Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background

A. Purpose 

Under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an alien who is applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status and who is likely at any time to become a public charge, is inadmissible,^[1] unless exempt from this ground of inadmissibility. DHS has the authority to waive this ground of inadmissibility for certain applicants for admission^[2] and, in limited circumstances, also has the authority to waive this ground of inadmissibility for certain applicants for adjustment of status.^[3]

B. Background

1. Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility General Overview

The INA provides that an alien applying for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status is inadmissible if in the opinion of the consular officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge at the time of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, the alien is likely at any time to become a public charge.^[4]

The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies to any alien applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily or permanently, for admission at a port of entry, or for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).^[5] Congress has exempted by statute certain applicants for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status from the public charge ground of inadmissibility.^[6]

The INA does not define public charge. It does, however, specify that consular officers, immigration officers, and immigration judges must, at a minimum, consider certain factors when determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge.^[7]

2. National Policy on Immigration and Welfare Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

In 1996 and close in time to the enactment of current INA section 212(a)(4), Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which is commonly known as the 1996 welfare reform law. PRWORA set national policy on immigration and welfare, acknowledging that self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of U.S. immigration law since its earliest statutes and that aliens inside the United States should not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather, should rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations.^[8] Additionally, under PRWORA, Congress made clear that the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.^[9] Moreover, PRWORA significantly restricted an alien’s eligibility for federal, state, local, and tribal public benefits.^[10]

3. History of Public Charge Inadmissibility Statutory and Regulatory Changes 

Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since its earliest immigration laws.^[11] In recognition of this principle, Congress has provided, since 1882, a public charge ground of inadmissibility to address this lack of self-sufficiency when aliens apply for visas, admission, or adjustment of status.^[12]

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

In 1996 Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).^[13] IIRIRA amended INA section 212(a)(4), which introduced the mandatory statutory factors and created the enforceable Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864).^[14]

More specifically, IIRIRA codified the following minimum factors that must be considered when making public charge inadmissibility determinations: age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills.^[15]

Additionally, with IIRIRA, Congress made the legally enforceable Form I-864 a requirement for most family-sponsored and certain employment-based immigrants,^[16] and indicated that it may be considered as a factor in a public charge inadmissibility determination.^[17]

1999 Interim Field Guidance

On May 26, 1999, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued interim guidance, titled “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” (1999 Interim Field Guidance (PDF)).^[18] This guidance identified how the agency would determine if an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge^[19] for admission or adjustment of status purposes, and when an alien would be deportable^[20] as a public charge.^[21] 

INS incorporated the policies contained in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance in a proposed rule published on May 26, 1999.^[22] However, INS never finalized the proposed rule. INS, and later DHS, continued to apply the public charge ground consistent with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance for two decades.

Under the 1999 Interim Field Guidance and the 1999 proposed rule, “public charge” for purposes of a public charge inadmissibility determination was defined as an alien who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either: 

• Receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance; or
• Institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.^[23]

Regulatory Changes in 2019

On August 14, 2019, DHS issued a final rule regarding the public charge ground of inadmissibility, titled “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” (2019 Final Rule).^[24] The 2019 Final Rule provided new and expanded definitions for certain terms and provided a multi-factor framework along with associated evidentiary requirements.

The 2019 Final Rule also added provisions that rendered certain nonimmigrants ineligible for extension of stay or change of status if they received specific public benefits for a certain period. Additionally, it revised DHS regulations governing the Secretary’s discretion to accept a public charge bond for those seeking adjustment of status.

The 2019 Final Rule was set to take effect on October 15, 2019. Before it did, numerous plaintiffs filed suits challenging the 2019 Final Rule in five district courts, across four circuits.^[25] The 2019 Final Rule was ultimately implemented on February 24, 2020. However, following a series of preliminary injunctions and stays or reversals of those injunctions, a partial final judgment vacating the 2019 Final Rule went into effect nationwide on March 9, 2022.^[26] DHS subsequently formally removed the 2019 Final Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).^[27]

After the 2019 Final Rule was vacated and removed from the CFR, DHS returned to making public charge inadmissibility determinations in accordance with the statute and the 1999 Interim Field Guidance.^[28]

Regulatory Changes in 2022

On August 23, 2021, DHS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek broad public feedback on the public charge ground of inadmissibility to inform its development of a future regulatory proposal.^[29] DHS reviewed the comments and considered them in developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).^[30] 

On February 24, 2022, DHS published an NPRM.^[31] Following consideration of public comments received in response to the NPRM, DHS published a final rule titled, “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility,” on September 9, 2022 (2022 Final Rule).^[32]

The 2022 Final Rule implemented a different policy than the 2019 Final Rule. Under the 2022 Final Rule and similar to the 1999 Interim Field Guidance that was in place before the 2019 Final Rule, aliens were considered likely at any time to become a public charge if they were likely at any time to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense.

The 2022 and 2019 Final Rules only addressed the public charge ground of inadmissibility and did not address the public charge ground of deportability, which was addressed in the 1999 Interim Field Guidance and 1999 NPRM.

Regulatory Changes in 2026 

On November 19, 2025, DHS published an NPRM.^[33] Following review and consideration of public comments received in response to the NPRM, DHS published a final rule titled, “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility,” on July 20, 2026 (2026 Final Rule).^[34] The 2026 Final Rule rescinded the 2022 Final Rule as it pertained to public charge inadmissibility determinations and revised the breach and cancellation of public charge bonds regulations.

C. Implementation and Scope

This guidance is intended to faithfully implement INA 212(a)(4) in a manner that is consistent with Congress’ statement of the immigration policy of the United States in 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A) and precedent decisions. This guidance is intended to ensure that aliens seeking adjustment of status who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility are self-sufficient. Such aliens should not depend on means-tested public benefits to meet their needs but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of private organizations, family members, and sponsors.^[35] Officers make prospective public charge inadmissibility determinations on a case-by-case basis in the totality of the alien’s circumstances.^[36]

This guidance is intended to inform, but not prescribe, the outcome of USCIS officers' individual public charge inadmissibility determinations made in their discretion. 

This guidance is effective on September 18, 2026, and applies to Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) that are postmarked or electronically submitted on or after September 18, 2026. Applications postmarked or electronically submitted before September 18, 2026, will be adjudicated consistent with the statute, regulations, and guidance in place at the time they were filed or electronically submitted. 

Officers must adjudicate Forms I-485 postmarked on or after December 23, 2022, but before September 18, 2026, consistent with the 2022 Final Rule. 87 FR 55472 (Sept. 9, 2022). Officers must adjudicate Forms I-485 postmarked before December 23, 2022, consistent with the 1999 Interim Field Guidance. 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999).

When applying this guidance, with respect to means-tested public benefits the alien received before September 18, 2026, USCIS officers only consider the alien’s receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at government expense.^[37] With respect to means-tested public benefits the alien received on or after September 18, 2026, USCIS officers consider the alien’s receipt of any and all such benefits.^[38]

The discussion of public charge bonds in Part G is limited to public charge bonds administered and managed by USCIS, including the management of those submitted by immigrant visa applicants with the Department of State (DOS).^[39]

D. Guiding Principles

USCIS’ public charge inadmissibility policy is guided by the following longstanding principles.

Dependence on Means-Tested Public Benefits to Meet Needs

USCIS believes that Congress intended to address an alien’s dependence on any means-tested public benefits to meet his or her needs when it enacted the public charge ground of inadmissibility as it has existed since the IIRIRA. The INA does not define “public charge” or “likely at any time to become a public charge.”^[40] Likewise, USCIS has not defined “likely at any time to become a public charge.”^[41]

Although Congress was clearly focused on an alien’s dependence on means-tested public benefits, neither the statute nor case law prescribe the degree to which an alien must receive means-tested public benefits to be considered likely at any time to become a public charge.^[42] Given that neither the statute nor relevant precedent decisions prescribe a primary dependence standard or consideration of only a narrow and specific list of public benefits for public charge inadmissibility determinations, USCIS believes that placing limits on the types of benefits and the time frame of receipt of such benefits is not the best implementation of the public charge inadmissibility statute given Congress’ clear statement that “aliens…not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”^[43] Therefore, USCIS believes that it is appropriate to allow for consideration of the receipt of any means-tested public benefit irrespective of the time frame when determining whether an alien is likely at any time to become a public charge, as this receipt may be indicative of the alien’s dependence on the government to meet their needs.^[44]

Prospective Determination in the Totality of the Circumstances

An officer’s decision as to whether an alien is, in the officer’s opinion, likely at any time to become a public charge is an inherently prospective evaluation made in the totality of the circumstances at the time of the alien’s application for admission or adjustment of status.^[45] No one factor, other than the lack of a sufficient Form I-864, where required, is outcome determinative. Note that past or current receipt of means-tested public benefits may not be indicative of future receipt.^[46] Such receipt is considered in conjunction with the other factors present in the alien’s case in the totality of the circumstances.

An Alien’s Willingness and Ability to Work

In applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility, the courts have long focused on whether an alien has the ability to earn a living or meet his or her basic needs through employment. These decisions suggest that 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.^[47] 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.^[48]

However, aliens who are incapable of earning a livelihood may be more likely to become public charges.^[49] For example, an alien who is older, unable to work, and has limited financial resources may be more likely at any time to become a public charge.^[50] Similarly, an alien who has a disability or a medical condition that requires extensive medical treatment or care, is unable to work, and has limited financial resources may also be more likely at any time to become a public charge.^[51] In both instances, however, the alien’s inability to earn a living is not outcome determinative, but rather, is considered along with all relevant factors present in the alien’s case. 

Consideration of an Alien’s Support from a Sponsor

Congress has made an alien’s reliance on the resources of his or her family members, sponsors, and private organizations in addition to his or her own capabilities the cornerstone of the national policy on immigration and welfare. In 1996, Congress made a sponsor’s affidavit of support a binding legal contract, which remains the case today.^[52] Under the statute, if an alien has submitted a sufficient Form I-864, USCIS may consider that affidavit as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination.^[53] Based on the language in PRWORA, USCIS believes that Congress was focused on ensuring that aliens have adequate support as a way to avoid burdening the public benefits system.^[54] This concern suggests that Congress intended for officers to have discretion to consider more than the presence of a sufficient Form I-864, where such is required. Indeed, where the Form I-864 meets the minimum requirements, officers may also consider whether the sponsor is actually willing to provide financial assistance to the alien, the number of additional aliens that the sponsor is obligated to support, and whether the sponsor has faithfully fulfilled his or her past or present financial obligations to other sponsored aliens.

E. Legal Authorities

• INA 212(a)(4); 8 CFR 212 – Public charge inadmissibility
• INA 213A; 8 CFR 213a – Requirements for sponsor’s affidavit of support
• INA 213; 8 CFR 213.1 – Admission of aliens on giving bond or undertaking; return upon permanent departure; admission under bond or cash deposit
• 8 CFR 103.6 – Immigration bonds
• INA 245; 8 CFR 245 – Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence
• 31 U.S.C. 9304-9308 – Surety corporations

Footnotes

[^ 1] See INA 212(a)(4)(A).

[^ 2] See INA 212(d)(3)(A). 

[^ 3] See INA 245(j). See 8 CFR 245.11.

[^ 4] See INA 212(a)(4).

[^ 5] See INA 212(a)(4).

[^ 6] See Chapter 3, Applicability, Section C, Exemptions [8 USCIS-PM G.3(C)].

[^ 7] See INA 212(a)(4)(B).

[^ 8] See Section 400 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-193 (PDF) (August 22, 1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601 (PDF)).

[^ 9] See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(B) (PDF).

[^ 10] See 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646, as amended.

[^ 11] See Section 400 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-193 (PDF), (August 22, 1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601 (PDF)).

[^ 12] Immigration Act of 1882, 22 Stat. 214 (Aug. 3, 1882) (excluding “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”). Immigration Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1084) (“any alien who becomes a public charge within one year after his arrival in the United States from causes existing prior to his landing therein shall be deemed to have come in violation of law and shall be returned as aforesaid.”).

[^ 13] See Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF), 110 Stat. 3009 (September 30, 1996).

[^ 14] See Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF), 110 Stat. 3009 (September 30, 1996). Congress added requirements for certain immigrant categories by creating INA 213A, making a sponsor’s affidavit of support submitted on behalf of an alien legally enforceable under IIRIRA. See Division C, Title V of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-670 (September 30, 1996).

[^ 15] See INA 212(a)(4)(B). See Section 531 of Division C of Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-674 (September 30, 1996) (amending INA 212(a)(4)).

[^ 16] See INA 212(a)(4)(C), INA 212(a)(4)(D), and INA 213A.

[^ 17] See INA 212(a)(4)(B)(ii). See Chapter 6, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA [8 USCIS-PM G.6]. 

[^ 18] See 64 FR 28689 (PDF) (May 26, 1999). Due to a printing error, the Federal Register version of the field guidance appears to be dated “March 26, 1999” even though the guidance was actually signed May 20, 1999, became effective May 21, 1999, and was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 1999.

[^ 19] See INA 212(a)(4).

[^ 20] See INA 237(a)(5).

[^ 21] See 64 FR 28689 (PDF) (May 26, 1999).

[^ 22] See 64 FR 28676 (PDF) (May 26, 1999).

[^ 23] See 64 FR 28689 (PDF) (May 26, 1999). See 64 FR 28676 (PDF) (May 26, 1999).

[^ 24] See 84 FR 41292 (PDF) (Aug. 14, 2019), as amended by 84 FR 52357 (PDF) (Oct. 2, 2019).

[^ 25] See CASA de Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Trump, 19-cv-2715 (D. Md.). See City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-04717 (N.D. Cal.). See City of Gaithersburg, et al. v. Trump, et al., 19-cv-02851 (D. Md.). See Cook County et al. v. McAleenan et al., 19-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill.). See La Clinica De La Raza, et al. v. Trump, et al., 19-cv-4980 (N.D. Cal.). See Make the Road New York, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 19-cv-07993 (S.D.N.Y.). See New York, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-07777 (S.D.N.Y.). See State of California, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-04975 (N.D. Cal.). See State of Washington, et al. v. DHS, et al., 19-cv-05210 (E.D. Wa.). 

[^ 26] See Cook County v. Wolf, 498 F.Supp.3d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2020).

[^ 27] See 86 FR 14221 (PDF) (Mar. 15, 2021).

[^ 28] See 64 FR 28689 (PDF) (May 26, 1999).

[^ 29] See 86 FR 47025 (PDF) (Aug. 23, 2021) (advance notice of proposed rulemaking).

[^ 30] See 87 FR 10570, 10597 (PDF) (Feb. 24, 2022) (proposed rule).

[^ 31] See 87 FR 10570 (PDF) (Feb. 24, 2022) (proposed rule).

[^ 32] See 87 FR 55472 (PDF) (Sept. 9, 2022) (final rule).

[^ 33] See 90 FR 52168 (PDF) (Nov. 19, 2025) (proposed rule).

[^ 34] See 91 FR 45324 (PDF) (Jul. 20, 2026) (final rule).

[^ 35] See INA 213A.

[^ 36] See 8 U.S.C. 1601. See Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (BIA 1977) (“In summation, it is felt that everything in the statutes, the legislative comments, and prior decisions point to one conclusion, that Congress intends that an applicant for a visa be excluded who is without sufficient funds to support himself, who has no one under any obligation to support him, and whose chances of becoming self-supporting decrease as time passes.”) (emphasis added). Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (BIA 1988) (“The traditional test applied by the Service to determine whether an alien is likely to become a public charge is ‘a prediction based on the totality of the alien's circumstances’ as presented in the individual case . . . Even though the test is prospective, the Service has considered evidence of receipt of prior public assistance as a factor in making the public charge determination. Other factors that have been considered are the alien's age, capacity to earn a living, health, family situation, work history, affidavits of support, and other relevant factors.”).

[^ 37] See 91 FR 45324 (PDF) (Jul. 20, 2026) (final rule).

[^ 38] See 91 FR 45324 (PDF) (Jul. 20, 2026) (final rule). For more information about how USCIS officers consider the alien’s receipt of public benefits, see Chapter 7, Consideration of Any Current or Past Application for, Approval or Certification to Receive, and Receipt of Means-Tested Public Benefits [8 USCIS-PM G.7].

[^ 39] For more information, see Chapter 11, Public Charge Bonds [8 USCIS-PM G.11].

[^ 40] See INA 212(a)(4).

[^ 41] See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (overruling Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes and acknowledging that courts rather than agencies are in the position to determine the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute. The case acknowledges that in some circumstances, an agency interpretation of a statute may nonetheless have the power to persuade the court consistent with the standard enunciated in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), especially to the extent that the agency views are within its area of expertise. In addition, the Court recognized situations in which a statute’s meaning may be that an agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion, or a statute empowers an agency to “fill up the details” of a statutory scheme.)

[^ 42] See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589 (Reg’l Comm’r 1974) (“Congress intends that an applicant for a visa be excluded who is without sufficient funds to support himself, who has no one under any obligation to support him and who, being older, has an increasing chance of becoming dependent, disabled and sick.”) (emphasis added).

[^ 43] See 8 U.S.C. 1601(2)(A).

[^ 44] See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 589 (Reg’l Comm’r 1974) (“Congress intends that an applicant for a visa be excluded who is without sufficient funds to support himself, who has no one under any obligation to support him and who, being older, has an increasing chance of becoming dependent, disabled and sick.”). See Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (BIA 1988) (acknowledging consideration of evidence of receipt of any prior public assistance as a factor in making the public charge inadmissibility determination); Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131, 132 (BIA 1977) (finding that aliens who are receiving SSI and public funds from the New York Department of Social Services “fall clearly within the confines of section 212(a)(15) of the Act and are excludable as public charges.”). Note that Congress implicitly recognized that past receipt of any public benefit can be considered in determining the alien’s likelihood of becoming a public charge when it prohibited consideration of the receipt of any public benefit that is authorized under 8 U.S.C. 1641(c) for certain battered aliens. See INA 212(s), 8 U.S.C. 1182(s). For more information about how USCIS officers consider the alien’s receipt of public benefits, see Chapter 7, Consideration of Any Current or Past Application for, Approval or Certification to Receive, and Receipt of Means-Tested Public Benefits [8 USCIS-PM G.7].

[^ 45] See Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (BIA 1988) (“The traditional test applied by the Service to determine whether an alien is likely to become a public charge is ‘a prediction based on the totality of the alien's circumstances’ as presented in the individual case . . . .  Even though the test is prospective, the Service has considered evidence of receipt of prior public assistance as a factor in making the public charge determination. Other factors that have been considered are the alien's age, capacity to earn a living, health, family situation, work history, affidavits of support, and other relevant factors.”).

[^ 46] See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) (“The determination of whether an alien is likely to become a public charge . . . is a prediction based upon the totality of the alien’s circumstances at the time he or she applies for an immigrant visa or admission to the United States. 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.”).

[^ 47] See Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm’r 1988) (33-year-old employed mother of three not likely to become a public charge notwithstanding having previously received public benefits. The BIA considered other relevant factors, including that a mother's temporary absence from the workforce to care for her children is not by itself sufficient basis to find the mother likely to become a public charge. There may be circumstances beyond the control of the alien which temporarily prevent an alien from joining the workforce. For example, as the applicant states in her appeal, she lives in an area where jobs are scarce and she had been unable to find a job.). See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 588 (Reg’l Comm’r 1974) (Although all factors should be considered in their totality, administrative authorities have also held that “the alien's physical and mental condition, as it affects ability to earn a living, is of major significance.”). See Matter of C-, 3 I&N Dec. 96, 97 (BIA 1947) (finding that the alien was not likely to become a public charge because “he is in good health and is able and willing to go to work.”).

[^ 48] See Matter of C-, 3 I&N Dec. 96, 97 (BIA 1947) (finding that the alien was not likely to become a public charge because “he is in good health and is able and willing to go to work.”). See Matter of Martinez-Lopez, 10 I&N Dec. 409, 421 (BIA 1962; Att’y Gen. 1962) (considering whether the alien had an employment offer in making a public charge inadmissibility determination and determining that a young alien with low financial means and no job offer who nonetheless had work experience and was willing to work was not excludable). See Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) (considering the alien’s capability of finding employment and prospective employment opportunities in making public charge determination). See also Matter of A-, 19 I&N Dec. 867, 869 (Comm’r 1988) (considering past employment and job prospects in the public charge determinations); Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg’l Comm’r 1977). See Matter of T-, 3 I&N Dec. 641, 644 (BIA 1949) (“We find that the female appellant is quite capable of earning her own livelihood independent of her husband and that the minor male appellant has had considerable training in the tailoring industry which presents a wide field for employment in this country.”).

[^ 49] See Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg’l Comm’r 1977) (finding aliens who are older and had never worked in the United States and were receiving SSI inadmissible). See Matter of T-, 3 I&N Dec. 641, 644 (BIA 1949) (“In order to sustain the [public charge inadmissibility] ground…there must be substantial evidence that these aliens are likely to be supported at the expense of the public because of poverty or some physical handicap.”)

[^ 50] See Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N Dec. 131 (Reg’l Comm’r 1977) (finding aliens who are older and had never worked in the United States and were receiving SSI inadmissible).

[^ 51] See Matter of Harutunian, 14 I&N Dec. 583, 588 (Reg’l Comm’r 1974) (Although all factors should be considered in their totality, administrative authorities have also held that “the alien's physical and mental condition, as it affects ability to earn a living, is of major significance.”).

[^ 52] See INA 213A. See INA 212(a)(4)(C) and INA 212(a)(4)(D).

[^ 53] See INA 212(a)(4)(B).

[^ 54] See 8 U.S.C. 1601(4) and 8 U.S.C. 1601(5).