John Nicelli & Associates: USCIS Reinstates Stricter Public Charge Test for Green Card Applicants — NYC Immigration Attorney Explains What Changed September 18

Sep 19, 2026

USCIS's stricter public charge test took effect September 18, 2026. New York immigration attorney John A. Nicelli explains who's exempt and what green card applicants should know now.

New York City, United States, September 19, 2026 -- As of September 18, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has been applying a significantly stricter public charge test when deciding whether to approve a green card application. The change follows a final rule published by the Department of Homeland Security on July 20, 2026, rescinding the more lenient 2022 public charge regulations, with USCIS issuing updated guidance to officers on August 18, 2026. New York immigration attorney John A. Nicelli, of John Nicelli & Associates, says the shift has already caught some applicants off guard.

What's Actually Changing

USCIS's new public charge test adds another layer of scrutiny to the green card process, making experienced legal guidance more important than ever.

The public charge ground of inadmissibility, found in the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows USCIS to deny a green card if an applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support. Notably, the INA does not actually define “public charge” or what it means to be “likely at any time to become a public charge”; instead, Congress directs USCIS officers to weigh five statutory factors on a case-by-case basis: age, health, family status, assets and financial resources, and education and skills. Under the new guidance, officers now consider a broader range of public benefits than under the 2022 rule, weighing an applicant's full circumstances rather than a narrower set of factors. A properly completed Form I-864 affidavit of support remains important, but USCIS guidance makes clear it is not necessarily sufficient on its own to overcome public charge concerns.

Who This Affects

The public charge test applies to most people adjusting status to a green card through a family member or, in many cases, an employer, unless their immigration category is specifically exempted, such as refugees, asylees, and certain applicants under the Violence Against Women Act or U and T visa categories.

“A lot of my clients assume this only affects people who are currently receiving benefits,” said John Nicelli. “In reality, this is about how an officer evaluates your entire financial picture across factors like age, health, family status, assets, and education, not just whether you've used a specific program.”

John Nicelli said the timing details matter most: guidance indicates that public benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, receive broader consideration than benefits received before that date, making the exact timing of any benefit use an important factor in cases still pending.

What Applicants Should Do Now

John Nicelli, an immigration lawyer based in Manhattan, NY, recommends that anyone with a pending or upcoming green card application review their household's benefit history with an immigration attorney rather than making assumptions, ensure their Form I-864 is as complete and well-documented as possible, and avoid abruptly dropping benefits without legal guidance, since some programs and applicant categories remain exempt from consideration entirely. A New York City immigration lawyer can help applicants weigh their specific circumstances before filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the new public charge rule apply to every green card applicant?

No. Certain categories, including refugees, asylees, and many applicants under the Violence Against Women Act or U and T visa provisions, are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility regardless of this change. An immigration attorney can help confirm whether a specific case qualifies for an exemption.

Will benefits received before September 18, 2026, count against my application?

Guidance indicates that public benefits received on or after September 18, 2026, may receive broader consideration under the new standard than benefits received before that date.

Is a sufficient Form I-864 enough to avoid a public charge denial?

Not necessarily. USCIS guidance states that a properly filed affidavit of support is an important factor but is not automatically sufficient on its own; officers may weigh it alongside other aspects of an applicant's circumstances.

About John Nicelli & Associates

John Nicelli & Associates is a New York City immigration law firm founded by NYC immigration attorney John A. Nicelli in 1985. The firm has been recognized among the Best Immigration Lawyers in New York City by Expertise.com and as a Top Attorney of North America. John Nicelli began his career focused exclusively on deportation defense before building a practice spanning family immigration, employment immigration, green cards, citizenship and naturalization, waivers of inadmissibility, and immigration litigation. The firm offers consultations in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Italian, welcomes LGBTQ+ clients, and provides same-day appointments for urgent matters.

Contact Info:
Name: John Nicelli
Email: Send Email
Organization: John Nicelli & Associates
Address: 225 Broadway Ste 1040, New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 227-8020
Website: https://www.johnnicelli.com/

Release ID: 89203766

Should you identify any discrepancies, concerns, or inaccuracies in the content provided in this press release or require assistance with a press release takedown, we strongly urge you to notify us promptly by contacting [email protected] (it is important to note that this email is the authorized channel for such matters, sending multiple emails to multiple addresses does not necessarily help expedite your request). Our responsive team is committed to addressing your concerns within 8 hours by taking necessary actions to resolve identified issues diligently or guiding you through the necessary steps for removal. Our dedication lies in providing accurate and reliable information.

More News

Why Democrats are pivoting to thirst traps
Oct 26, 2026
Why Democrats are pivoting to thirst traps

“It is a very real dynamic that you could have all these videos about Jon Ossoff, and it's not seen as detracting away from his overall message or his seriousness as a politician,” The 19th’s Grace Panetta said on Vox’s Today, Explained podcast. | Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images Democrats have been emphasizing lots of issues in the runup to the 2026 midterms: The Iran war. The state of the economy and healthcare. Corruption. And…hotness. Specifically, their candidates: The internet is awash in clips of Michigan candidate Abdul El-Sayed pumping iron and podcasters proclaiming that “America deserves a hot president” in a video interspersed with photos of Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff. Having a good-looking candidate is by no means a new tactic — famously, it may have helped John F. Kennedy win election over Richard Nixon — but the online left is adapting that strategy for the internet and fandom age.  Grace Panetta, a politics reporter for The 19th, wrote about how “thirst edits” of Ossoff in particular are proliferating online. Panetta says the organic origins of a lot of these videos are of particular interest to Democratic operatives, who see it as a way to gain back ground they lost on the internet after the 2024 election.  Panetta spoke with Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram about who’s thirsting over Democratic politicians in the first place, how 2026’s hot candidates are different from those of yore, and whether it’s actually giving them a boost.  Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Where are these edits coming from? Regular online creators. And it’s important to note at the outset that these are not paid partnerships. The campaign is not paying these influencers to make edits about how they think their candidate’s really attractive.  That’s partly why I wanted to dig into it, because it’s organic. These are just online creators wanting to draw visibility and attention to a candidate that they really like. Jon Ossoff is currently running for reelection in these midterms. How do we know for sure that he isn’t somehow behind the campaign? I spoke to several creators who make these videos and they said that they’re doing it for the love of the game and they’re just supporters. His campaign did not give me a quote or a statement for this story. So it’s fair to assume that he’s not directly involved and he doesn’t repost these videos.  But as people pointed out to me, his campaign knows that they have an attractive, compelling candidate. And they’ve previously been vaunted for their digital strategy this cycle of putting out very high-quality livestreams of his rallies. There’s a lot of material for an enterprising TikToker who wants to make these edits or clips. They have a lot to work with.  His campaign, as one person put it, is definitely playing into that, but not directly engaging. It’s a fine line to walk. Is it just an Ossoff thing or is this going on with other candidates? I do recall that Abdul El-Sayed hits the gym. Famously so. Yes, he hits the gym. I just watched so many videos for this story. I also came across a fair number of Gavin Newsom edits. There are people who think he gives sort of a Patrick Bateman, American Psycho vibe. There are also official Democratic accounts, including the TikTok account for the DNC, the headquarters account, which was formerly Kamala HQ, who have been posting edits of Ossoff and also Abdul El-Sayed, who kind of leans into this gym-bro persona.  The headquarters account posted a side-by-side of Ossoff and Abdul El-Sayed with the caption, “There are 69 days until election day.” Nice. Yes. There are also lots of edits of Mamdani, and former President Barack Obama. Obama nostalgia content goes hard on the internet. So you’re seeing these more official side Democratic campaign accounts leaning into it and playing up their candidates. Having an attractive candidate is nothing new. You mentioned Obama. JFK was famously dashing. What feels different about what you’re seeing now on social media? I think this is really a culmination of a lot of different things happening right now in politics and specifically within the Democratic Party.  After their loss in 2024, there was a lot of conversation about the gerontocracy, how we’re governed by a lot of really old people, for the most part, in this century. And also about Democrats’ digital strategy and the aftermath of 2024.  One thing that a lot of people in that digital space have been talking about is how Republicans and the Trump campaign really capitalized on getting that organic engagement on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, where a lot of Americans are now going to get at least some of their news, and also engaging with and encouraging the creation of this kind of organic content on platforms and from creators that are not always expressly political or official-side.  “A candidate’s messaging strategy is only as good as the content and only if it meets people where they are and actually speaks to a real need people have.” As one Democrat I talked to put it, she thinks it’s a way for Democrats to win back the internet and to really create a contrast with the Republicans. And she said to have fun on the internet because Republicans are having fun on the internet and it appears to be working for them, or at least it was in 2024. Is there something about this being something on the left that makes it sort of tricky? This is, broadly speaking, objectification, right? It is a fine line between thirst and objectification. And there is also a gendered element to it that it is mostly men that these types of videos are being made about.  Now, granted, a lot of people make sort of hype edits or positive content about AOC because she’s a very popular female politician on the left, but it’s true that women candidates are held to higher standards in terms of how they present themselves and how their supporters portray them.  It is a very real dynamic that you could have all these videos about Jon Ossoff, and it’s not seen as detracting away from his overall message or his seriousness as a politician. Is there a drawback of focusing on looks? Does it make the Democratic Party or these candidates seem superficial or not that serious? President Trump has been the defining figure in our politics for 10 years now. And he is famously very, very image focused and image obsessed. We live in a very image-obsessed society, and I think there’s kind of a bipartisan acknowledgement of that.  And looks matter to people in all kinds of ways. They do matter in politics, they do matter to voters. Whether you like that that’s the case or not, it is the reality. And I think the way that a lot of people on the left see this is, people want to look at attractive people. People take attractive people more seriously and are more willing to listen to them. So we should play into that and play that up.  That’s also been the case on the right. President Trump famously loves people out of “central casting.” There’s been this whole movement on the right about making conservatism sexy again. And especially at the beginning of the second Trump term, you had all these influencers talking about how the second Trump term was going to usher in this great age of hotness, which is of course very based on sort of stereotypical male-centered Eurocentric beauty standards.  I think the genie’s out of the bottle on this one in terms of the fact that our politics and society is very image-obsessed. And I think the left, being locked out of power, realizes they have to play on those terms and they have fun doing it. You could look at it as giving “Kamala is brat,” which famously did not work. Is it working in any tangible way for Ossoff, for Abdul El-Sayed, or anyone else? I think a lot of the time in politics, the success of a message is really dependent on the broader political situation. I think a part of the reason that the Kamala’s brat thing didn’t work is people were like, “Okay, that’s great, but my gas is too expensive and prices are too high and I’m not happy with how things have gone under the Biden administration, so I don’t really care.” I don’t know that specific digital strategy makes or breaks a campaign or candidate, but it feeds into a bunch of larger factors.  Something that a lot of people I spoke to said they liked about Jon Ossoff is how he is incredibly serious in Senate hearings. He doesn’t grandstand. He really holds Trump administration officials’ feet to the fire. He’s been very focused in his role in the Senate and on the campaign trail about calling out corruption. He’s a very, very gifted speaker and orator. So I think a candidate’s messaging strategy is only as good as the content and only if it meets people where they are and actually speaks to a real need people have. And I think people are really unhappy with the second Trump term and politicians being super old and out of touch, and it’s a perfect storm of factors that makes it work for him.

YOUR NEWS, OUR NETWORK.

Do you have Great News you want to tell the world?

Be it updates about your business or your community, you can make sure that it’s heard by submitting your story to our network reaching hundreds of news sites across 6 verticals.

Expert Features

The Expert Features reports on the issues and the world’s everyday news. Handled by experts in different niches, you will find different subjects and perspectives.