Understanding the Public Charge Rule: What Public Benefits May or May Not Impact Your Immigration Case
Angelica Rice • July 3, 2025
When applying for a green card or seeking admission into the United States, one of the legal hurdles many applicants may face is the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This test evaluates whether someone is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support.
But what exactly does that mean—and what types of public benefits can trigger this issue?
In this article, we’ll break down what “public charge” really means, who is affected, what types of public benefits are considered, and what immigrants should be mindful of when making decisions about public programs like Medi-Cal and Medicaid.
What Is the Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility?
The public charge rule applies to individuals applying for a visa, green card (adjustment of status), or entry into the U.S., unless they fall into an exempt category. Under this rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must determine whether the applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. This typically refers to receiving:
- Public cash assistance for income maintenance (such as SSI or TANF), or
- Long-term institutional care at government expense.
This determination is based on the "totality of circumstances," including age, health, financial resources, education, skills, and whether a sponsor has submitted a valid Affidavit of Support.
Who Is Exempt from the Public Charge Rule?
Many categories of immigrants are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. These include:
- Asylees and refugees
- Special immigrant juveniles
- Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners
- T and U visa applicants
- Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants
Importantly, even if someone later adjusts status through a different pathway that is subject to public charge, any benefits they received while in an exempt category will not be held against them.
What Public Benefits Are Not Considered in the Public Charge Test?
It is a common and harmful myth that using any public benefit will jeopardize your immigration status. In fact, most non-cash benefits do not count against you in a public charge determination. According to USCIS and DHS guidance, the following types of assistance (current as of July 1, 2025) are not considered:
Health-Related Benefits
- Medi-Cal/Medicaid, except for long-term institutional care
- Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
- Health insurance through the ACA Marketplace, including subsidies
- COVID-19 testing, vaccines, and treatment
- Community health services, crisis counseling, and short-term shelters
Food and Nutrition
- SNAP (Food Stamps)
- WIC
- School meal programs
- Food banks and emergency food assistance
Housing and Energy
- Emergency shelter
- Rental assistance (e.g., McKinney-Vento programs)
- Energy assistance (e.g., LIHEAP)
Education and Childcare
- Public schooling
- Head Start
- Childcare subsidies (e.g., CCDF)
- Educational grants and scholarships
Federal Cash and Tax Benefits
- Earned income tax credit (EITC)
- Child Tax Credit (CTC)
- Stimulus checks
- Unemployment insurance
- Social Security and veteran’s benefits
- Disaster and pandemic-related cash aid
In short, just because a benefit is public or government-funded doesn’t automatically make it count against you.
A Word of Caution About Medi-Cal and Medicaid, in Particular
As of today (07/01/2025), standard use of Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) or Medicaid for most health-related services is not considered in a public charge determination. This includes preventative care, emergency services, pregnancy-related services, and short-term care.
However, if Medicaid is used for long-term institutionalization, such as in a nursing home or psychiatric facility, that does count under the public charge test.
Despite current guidance, we are seeing political shifts and changes in tone from the current administration that suggest public charge policies may become more restrictive in the future. This includes renewed interest in expanding the types of public benefits that may be considered, particularly around medical assistance.
For that reason, we generally recommend that individuals who are applying for adjustment of status, or who may be subject to the public charge ground in the future, avoid enrolling in Medi-Cal or Medicaid at this time, unless absolutely necessary.
Final Thoughts
Immigration law is complex, and the rules surrounding public charge can feel confusing or even frightening. But it’s important to understand that using most public benefits—especially for food, education, and healthcare—will not automatically jeopardize your green card or visa application.
Still, because policy can change quickly, we urge individuals to consult with an immigration attorney before applying for any public assistance—especially healthcare programs like Medi-Cal or Medicaid.
If you have questions or concerns about how public benefits might impact your immigration case, our office is here to help. We are committed to providing up-to-date, personalized guidance to keep your immigration journey on track.
Disclaimer
The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every immigration case is unique, and the application of the public charge rule may vary depending on your specific situation. If you believe this topic may apply to you or you need individualized legal guidance, we encourage you to contact one of our highly-qualified legal professionals for a consultation and assistance tailored to your circumstances.
Resources:
- USCIS Public Charge Resources
- ILRC Medi-Cal and Public Charge Alert (2024)
- California Medi-Cal Immigrant Eligibility FAQ
This blog is not intended to be legal advice and nothing here should be construed as establishing an attorney client relationship. Please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney before acting on any information read here.
Angelica Rice
Similar Posts
In January 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the Laken Riley Act , marking a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. The Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for theft-related offenses such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. Under this Act, the Department of Homeland Security must detain an individual who: (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The Act also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. It authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a: Decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody; Failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews; Failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country; Violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or Failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States. The Act's stringent detention requirements may lead to increased fear and uncertainty within immigrant communities. Individuals who are merely accused of certain crimes could face mandatory detention. The Act may also affect legal immigration processes. Increased detention and deportation efforts could strain resources, potentially leading to delays in processing visas and asylum applications. Given the evolving legal landscape: Stay Informed and/or Seek Legal Counsel - Consult with your immigration attorney to understand how new laws and policies may affect your situation and if you or someone you know is facing immigration-related legal issues. Know Your Rights - Familiarize yourself with your legal rights, especially concerning interactions with law enforcement and immigration authorities. Community Engagement - Participate in community organizations that provide support and resources for immigrants, fostering a network of assistance and advocacy. If you have any questions or would like to consult with an experienced immigration attorney, contact our office to schedule a consultation.
In a renewed wave of enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started sending formal alerts to certain F-1 students participating in Optional Practical Training (OPT), flagging that their records reflect over 90 days without any reported employment. These students have been advised to update their employment status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) within 15 days. Failure to take timely corrective action may lead to the termination of the student's SEVIS record, effectively marking them as out of status, and may ultimately trigger removal proceedings. The notices are intended as a warning that students who do not comply with OPT reporting obligations are at risk of serious immigration consequences. Understanding OPT and Its Unemployment Limits Optional Practical Training (commonly referred to as “OPT”) is a work authorization benefit that allows eligible F-1 international students to gain hands-on experience in their field of study. Students may apply for pre-completion OPT (while still in school) or post-completion OPT (after graduation), typically for up to 12 months. Those with degrees in qualifying STEM fields may apply for an additional 24-month STEM OPT extension, giving them a total of 36 months of work authorization in the U.S. To maintain valid F-1 status while on OPT, students must remain actively employed in a position related to their field of study. The amount of time a student may remain in the United States while on OPT without being properly employed is capped at: 90 days during the standard 12-month post-completion OPT, and 150 days for those on the STEM OPT extension, which includes any days of unemployment accrued during the initial OPT period. These unemployment limits are cumulative and enforced strictly through SEVIS monitoring. What Should F-1 Students Do? If you are an F-1 student on OPT or STEM OPT and receive a warning or are unsure about your compliance status, act quickly: Contact your Designated School Official (DSO) immediately to review and, if necessary, update your SEVIS record. Ensure all employment is properly documented and reported through your school’s international office. Do not ignore warning notices, as failure to respond may lead to SEVIS termination and potentially the initiation of removal proceedings. It is also advisable to consult with a qualified immigration attorney to explore available options and understand how enforcement actions may affect your status or future immigration plans. If you received a notice or have questions about your F-1 status, our attorneys are here to help you take the right steps to protect your future in the United States. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
As an immigration law firm, we regularly assist highly skilled professionals working in the U.S. on temporary work visas such as H-1B who are seeking a path to permanent residency. For many of these individuals, the EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based green card categories are the most pursued—and frequently misunderstood—routes . While both are viable pathways to permanent residency, they differ in meaningful ways that can significantly impact the timing, eligibility, and overall strategy of your case. The EB-2 category is intended for individuals who either hold an advanced degree or demonstrate exceptional ability in their field . Most applicants qualify by having a master’s degree (or higher), or a bachelor’s degree accompanied by at least five years of progressive experience in their profession. There is also a subcategory within EB-2 known as the National Interest Waiver (NIW), which allows qualified individuals to self-petition without employer sponsorship if their work substantially benefits the United States. This route is especially relevant for researchers, entrepreneurs, and professionals in high national interest or mission-critical fields. In contrast, the EB-3 category includes professionals with a bachelor’s degree as well as skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience . While the educational threshold for EB-3 may appear less rigorous, the process itself is equally structured. One key distinction between EB-2 and EB-3 lies in the requirements of the job being offered, not just the applicant’s own credentials. For example, if a position requires only a bachelor’s degree, even a highly qualified candidate with a master’s degree may still fall under EB-3. Regardless of which category applies, most employment-based green card cases begin with the PERM labor certification process . This is a formal procedure overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor, in which the employer must test the labor market and demonstrate that there are no able, willing, qualified, and available U.S. workers for the position. The employer must also agree to pay the prevailing wage as determined by the Department of Labor. This step is both mandatory and highly detail-sensitive; inaccuracies in the job description, recruitment steps, or wage determination can lead to significant delays or even denials. Once PERM certification is approved, the employer files Form I-140 , the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. This petition confirms that the employee meets the requirements for the offered position under either EB-2 or EB-3, and that the employer is financially capable of providing the job as described. If the employee’s priority date—which is based on the date the PERM was filed—is current according to the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin, the individual may then file Form I-485 to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident. One of the more nuanced aspects of this process involves understanding how priority dates and visa backlogs affect the timeline. For applicants from countries with high demand, such as India or China, significant delays are common—particularly under EB-2. Paradoxically, there are times when the EB-3 category moves faster, prompting some applicants to file a second I-140 under EB-3 while retaining the original priority date. This strategy can be effective but requires careful legal planning to ensure it’s done correctly. Another strategic factor is portability. If your I-485 application has been pending for at least 180 days and your I-140 has been approved, you may be eligible to change employers under the AC21 portability provisions, so long as the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification. This flexibility can be critical for employees who experience job changes or promotions during the often lengthy green card process. Ultimately, the choice between EB-2 and EB-3 isn’t about prestige —it’s about aligning your qualifications, the job requirements, and your immigration history with current legal standards and market conditions. The right strategy depends not only on your education and experience, but also on your long-term career goals and country of origin. At our firm, we work closely with both employers and employees to develop individualized immigration strategies that streamline the process and avoid unnecessary setbacks. Whether you're a corporate professional evaluating your green card options or an employer preparing to sponsor a key team member, we offer the insight and experience to move your case forward with confidence.
If you've made it to the United States as a culinary professional—perhaps on an O-1B visa that recognizes your extraordinary talent, or a P-3 visa for sharing your rich culinary heritage—congratulations! You’ve already proven yourself as a standout in your craft. But what if we told you that your journey doesn’t have to end when your temporary visa does? In fact, your current status could be the perfect stepping stone to something much more lasting: a green card through the EB-1A category. The EB-1A visa is a first-preference employment-based immigrant visa, designed for individuals with “ extraordinary ability ” in fields such as the arts, sciences, education, business, or athletics. And yes—culinary arts absolutely count. The key is demonstrating that your skills have risen to the very top of your field. If you've already gone through the O-1 or P-3 process, you're likely well on your way . Here’s the good news: much of the evidence used to obtain your O-1B or P-3 visa can be repurposed for your EB-1A petition . Awards, press features, expert testimonials, and proof of your work in prestigious kitchens or at cultural events—they're all valuable again. But what’s even more exciting is that everything you’ve accomplished while in the U.S. on your temporary visa—whether launching a signature tasting menu, starring in a food documentary, or leading culinary workshops—can now be used to further strengthen your case. According to USCIS, EB-1A applicants must meet at least three of ten criteria unless they’ve received a major internationally recognized award. These criteria include things like published material about your work, original contributions of major significance, high salary, and a critical role in distinguished organizations. For many chefs, especially those who’ve thrived in the U.S. hospitality scene, it’s absolutely achievable with the right guidance. What sets the EB-1A apart is that it does not require an employer sponsor . That’s right—you can self-petition! This means your culinary career can be as flexible and entrepreneurial as you want it to be, whether that means opening your own restaurant, expanding into media, or continuing to cook your way into America’s heart. Even better? It can be one of the fastest paths to a green card available. With premium processing, your I-140 petition can be adjudicated within just 15 business days. And if your country’s EB-1 visa category is current on the visa bulletin at the time of approval, you may be eligible to file your green card application immediately. This combination of speed, autonomy, and flexibility makes EB-1A an incredibly attractive next step in your immigration journey. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, we love helping creative professionals take their next big step. If you’ve already wowed the world with your cuisine, the EB-1A may be your opportunity to stay and make your mark for good. Contact us today to find out if the EB-1A is the next right step for you!
The United States has long been a destination for the world’s most talented athletes—not only to compete at the highest level, but to access world-class training, coaching opportunities, and long-term career prospects. Whether on the field, in the ring, or across the chessboard, athletes from across the globe are finding immigration pathways that allow them to pursue their athletic and professional goals in the U.S. U.S. immigration law offers several visa and green card options designed specifically for individuals with extraordinary athletic talent. These include the P-1A visa for internationally recognized athletes, the O-1A visa for individuals of extraordinary ability, and the EB-1A immigrant petition, which can lead to permanent residency and ultimately, U.S. citizenship. The P-1A visa is commonly used by professional athletes coming to the U.S. to compete in a specific event or season. This applies not only to individual athletes but also to members of teams or clubs recognized internationally. It is widely used by soccer players, basketball players, MMA fighters, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitors, and even elite chess players. Athletes must demonstrate a high level of international recognition and a record of performance in their sport. The O-1A visa is a strong option for coaches who demonstrate extraordinary ability, typically evidenced by championship titles, sustained winning records, or recognition as integral to their team’s success. To qualify, a coach must establish that their expertise places them among the small percentage of top professionals in their field. For athletes seeking permanent status in the U.S., the EB-1A immigrant petition —often referred to as the “extraordinary ability green card”—provides a direct path to lawful permanent residency. It requires clear documentation that the individual is among the very best in their sport and has achieved sustained national or international success. Unlike other green card categories, the EB-1A does not require employer sponsorship and can be self-petitioned. This has become a common path for MMA world champions, BJJ black belt medalists, Olympic athletes, and chess grandmasters—many of whom now represent the U.S. at the highest levels of international competition. It’s important to note that U.S. immigration law defines “athlete” broadly. Whether you are a professional football player in Europe, a sprinter from the Caribbean, a judoka, a gymnast, or a grandmaster in chess, your achievements may qualify under these categories if they are properly documented and presented. The key is a consistent record of excellence and recognition in your sport on a national or international scale. Our office specializes in these types of immigration matters. Whether you are an individual athlete looking to relocate or an organization seeking to bring international talent to your roster, we offer tailored legal strategies to support your goals. If you are exploring options to compete, train, or build your future in the U.S., we’re here to help you take the next step.
