The public charge inadmissibility determination is prospective, based on the officer’s opinion as to whether the alien is likely at any time in the future to become a public charge.^[1] Under the statute, every public charge inadmissibility determination must include at a minimum the consideration of the alien’s age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. The officer may consider a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864) (when required).^[2]

Officers should also consider, in the totality of the circumstances, all information and evidence in the record that is relevant to assessing an alien’s likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge. Such relevant information and evidence includes any showing that the alien has in the past received or is currently receiving any means-tested public benefits, if such benefits were received on or after September 18, 2026. With respect to means-tested public benefits received before September 18, 2026, officers will only consider public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense.^[3]

Additionally, officers will consider any evidence in the record pertaining to whether the alien has applied for any means-tested public benefits and/or whether the alien has been approved or certified to receive any means-tested public benefits on or after September 18, 2026. Officers will not consider any information in the record that the alien applied for, was certified or approved to receive any means-tested public benefits before September 18, 2026. However, where the officers encounter evidence that the alien has applied for or been approved or certified to receive any means-tested public benefits for a period that extends beyond September 18, 2026, officers would consider the application, certification, and receipt of such benefits in the totality of the circumstances that occurs on or after September 18, 2026, unless the alien provides evidence of disenrollment from such benefits or that he or she withdrew such application or notified the relevant agencies he or she no longer wanted to receive the benefits.

While the alien’s application, approval, or certification to receive any means-tested public benefits does not constitute receipt of such benefits, the fact that an alien has applied for means-tested public benefits or has been determined to be eligible for means-tested public benefits by a benefit granting agency and approved or certified to receive those benefits could indicate the alien’s likelihood in the future of needing to receive such benefits. Moreover, the fact that an alien has been approved or certified to receive means-tested public benefits is relevant to assessing an alien’s self-sufficiency and overall financial status. Therefore, officers should consider the alien’s applications to receive, and approvals and certifications to receive, any means-tested public benefits in determining the alien’s likelihood at any time to become a public charge.

In considering an applicant’s current and/or past applications, approvals or certifications to receive, and receipt of means-tested public benefits in the totality of the circumstances, officers will consider the amount, duration, and recency of means-tested public benefits the alien actually received.^[4] Additionally, officers will consider any evidence the alien presents as to whether that underlying basis for applying for or receiving the benefits would continue, as well as any evidence the alien submits that he or she has disenrolled from the means-tested public benefit program or has requested withdrawal or disenrollment from the means-tested public benefit program.

The amount and frequency of benefits are also relevant where there is evidence that the alien was approved or certified to receive benefits in the future, or has applied to receive such benefits and there is no evidence in the record that the alien has withdrawn such application, or requested to cancel the approval/certification of such benefits, as the amount and frequency of receipt will have a bearing (particularly in the case of approval or certification) on whether the alien will be dependent on means-tested public benefits in the future.

USCIS officers should also consider the nature of the means-tested public benefit along with these other surrounding circumstances when determining what weight to give an alien’s current and/or past applications, approvals, or certifications to receive, or receipt of, that benefit.^[5] In considering the purpose of the benefit, officers should consider that Congress in enacting PRWORA established that certain Federal public benefits would have exceptions from the immigration-status-related ineligibility provisions of that law (but not from the public charge ground of inadmissibility).

1. Section 8 U.S.C. 1611(b) lays out exceptions from the general eligibility limitation for some Federal public benefits;
2. Section 8 U.S.C. 1613(c) creates exceptions from that section of law for certain Federal means-tested public benefits; and
3. Section 8 U.S.C. 1615(a-b) creates exceptions for the Federal Child Nutrition Programs authorized under the National School Lunch Act (PDF) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (PDF).

In addition, under their authority to administer Federal public benefits programs, agencies have also clarified for the public which of the benefits they administer fall within the definition of “Federal public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. 1611(c) for the purposes of the immigration-related eligibility provisions of PRWORA.^[6]

To be clear, exceptions for the purpose of PRWORA implementation do not create exceptions for the purpose of the public charge ground of inadmissibility. If an alien applies for, is approved or certified to receive, or receives any means-tested public benefit, officers will consider that in the totality of the circumstances. However, when determining what weight to give that information in the totality of the circumstances, officers should consider the nature of the benefit and why Congress or the benefit-providing agencies determined that they should be provided to all without limitations based on immigration status.

Officers will also consider any evidence the alien presents regarding the underlying basis for the applications, approvals, certification, or receipt of these means-tested public benefits, such as that the alien received the benefits because he or she, while not a refugee, was eligible for resettlement assistance, entitlement programs, and other benefits available to refugees,^[7] or that the alien received the means-tested public benefit while present in the United States while in a category that is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility.

For example, if the alien presents evidence that he or she received means-tested public benefits while present in the United States as an asylee, who is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility, the officer will consider that fact in the totality of the circumstances. Similarly, if this alien presents evidence that he or she is no longer an asylee and therefore is no longer eligible for the benefits he or she had previously received while an asylee, USCIS would consider this fact in the totality of the circumstances.

Current and/or past receipt of means-tested public benefits alone, however, is not a sufficient basis to determine that an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge.^[8] Additionally, past applications to receive means-tested public benefits and past approvals or certifications to receive means-tested public benefits are not, alone, a sufficient basis to determine that an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. Similarly, an alien may be found by an officer to be likely at any time to become a public charge even if the alien has never received means-tested public benefits. This is just one piece of information that officers consider in the totality of the circumstances and such receipt, or lack thereof, is insufficient on its own to establish that an alien is or is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The public charge inadmissibility determination is always prospective, and officers are to consider the five statutory factors, may consider a sufficient affidavit of support (if required), and all other relevant evidence and information in the record in the totality of the circumstances.

Means-tested Public Benefits Received by Aliens During or After Pregnancy

Aliens who are pregnant or were recently pregnant are not exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility based on that pregnancy. If an alien receives means-tested public benefits while pregnant or recently pregnant, officers should consider that receipt in the totality of the circumstances.

Notwithstanding, an officer may take into account the temporary nature of the alien’s pregnancy when assessing whether the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge. This includes consideration of the potentially temporary nature of postpartum conditions and how these circumstances may have impacted the alien’s receipt of means-tested public benefits in the totality of the circumstances.

Footnotes

[^ 1] See INA 212(a)(4)(A).

[^ 2] See Chapter 6, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA [8 USCIS-PM G.6].

[^ 3] See 91 FR 45324 (PDF) (Jul. 20, 2026) (final rule).

[^ 4] For more information on the totality of the circumstances assessment, see Chapter 4, Prospective Determination Based on the Totality of the Circumstances [8 USCIS-PM G.4].

[^ 5] See 90 FR 52168, 52188 (PDF) (Nov. 19, 2025). See 91 FR 45324 (PDF) (Jul. 20, 2026) (final rule).

[^ 6] See, for example, 63 FR 41658 (PDF)(Aug. 4, 1998), 65 FR 70134 (PDF) (Nov. 21, 2000), Dept. of Education Dear Colleagues Letter Regarding PRWORA (Nov. 19, 1997), and 63 FR 41662 (PDF) (Aug. 4, 1998).

[^ 7] Refugees as admitted under INA 207. Refugee services as described under INA 412.

[^ 8] See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) (“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.”). See Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421-22 (BIA 1962) (“It has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation. The general tenor of the holdings is that the statute requires more than a showing of a possibility that the alien will require public support.”).