 8 CFR 213.1	Admission on giving bond
8 CFR 103.6	Immigration bonds
INA 245; 8 CFR 245	Adjustment of status
31 U.S.C. 9304–9308	Surety corporations

2. What "Public Charge" Means Under the New Guidance

Neither the INA nor any regulation defines "public charge" or "likely at any time to become a public charge." USCIS acknowledges this directly, and — notably — cites Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) in doing so.

For purposes of this guidance, USCIS considers a person likely to become a public charge if he or she is likely to become dependent on the government to meet basic needs — for example shelter, food, or healthcare — typically demonstrated through dependence on means-tested public benefits.

Two points of precision that matter in practice:

"Likely" means "more likely than not." That is the predictive threshold embedded in the public charge inquiry. It should not be confused with the separate question of the applicant's burden of proof. The Board of Immigration Appeals has long held that the statute "requires more than a showing of a possibility that the alien will require public support" (Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409).

The determination is prospective and discretionary. Because INA 212(a)(4)(A) frames the question as whether a person is likely to become a public charge "in the opinion of" DHS, the analysis is inherently subjective and discretionary. It is a prediction about the future based on the totality of the circumstances. Past facts — benefit receipt, work history, sponsorship history — still matter, but only to the extent they inform that prospective prediction. The guidance cites Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (BIA 1977), for the proposition that the elements are "not defined by statute, but rather are determined administratively upon consideration of all the factors bearing on the alien's ability or potential ability to be self-supporting."

3. Who Is Subject — and Who Is Not

Applicants who are subject

The public charge ground reaches far more people than family-based cases. The Policy Manual sets these out in four tables.

Family-based adjustment applicants:

• Spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens

• Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their children

• Spouses, children, and unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs

• Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and children

• Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens

• Fiancé(e)s of U.S. citizens (applicants admitted as K-1 or K-2 nonimmigrants)

• Amerasians based on preference category, born on or after December 31, 1950 and before October 22, 1982

• Spouses, widows, or widowers of U.S. citizens

Employment-based adjustment applicants:

• Priority workers (EB-1)

• Professionals with advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability (EB-2, including National Interest Waiver applicants)

• Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers (EB-3)

• Investors (EB-5)

Special immigrant adjustment applicants:

• Religious workers

• Certain employees or former employees of the U.S. government abroad

• Panama Canal Zone employees

• Foreign medical school graduates

• Retired employees of international organizations

• U.S. armed forces personnel

• International broadcasters

Other adjustment applicants:

• Diplomats or high-ranking officials unable to return home (Section 13 of the Act of September 11, 1957)

• Diversity visa immigrants (DV-1, DV-2, DV-3)

• Certain entrants before January 1, 1982

• S nonimmigrants (alien witnesses or informants)

This is worth emphasizing because it is widely misunderstood: an EB-2 NIW or EB-5 applicant adjusting status inside the United States is subject to the public charge ground, even though no Affidavit of Support is required in most employment-based cases.

A limit worth knowing

The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking an extension of stay or a change of status inside the United States. If you are extending an H-1B or changing from F-1 to H-1B, this guidance does not govern that application.

Applicants who are exempt

The following are exempt by statute or regulation:

• Asylees and refugees

• Amerasian immigrants at admission

• Afghan and Iraqi interpreters, and Afghan and Iraqi nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government

• Cuban and Haitian entrants adjusting under section 202 of IRCA

• Applicants seeking adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act

• Nicaraguans and other Central Americans adjusting status to LPR (NACARA)

• Haitians adjusting status to LPR under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998

• Lautenberg parolees

• Special immigrant juveniles (SIJ)

• Applicants for registry (INA 249)

• Applicants seeking Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

• Certain nonimmigrant ambassadors, ministers, diplomats and other foreign government officials, and their families

• Victims of human trafficking (T nonimmigrants)

• Victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants)

• Self-petitioners under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

• Certain battered aliens who are "qualified aliens" under PRWORA

• Applicants who qualify for a benefit as surviving spouses, children, or parents of military members

• American Indians born in Canada who are not U.S. citizens

• Certain members of the Texas Band of Kickapoo Indians of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

• Nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos under the FY2001 appropriations act

• Polish and Hungarian parolees

• Certain Syrian nationals

• Applicants adjusting under the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness (LRIF) law

Two traps: exemption from public charge is not exemption from Form I-864

First trap — T and U nonimmigrants adjusting through an employment-based petition. If a T or U nonimmigrant adjusts based on an employment-based petition filed by a qualifying relative, or by an entity in which such a relative holds a significant ownership interest (5 percent or more), and the applicant remains in valid T or U nonimmigrant status at both the time of filing and the time of adjudication of the Form I-485, that person is not subject to INA 212(a)(4) — but is still required to file a Form I-864.

Second trap — VAWA self-petitioners. VAWA self-petitioners are not subject to the public charge ground, but they must affirmatively request an exemption from the Form I-864 requirement when filing the Form I-485. The exemption is not automatic on the face of the filing. Once the officer determines the applicant qualifies, no public charge determination is made.

4. The Two Dates That Control Your Case

This is the single most misunderstood aspect of the new guidance, and where most public commentary goes wrong. The two dates are sequential, not independent. The filing date comes first; only once you have established that an I-485 is governed by the 2026 guidance does the benefit-receipt carve-out inside that guidance come into play.

Date one: when the Form I-485 was filed

I-485 postmarked or e-filed	Governing standard
On or after September 18, 2026	The 2026 guidance (PA-2026-09)
December 23, 2022 – September 17, 2026	The 2022 Final Rule and guidance
Before December 23, 2022	The 1999 Interim Field Guidance

A pending case does not become subject to the new guidance merely because it remains pending after September 18, 2026. The filing date controls which framework applies — not the adjudication date.

Date two: when the benefit was received — for cases governed by the 2026 guidance

For an I-485 filed on or after September 18, 2026:

• Benefits received before September 18, 2026 — officers will consider only public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense.

• Benefits received on or after September 18, 2026 — officers will consider receipt of any and all means-tested public benefits, as part of the totality of the circumstances.

Stated plainly: if you file your I-485 in 2027 or later, benefit receipt from before September 18, 2026 is still evaluated under the narrow pre-effective-date carve-out. Medicaid or SNAP received in 2024 does not retroactively become a broader-category public charge factor. But if that receipt continues on or after September 18, 2026, the post-effective-date portion may be considered.

USCIS's own hypothetical scenarios confirm this:

• Scenario 8 — the applicant received Medicaid for emergency medical care in 2025. The officer expressly declined to consider it, because the receipt predated September 18, 2026 and was neither cash assistance for income maintenance nor long-term institutionalization.

• Scenario 9 — the applicant's son received emergency Medicaid on July 4, 2026. Because that predated September 18, 2026, the officer did not consider it in the assets, resources and financial status analysis.

• Scenario 12 — the applicant's receipt of WIC during pregnancy years earlier was excluded: temporary, low in value, and prior to September 18, 2026.

• Scenario 13 — by contrast, an applicant's past Medicaid and WIC receipt occurring after September 18, 2026 was considered, weighed by reason (pregnancy), recency (20 years earlier) and value (not high). The officer found the receipt unlikely to recur.

For I-485 applications filed before September 18, 2026, the 2026 guidance does not govern; USCIS applies the 2022 Final Rule or the 1999 Interim Field Guidance depending on the filing date.

Applications and approvals follow the same effective-date rule — with one wrinkle

For cases governed by the 2026 guidance, officers will consider evidence that the applicant applied for, or was approved or certified to receive, means-tested public benefits on or after September 18, 2026. They will not consider applications, certifications or approvals occurring before that date.

The wrinkle: where an applicant applied for or was approved or certified to receive benefits for a period extending beyond September 18, 2026, officers will consider the application, certification and receipt occurring on or after that date — unless the applicant provides evidence of disenrollment, withdrawal of the application, or notice to the agency that he or she no longer wishes to receive the benefit.

Note the distinction: applying for, or being approved or certified to receive, a benefit does not constitute receipt. It remains relevant because it bears on prospective self-sufficiency and financial status.

5. Which Benefits Count

There is no official list

This is frequently misreported. USCIS states plainly that there is no statutory or regulatory definition of "means-tested public benefits" for public charge purposes. The guidance gives officers a functional test:

1. A benefit is generally means-tested if eligibility is determined based on the applicant's income or assets falling below a certain threshold.

2. A benefit is generally public if the payments or assistance are provided by a government agency or from appropriated government funds.

The guidance offers categories of examples — "including but not limited to":

• Cash assistance

• Public or assisted housing

• Financial aid for postsecondary education

• Food assistance

• Government-funded health coverage

• Any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit

Separately, in the chapter on setting public charge bond amounts, USCIS identifies seven specific programs it analyzed: Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, SNAP, TANF, SSI, and Federal Rental Assistance (defined to include HUD Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance, Housing Choice Vouchers, HUD Public Housing, HUD Section 202/811, and USDA Section 521). USCIS notes expressly that "other means-tested public benefits may also be considered under the 2026 Public Charge Final Rule." Programs also appearing in the worked scenarios include public cash assistance and free school lunch.

Because the test is functional rather than list-based, the prudent screening approach is: if eligibility turns on income or assets below a threshold and the assistance comes from government or appropriated funds, treat it as potentially in scope unless the guidance clearly places it outside the definition, as it does for earned benefits.

What is not means-tested

The guidance is explicit that earned benefits are not means-tested public benefits:

• Social Security (Title II)

• Medicare

• Unemployment insurance

These are earned through work history or contributions rather than awarded on the basis of financial need. Government pension benefits and veterans' benefits are likewise treated as earned income in the assets and resources analysis.

Emergency Medicaid is not carved out

A point worth stating because it is often assumed otherwise: nothing in the guidance categorically excludes emergency Medicaid. In the scenarios where emergency Medicaid was not considered, the reason was the pre-September 18, 2026 receipt date, not the nature of the benefit. USCIS's bond-estimation footnote acknowledges that its Medicaid data "may include individuals receiving Emergency Medicaid," while noting that emergency Medicaid covers only emergency medical conditions, does not provide comprehensive Medicaid benefits, and is accessible regardless of immigration status.

The PRWORA trap

Some federal benefit programs carry statutory exceptions from PRWORA's immigration-status-based eligibility restrictions — for example 8 U.S.C. 1611(b), 1613(c), and 1615(a)–(b) (the latter covering the Federal Child Nutrition Programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966).

These PRWORA exceptions do not create exceptions for public charge purposes. The guidance says so directly. If an applicant applies for, is approved or certified to receive, or receives such a benefit, officers will consider it in the totality of the circumstances.

What the PRWORA exception does affect is weight. Officers are told to consider the nature of the benefit and why Congress or the administering agency determined it should be available to everyone without regard to immigration status. In Scenario 9, the applicant's son received free school lunches; the officer considered the nature of that program and the limited impact on household finances, and gave it correspondingly little weight.

Whose receipt counts: a critical limit

Receipt occurs only when the applicant is listed as a beneficiary of the benefit.

USCIS does not attribute to an applicant:

• Benefits received by the applicant's relatives, including children

• Benefits received by the applicant solely on behalf of third parties (for instance as a legal guardian or custodian)

• The fact that the applicant applied for a benefit on behalf of another person

There is an important qualification. If the applicant's children or any other relative or household member whom the applicant is legally obligated to support receives means-tested benefits based on the applicant's income or assets falling below a certain level, the officer should consider the applicant's income or assets being below that threshold — not the benefit itself — under the assets, resources and financial status factor. Scenario 9 applies exactly this analysis to the free school lunch.

Separately, receipt by household members is relevant only where either (a) those benefits are the applicant's source of financial support, or (b) the applicant is legally obligated to support that household member. USCIS does not collect information about household members' benefit receipt on Form I-485 at all.

Receipt alone never decides the case

The guidance states, and long-standing BIA precedent confirms, that current or past receipt of means-tested public benefits is not, alone, a sufficient basis to find someone likely to become a public charge (Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136: "The fact that an alien has been on welfare does not, by itself, establish that he or she is likely to become a public charge.").

The converse is also true: an applicant may be found likely to become a public charge even having never received any benefit.

Pregnancy

Pregnancy does not create an exemption. If an applicant receives means-tested benefits while pregnant or recently pregnant, officers consider that receipt — but may take into account the temporary nature of pregnancy and postpartum conditions and how those circumstances affected receipt.

6. The Five Statutory Minimum Factors

Under INA 212(a)(4)(B), officers must consider, at minimum:

Age

Considered in relation to its effect on the other factors. For a child unable to earn a living, the assets and financial status of parents or guardians in the household carry particular weight. For an applicant who is retired, nearing retirement, or indicates no employment plans, retirement accounts and household assets take on a more critical role. Age alone is never outcome determinative.

Health

Officers must not make health diagnoses. They generally defer to the immigration medical examination completed by a civil surgeon (Form I-693) or panel physician (Forms DS-2054, DS-7794 and related worksheets), performed under CDC Technical Instructions.

• Class A conditions render a person inadmissible under the health-related grounds of INA 212(a)(1)(A) — a separate ground.

• Class B conditions do not render a person inadmissible, but may bear on ability to work or the likelihood of requiring extensive medical or institutional care, and so may be relevant here.

Even where a condition prevents work or requires extensive care, an applicant may still demonstrate sufficient household income, assets and resources to cover projected needs and medical costs — or health insurance (that is not itself a means-tested benefit) adequate to address those costs. Scenario 4 illustrates the opposite outcome: a 70-year-old with a Class B condition preventing work, limited savings, no health insurance, and a sponsor already supporting three others was found inadmissible.

Disability: an explicit protection

The guidance states, without qualification:

An alien's disability alone is not a sufficient basis to determine that the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, and an officer may not find an alien inadmissible on the public charge ground solely based on an applicant's disability.

Officers are further instructed not to presume that having a disability means poor health or likely public charge status, and USCIS does not presume that a disability in and of itself negatively affects any other statutory factor. The guidance cites HHS research showing that the majority of people with disabilities do not use institutional care.

Family status

Understood to include household size. The household may include:

• The applicant

• The applicant's spouse, if physically residing with the applicant

• The applicant's parents, if physically residing with the applicant

• The applicant's unmarried siblings under 21, if physically residing with the applicant

• The applicant's children, if physically residing with the applicant

• Anyone listed as a dependent on the applicant's federal income tax return

• Anyone who lists the applicant as a dependent on their federal income tax return

Financial contributions from non-cohabiting household members are folded into the assets and resources analysis.

Assets, resources and financial status

USCIS examines household income, assets and liabilities.

Income. May include income from non-household sources such as alimony or child support, and earned cash payments such as Title II Social Security, government pensions, unemployment insurance and veterans' benefits. Officers exclude from positive consideration any income derived from means-tested public benefits, and exclude entirely income from illegal activities or sources. Notably, income derived from unauthorized employment is not excluded from the household income calculation — whether unauthorized employment occurred is a separate determination with separate consequences. USCIS does not limit consideration to income appearing on tax forms and considers evidence of expected future income.

Assets and liabilities. Investments and home equity on one side; loans, alimony and child support obligations on the other. Debts do not by themselves indicate inadmissibility.

Education and skills

Degrees, certifications, licenses, educational certificates, and skills obtained through work experience — including volunteer and unpaid work. Workforce skills, training, occupational licenses, language skills including English proficiency, and apprenticeship certificates all count. The guidance is explicit that formal education is not required: skills earned through certification, licensure, on-the-job training or general work experience are all cognizable.

7. The Affidavit of Support: Both Sides of the Coin

When it is required

Most family-based applicants — immediate relatives and family-sponsored preference categories — must submit Form I-864 (or I-864EZ) signed by a sponsor. So must principal K nonimmigrants and those adjusting as the child of a principal K nonimmigrant.

Most employment-based applicants do not file Form I-864 — unless the petitioner is a relative of the applicant, or an entity in which the applicant's relative holds a significant ownership interest (5 percent or more).

Accompanying spouses and children (applying at the same time, or within 6 months of the principal acquiring LPR status) are included on the principal's affidavit and submit a photocopy. Following-to-join spouses and children applying 6 months or more later each require their own independent Form I-864.

Sufficiency

Form I-864 is a legally enforceable contract. A sponsor must generally demonstrate the ability to maintain the sponsored immigrant at an annual income of not less than 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines — reduced to 100 percent for a sponsor on active duty (other than active duty for training) petitioning for a spouse or child.

Officers should verify that the sponsor's household size correctly includes everyone claimed as a dependent on the most recent federal tax return, all previously sponsored immigrants whose support obligation has not terminated, and everyone to be sponsored under the current affidavit.

The negative side: absence is dispositive

If an applicant is required to submit a sufficient Form I-864 and does not, the statute requires a finding of inadmissibility. In that circumstance USCIS does not engage in a totality of the circumstances analysis at all. This is the only factor in the entire framework that is outcome determinative standing alone.

The positive side: presence is not dispositive

Officers may consider a sufficient Form I-864 — and may consider only a sufficient one. But a sufficient affidavit does not, alone, result in a finding that the applicant is not inadmissible. The statute still requires consideration of the minimum factors and all relevant evidence.

When officers do consider a sufficient affidavit, they weigh it according to the likelihood that the sponsor will actually provide the statutorily required support. Officers may consider:

• The sponsor's relationship to the applicant, including whether the sponsor lives with or intends to live with the applicant

• Whether the sponsor has provided the required support to anyone previously or currently sponsored

• The degree to which the sponsor's income, assets and resources exceed the statutory minimum

• Whether the sponsor is currently receiving means-tested public benefits

• Whether the sponsor has received a USCIS fee waiver

• The sponsor's financial history, including bankruptcy or failure to meet financial responsibilities

An officer who declines to consider a sufficient Form I-864 may do so only with supervisory concurrence, and must articulate the reasons in the NOID or denial notice.

This is not theoretical. In Scenario 5, a joint sponsor's affidavit was sufficient but given little weight: the sponsor lived in a different city, had only a loose connection to the applicant through the petitioning spouse, and had income only slightly above the INA 213A minimum. In Scenario 9, a petitioner's affidavit was discounted because the couple had divorced and the petitioner had already failed to pay court-ordered alimony — the officer reasoned that enforcing the affidavit would require a lengthy and costly lawsuit.

8. Other Relevant Factors

Willingness and ability to work

This is where the most protective principle in the framework lives:

An alien who is of working age and who is in good physical and mental condition is capable of earning a living or working to meet his or her basic needs, even if the alien receives certain means-tested benefits. Such an alien would not generally be found inadmissible under the public charge ground. Even where an alien has a low income, if the alien is healthy, willing, and able to work, he or she is likely to be self-sufficient and therefore, generally not likely at any time to become a public charge.

Current unemployment, or a past period of unemployment, is by itself insufficient. Officers examine the arc of education, training, employment history and prospects, and may request evidence of prospective employment including job offers with estimated salary. Scenario 14 is instructive: an applicant laid off from an H-1B role, receiving unemployment insurance, enrolled in an MBA and documenting active interviewing, was found not inadmissible.

Scenario 3 shows the other end: an unemployed 55-year-old college graduate who had not worked in over a decade, receiving public cash assistance for over five years with no prospect of employment, was found inadmissible.

Primary caregiver — a positive factor

An applicant 18 or older with significant responsibility for actively caring for a child, or for an elderly, ill or disabled person in the household, may be treated as a primary caregiver. Officers may positively consider this contribution, and may determine that caregiving responsibilities outweigh deficiencies in education, skills, or employment history.

A parent with joint custody should generally have primary physical custody to qualify. Purely financial support — paying for a parent's nursing home room and board while living elsewhere — does not qualify, because it does not occupy significant time or preclude employment. Where two household members both claim to be primary caregiver and there is no documentation establishing which one is, the officer should give the claim less weight.

Scenario 12 illustrates the positive application: an applicant who left nursing-assistant work to provide full-time care for her father-in-law with Parkinson's disease had that contribution credited as relieving the potential financial burden of institutionalization.

Fee waivers and fee exemptions

Officers may consider the request, receipt or approval of an immigration benefit fee waiver, but only for adjustment applications filed on or after February 24, 2020 (before that date the public was not on notice). Officers may consider when the waiver was granted, the amount, and the grounds.

Officers may not consider a fee exemption. Fee exemptions are granted based on statutory authority, regulation or policy for specific forms and categories — not on inability to pay.

Children

Children are not exempt. For a child applicant, officers consider all required factors, may consider a sufficient I-864, and consider the household's financial contributions, the circumstances that led to any benefit receipt, and whether those circumstances are likely to persist — including whether receipt was due to temporary parental unemployment.

Active-duty servicemembers and their families

Because non-citizens must generally be LPRs to enlist, active-duty servicemembers are unlikely to be applying for adjustment of status. If they do, they are not exempt from the public charge ground based on their service.

However, USCIS acknowledges that the unique compensation and tax structure Congress established for servicemembers makes it common for active-duty members and their families to receive certain means-tested benefits. Officers may consider evidence about the duration, amount and recency of receipt and how it was affected by military service; skills obtained through military service; the sacrifices of members of the armed forces; and the fact that many enlistees are early in their careers, earning relatively low salaries supplemented by allowances and tax advantages, which may rise over time.

Victims of crime, domestic violence, or other adverse circumstances

An applicant who received benefits as a direct or indirect result of crime, domestic violence or other adverse circumstances may provide evidence about those temporary circumstances, and officers may consider it. Some such victims may also be exempt outright depending on their circumstances.

9. How the Decision Is Made

Burden of proof

The applicant always bears the burden of establishing admissibility. The burden never shifts to USCIS at any point in the adjudication (INA 291; Matter of Bett, 26 I&N Dec. 437; Matter of Arthur, 16 I&N Dec. 558).

Evidence in the record

Employment history as stated on Form I-485; information relating to the statutory minimum factors and benefit receipt collected on Form I-485; health information from Form I-693 or the DOS medical examination report; a sufficient Form I-864 where required; information concerning applications for, approvals or certifications to receive, and receipt of means-tested public benefits provided by benefit-granting agencies; and any other relevant information. USCIS states that applications, approvals, certifications or receipt after September 18, 2026 will be "highly relevant."

The step-by-step framework

The Policy Manual sets out eight steps:

1. Is the applicant subject to the public charge ground? If no — not inadmissible on this ground.

2. Is a Form I-864 required? If yes, go to step 3; if no, go to step 4.

3. Was a Form I-864 submitted and determined sufficient? If no — inadmissible. The officer may issue a NOID or deny.

4. Was the application postmarked or e-filed on or after September 18, 2026? If no — follow the 2022 Rule (filings on or after December 23, 2022) or the 1999 Interim Field Guidance (filings before that date).

5. After reviewing the applicable forms and evidence, is the applicant likely at any time to become a public charge based on the totality of the circumstances? If no — not inadmissible.

6. Is a waiver of inadmissibility available? If yes, the officer may issue an RFE or NOID giving the applicant an opportunity to request it. If the waiver is approved, the applicant may be admitted despite the ground, and the officer continues the adjudication.

7. Does USCIS offer the applicant — who is inadmissible only on account of public charge — the opportunity to post a bond? If yes, USCIS issues a NOID notifying the applicant. If not, the applicant is inadmissible.

8. Was a proper and suitable bond posted on behalf of the applicant? If yes, the applicant may be admitted despite the inadmissibility finding, and the officer continues the adjudication. If not, the officer denies the application.

There is no bright-line test

USCIS says so expressly. No single factor is outcome determinative except the lack of a sufficient Form I-864, where one is required.

RFEs, NOIDs and denials

If initial evidence does not establish eligibility or ineligibility, the officer may issue an RFE or NOID. A NOID is mandatory where the officer bases a decision in whole or in part on information the applicant is unaware of or could not reasonably be expected to be aware of. A NOID must explain the consideration of all factors and why the officer believes the applicant is likely to become a public charge.

10. Waivers

The public charge ground generally cannot be waived for applicants seeking lawful permanent resident status. Two narrow exceptions:

• S nonimmigrant witnesses and informants adjusting under INA §245(j). Certain S nonimmigrants may overcome the public-charge ground in connection with adjustment of status. Under 8 C.F.R. §245.11(c), grounds of inadmissibility that were waived when the applicant obtained S nonimmigrant status are treated as waived for purposes of the subsequent adjustment. The special adjustment process is initiated through the law-enforcement-agency procedure applicable to S nonimmigrants. Form I-854A pertains to the request for S nonimmigrant classification and related waiver at that earlier stage; it should not be described as the adjustment-stage waiver form.

• Certain aged, blind or disabled applicants adjusting under the legalization program (INA 245A), using Form I-690. "Aged, blind, or disabled" is as defined in Section 1614(a)(1) of the Social Security Act.

For nonimmigrants seeking admission, a temporary discretionary waiver under INA 212(d)(3)(A) may be sought. This waiver is adjudicated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection — as part of either an application for admission at a port of entry or an application for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy. If granted, it generally applies only to the nonimmigrant classification for which it was granted.

11. Public Charge Bonds

An applicant found inadmissible only on the public charge ground and otherwise admissible and eligible for adjustment may be admitted in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security after posting a suitable and proper bond under INA 213.

USCIS must invite the bond

No public charge bond will be accepted from an adjustment applicant without an invitation from USCIS. USCIS does not accept requests to submit a bond, or unsolicited bonds filed with a Form I-485 or while one is pending. The invitation comes through a Notice of Intent to Deny, which must state at a minimum:

• That the applicant has been found inadmissible on the public charge ground, and why

• That USCIS decided to favorably exercise discretion to allow a bond

• The bond amount

• That the bond must be posted on Form I-945 per the form instructions

• The due date (postmark date) by which Form I-945 must be submitted

• The consequences of failing to respond or to submit Form I-945 properly — specifically that the bond will be rejected or deemed insufficient and the adjustment denied

• Any additional information required to properly post the bond

The officer must adjudicate all other aspects of the adjustment application before considering whether to offer a bond.

The offer is discretionary — and the default is no

Generally, aliens inadmissible under the public charge ground should not be allowed to post a bond and be approved for adjustment of status given Congress's statement of national policy that aliens within the United States should not depend on public resources to meet their needs.

Three circumstances foreclose a bond or weigh heavily against it:

• No bond is offered if the application would be denied on any other basis, including discretionary grounds.

• No bond should be offered to anyone currently receiving any means-tested public benefit — such a person would be in immediate breach.

• If the appropriate bond amount would exceed $100,000, that is a negative factor in the discretionary determination.

The underlying discretionary analysis weighs all positive against negative factors — close family ties in the United States, community standing, length of lawful residence, evidence of respect for law and order, and violations of immigration law.

Amount

A public charge bond must be at least $1,000, and sufficient to hold the government harmless. USCIS sets the amount case by case.

To assist officers, USCIS built three applicant categories and estimated the benefits a person could receive over a five-year period after adjustment, using the median of average amounts across Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, SNAP, TANF, SSI and Federal Rental Assistance:

Category	Year 1	Year 3	Year 5
Single/married adult with children	$8,400	$25,200	$42,000
Single/married adult without children	$10,686	$32,058	$53,430
Child	$5,640	$16,920	$28,200

USCIS cautions that the median may be too low where an applicant receives Medicaid (estimated $15,420/year) or SSI ($12,024/year), or is a TANF recipient (about 95 percent of TANF households receive three or more benefits). It may be too high where the applicant receives only WIC ($576/year). The table excludes institutionalization at government expense, valued at approximately $109,860 per year under Medicaid. Officers may set an amount higher or lower than the table in their discretion.

Form, type and acceptance

The bond is posted on Form I-945, as either a cash bond or a surety bond:

	Cash bond	Surety bond
Who may post	A natural person (including the applicant), a company	A Treasury-certified surety company, or its authorized agent
Payment with filing	Yes	No
Co-obligor possible	No	Yes — the authorized agent becomes a co-obligor

Cash bond funds are held in a U.S. Treasury account and accrue interest at the Treasury rate from the date received. Surety companies must be Treasury-certified and listed in Circular 570. An applicant offered a bond cannot post a surety bond on his or her own behalf. Where an agent posts on behalf of a surety, the agent becomes jointly and severally liable for the full amount.

A public charge bond is a contract between USCIS and the obligor, and is not effective until USCIS accepts it — that is, until the designated USCIS authority signs it. USCIS will not accept a bond if the obligor attaches a rider adding conditions, physically alters the text of Form I-945, or submits the obligation on any document other than Form I-945. Once signed and accepted, USCIS issues a receipt and the officer proceeds to final adjudication. If the adjustment application is nonetheless denied after acceptance, USCIS returns the bond and refunds any cash deposit with accrued interest.

Duration, substitution and breach

USCIS accepts only bonds of unlimited duration. A bond remains in effect until USCIS approves a substitute bond, cancels the bond, or determines it breached.

A substitute bond must meet all requirements applicable to the initial bond and cover all liabilities the initial obligor incurred — including any breach occurring before USCIS accepts the substitute. On acceptance, USCIS cancels the prior bond, releases prior obligors, and returns the original amount with interest.

Breach. A condition of the bond is that the applicant not receive means-tested public benefits. Use of a single means-tested public benefit in any amount is sufficient for a breach — though USCIS is careful to note that breaching a bond is not synonymous with becoming a public charge.

USCIS may learn of a breach from federal or state benefit-granting agencies, from the applicant's own cancellation request, or from other filings. Before declaring a breach, USCIS must issue a Notice of Intent to Declare the Public Charge Bond Breached, which must be specific enough to permit rebuttal, include all supporting information that may lawfully be disclosed, and state a deadline to respond. Information that cannot lawfully be disclosed must be redacted and may not be used to support the breach determination. A copy goes to the applicant and any representative.

The 2026 Final Rule amended the regulations governing cancellation and breach, and explicitly addressed administrative appeals from a breach determination. For bonds accepted before September 18, 2026, the regulations and bond conditions in place at that time continue to govern.

For immigrant visa applicants

USCIS accepts a bond in the consular context only upon receiving notification that a consular officer requires it — either directly from the consular officer or presented by an interested person.

12. What This Guidance Does Not Do

• It does not govern I-485 applications filed before September 18, 2026.

• For cases it does govern, it does not reach back to benefits received before September 18, 2026, except public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization.

• It does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking an extension of stay or a change of status inside the United States.

• It does not attribute a child's or relative's benefits to the applicant.

• It does not make any single factor dispositive, apart from a missing required Affidavit of Support.

• It does not permit a finding based solely on disability.

• It does not create an official list of disqualifying programs.

• It governs USCIS adjudications. Immigrant visa applications abroad are adjudicated by the Department of State; admission at ports of entry is CBP's function; and immigration judges apply their own authorities in removal proceedings.

13. Practical Guidance for Applicants

Do not disenroll from benefits reflexively. Many people are exempt from the public charge ground entirely. Many benefits are not means-tested. Benefits received before September 18, 2026 are largely outside the analysis. Benefits lawfully received by your children in their own names are not attributed to you. Dropping coverage you are legally entitled to — particularly healthcare — can cause serious harm with no immigration benefit. Get advice specific to your case first.

Understand which date applies to you. Establish your filing date first; that determines the framework. Then, if the 2026 guidance governs, look separately at the dates of any benefit receipt.

If your case is genuinely ready, consider the filing date. Filing before September 18, 2026 preserves adjudication under the earlier framework. Whether that is advantageous depends on your complete facts, eligibility, evidentiary record and benefit history. An incomplete or premature filing should not be rushed merely to obtain an earlier filing date.

Build the positive record. Assemble: employment history and current employment verification; job offers and expected future income; degrees, certifications, licenses and occupational credentials; evidence of English or other language proficiency; documentation of assets and of liabilities being managed; health insurance that is not a means-tested benefit; and documentation of primary caregiving responsibilities if applicable.

Scrutinize the Affidavit of Support. Confirm the sponsor's household size is calculated correctly and that income exceeds 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines with margin. Consider whether the sponsor's own circumstances — past sponsorships, benefit receipt, fee waivers, bankruptcy history, physical distance from the applicant — will affect the weight the affidavit receives.

If you are a VAWA self-petitioner, remember to request the I-864 exemption when you file the I-485. It is not automatic.

If you receive a NOID, read it carefully. It must explain the officer's reasoning across all factors, and it is the only vehicle through which a public charge bond can be offered.

14. Frequently Asked Questions

• I have had Medicaid for two years. Will that be held against me? First determine which framework governs. If your I-485 is filed on or after September 18, 2026, Medicaid received before that date is not considered under the broadened rule unless it amounted to long-term institutionalization at government expense. Medicaid received on or after September 18, 2026 may be considered, with weight depending on nature, amount, duration, recency and reason. If your I-485 was filed before September 18, 2026, the 2022 Rule or the 1999 guidance applies instead, based on your filing date.

  
  

• My U.S. citizen children receive SNAP. Does that count against me? Not as your receipt — benefits received by your children in their own names are not attributed to you. But if you are legally obligated to support them and their eligibility was based on your income or assets falling below a threshold, the officer may consider your income being below that threshold under the financial status factor.

  
  

• I'm on an EB-2 NIW. Does public charge apply to me? Yes. Employment-based adjustment applicants — EB-1, EB-2 including NIW, EB-3 and EB-5 — are subject to the public charge ground, even though most do not file an Affidavit of Support.

  
  

• I'm an asylee adjusting status. Does this affect me? No. Asylees and refugees are exempt.

  
  

• I'm extending my H-1B. Does this apply? Not to that application. The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply to nonimmigrants seeking an extension of stay or a change of status inside the United States. Two caveats worth knowing. If you later file a Form I-485 to adjust status, the public charge ground does apply to that application, and benefits received on or after September 18, 2026 may be considered at that point. Separately, the Department of State has stated that consular officers weigh current and past use of U.S. public benefits when adjudicating visa applications, and has warned that abuse of public benefits can lead to visa revocation or future visa ineligibility. That is a different legal mechanism from the inadmissibility ground discussed in this article, but it is a real consideration if you will need a visa stamp abroad.

  
  

• I have a disability. Can my case be denied because of it? Not on that basis alone. An officer may not find someone inadmissible on the public charge ground solely because of a disability, and may not presume that a disability means poor health or likely dependence.

  
  

• My income is low. Is that fatal? No. Where an applicant is healthy, willing and able to work, the guidance says he or she is generally likely to be self-sufficient and not likely to become a public charge — even with low income.

  
  

• Is unemployment insurance a problem? No. Unemployment insurance is an earned benefit, not a means-tested public benefit. In Scenario 14, an applicant receiving unemployment while actively job-hunting was found not inadmissible.

  
  

• Can I just post a bond if I'm found inadmissible? Only if USCIS invites you to. Bonds cannot be submitted voluntarily, are offered only where public charge is the sole basis for inadmissibility, and are discretionary — the guidance says the general expectation is that they should not be offered.

Speak With Us

Public charge determinations turn on the specific facts of each case — the filing date, the benefit dates, the identity of the beneficiary, the sponsor's circumstances, and the full record of health, employment, education and finances. Small factual differences change outcomes.

If you are preparing a Form I-485, or if you or a family member receives government assistance and you are unsure how the new guidance applies, contact LexElite Law for a case-specific assessment.

Sources

• USCIS Policy Alert PA-2026-09, Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility, August 18, 2026 (8 USCIS-PM Part G)

• 91 FR 45324 (July 20, 2026) — 2026 Final Rule

• 87 FR 55472 (September 9, 2022) — 2022 Final Rule (rescinded)

• 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999) — Interim Field Guidance (superseded)

• INA 212(a)(4), INA 213, INA 213A, INA 291; 8 CFR 103.6, 8 CFR 212, 8 CFR 213.1, 8 CFR 213a

• Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409; Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136; Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (BIA 1977); Matter of Arthur, 16 I&N Dec. 558 (BIA 1978); Matter of Bett, 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014)

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)

  
  

*This article provides general information about U.S. immigration law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes frequently and outcomes depend on individual facts. Consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific circumstances.