Public-Charge Re-Interview: Questions and Papers

Since 10 September, US embassies have been told to review every immigrant visa refused solely under the 75-country pause and, given the time that has passed, to re-interview applicants in person. Since 18 September the new public-charge rule applies to those interviews. This guide collects what applicants have reported from the re-interviews held so far: the questions, the documents, the length, and the outcomes. It is crowdsourced and anonymised, and it is not legal advice. It will be updated as reports arrive.

How you find out

Every re-interview reported so far was announced by email from the post, between one and ten days before the date. Two came in messages written for diversity visa applicants and sent to spouse cases. One was set for a date the applicant could not legally reach in time. Before the interview, several posts asked for a new medical first, and in two cases the panel clinic knew about the request before the applicant did. If your medical is more than six months old, expect the new exam to be the first instruction.

Two newer patterns. Since 23 September, London has sent the topics with the invitation: an attachment (originally written for diversity visa cases) listing housing plan, employment plan, health insurance, and assets and liabilities as what you "should be prepared to discuss"; employment-based applicants get the same list. Notice can be very short: one Bogota applicant was emailed at 16:30 on 25 September for an interview on the 29th, and a family was set for 1 October with a second email that changed "passport" to "passports for your entire family group". Bogota also, from 23 September, applicants are emailed to book their own follow-up appointment in the scheduling system and redo the medical, and because the old appointment blocks booking, they must first file a no-show request citing the embassy's instruction. One family that booked this way was then asked for financial documents for every applicant, including a child under two.

Kingston has been arranging second interviews by phone, with only a day and a time and no letter; when one applicant missed the call the post rang the petitioner at work. If your medical is close to expiring you may be called sooner: applicants there say the post is prioritising those cases. If a first medical involved sputum testing for a chest X-ray finding, expect the repeat medical to require it again, which adds about eight weeks.

There is now a third route, reported second-hand so far: a request for the passport alone, with no second interview and no questionnaire. An attorney in Brazil describes two employment-based clients with July and August first interviews asked to send passports directly, and a Bogota IR1 interviewed in mid-August was contacted only for her passport because her first interview had already covered savings, assets, debts and insurance. The common thread is a recent first interview at which the new questions were already asked. Another post told an applicant flatly that it cannot approve any visa without a second interview, so expect this to vary by post. A related first-hand report from 11 October: a spouse first interviewed 20 January was scheduled for a second interview and told to bring only his passport, with no emailed list; unlike the Brazil and Bogota cases he still has an interview to attend. And a new mechanism at San José, Costa Rica: the embassy sent the panel physician an 'emergency priority list' of cases whose medicals were to be booked at once, and the intake desk on interview day held the same list; the applicant on it had been emailed on 30 September for 8 October.

The questionnaire that replaces the interview

Not every post is calling people back. On 11 September Stockholm, and on 25 September Kingston, emailed a public charge questionnaire to be completed and uploaded to CEAC, with no second interview. The Kingston applicant was a non-plaintiff spouse case interviewed in July whose medical was still valid. The form has twenty questions in five sections:

General: the applicant's age; the date of the marriage; the city and state where the couple will live; what the applicant plans to do in the United States and in which field; highest level of education and any training or experience in that field.
Health: any past or current medical conditions needing treatment; how that treatment will be paid for; whether the applicant will be on the petitioner's health plan and, if not, which US insurer and which policy.
Family status: how many dependents the petitioner supports, counting parents and extended family as well as children; whether any of them have medical conditions, disabilities or long-term care needs.
Financial status: the petitioner's and applicant's jobs and annual salary after taxes; other working adults in the household; real estate owned and its value; assets (investments, savings, shares, bonds); debts and liabilities (mortgage, cards, car loans).
Public assistance: whether either person currently receives benefits at government expense (welfare, food banks, WIC, SNAP), has ever done so and what changed since, or has ever been institutionalised at government expense.
Joint sponsor, only if one is used: the relationship, how long they have known both of you, whether they live in the same state, whether they have sponsored anyone else, and whether they have ever used public assistance.

Two other posts have skipped the interview a different way. A post in Brazil moved a spouse case from Refused to Administrative Processing on 28 September and emailed for the passport only, citing the 21 August order, with no documents and no second interview. A European post emailed a January spouse case to redo the expired medical first and then contact the post for a date, asking for nothing on public charge at all.

By 4 October the Kingston questionnaire had reached the March cohort: an IR1 first interviewed in March received it by email and uploaded the answers through CEAC with the medical already expired and no instruction yet to renew it; other applicants there report simply going for a new medical without waiting to be told.

Answer it as you would answer the officer: every figure you give should be one you can document, and the after-tax salary question is unusual enough that you should say which figure you used.

What the interview is like

The longest reported ran about eighty minutes. Officers worked from a printed checklist and ticked items as they went. Applicants describe it as starting from scratch: questions from the first interview were asked again, and the relationship questions in a spouse case were repeated in full. One applicant reported that officers consulted each other during the interview about how to complete the new forms. At the end, one officer said the decision was not hers and the case needed further processing. In another, the applicant was told to leave the passport for issuance.

The employment-based re-interview at Tashkent on 23 September ran differently: three hours at the post, but only fifteen to twenty minutes of questions. The rest was the officer sorting through the papers the family had brought, laying out every bank statement and asking whether anything was missing. It ended with a new 221(g) sheet for further processing and a promise of a medical referral by email. At Warsaw, a spouse case interviewed fresh on 21 September got the public-charge questions inside the ordinary interview, was told everything looked fine, and was still handed a 221(g) sheet for "a few days" of processing with the passport kept.

London has also called people back who were told at the first interview that they were approved. A sibling case approved verbally on 21 August was emailed weeks later for financial documents, phoned the day after submitting them, and re-interviewed two days later: the same questions as the first time, plus savings, then a 221(g).

The questions reported

Grouped by theme. Not every applicant was asked every question.

One complete list, relayed from a plaintiff's spouse re-interviewed at Islamabad on 30 September: the oath; her education; her current job; her assets; whether she had ever received public assistance in Pakistan; whether she takes medication or has health problems; the petitioner's job, company and profession; whether his health insurance would cover her (naming an employer plan satisfied the officer); whether he lives alone and whether anyone living with him is financially dependent on him; whether anyone is financially dependent on her. Eleven questions, no extra documents asked for, and approval at the end with the passport kept. We have not spoken to the applicant.

Three more complete accounts arrived on 2 October, all from non-plaintiffs. At Guatemala City an IR1 applicant first interviewed in April faced one officer with two observing for 35 minutes: assets; health history; any previous public benefits such as food assistance; how long she has been married; how much her husband earns per month; whether the cars are paid off; where the couple plan to retire; whether they plan to take out health insurance. Approved at the window, passport pickup three days later, and told to travel before the medical expires. At Rio de Janeiro a spouse first interviewed in August sat 1 hour 20 minutes, one of only two immigrant interviews that day: his professional background and his US business, assets including vehicles and equipment, the business and joint bank accounts, the petitioner's retirement plan and medical and life insurance, her employment letter, and a job he had been recommended for. Passport kept; CEAC read Issued two days later and the passport was collected the day after. Sydney's second interviews on 6 October were short and covered health insurance and savings only; one applicant was already on the petitioner's employer plan and was asked for nothing further. A first interview at Frankfurt the same day, for a service member's spouse filing directly, ran twenty minutes with the petitioner questioned too: both incomes, savings, how and where the couple met, where they will live, what car they own, the applicant's education and why she had moved to Germany, the insurance plan by name and monthly premium, and her career plans; the officer said a manager now reviews the whole file before any decision. An EB-3 nurse at London on 11 September, relayed from a professional group, was asked about prior US travel, the job offer and hourly rate, time in the UK, moving plans, where she would stay, savings (shown on a banking app), the insurance she would have and training for the job, and was approved. At London the invitation itself listed the topics: employment plans and current employment, health insurance plans, current assets and savings. The interview followed that list almost exactly, the earlier tax transcript was looked at again, and the applicant left with a verbal approval.

Bogota on 6 October gave the two longest and most personal lists so far, both from non-plaintiff spouses, both approved. One applicant first interviewed in late April was in the building from 06:45 to 09:10 and was asked about the petitioner's parents (where they worked, what they did, how long retired), his siblings' jobs, the names of his co-workers, and at length about the health insurance plan she would join; retirement accounts came up for the first time, and the couple had brought updated bank, brokerage, 401(k) and IRA statements along with W-2s and returns. The other, first interviewed 11 May, was asked her work plans after the move, how the couple would handle health insurance, her work experience, years of experience and education, whether she has children, where they will live, whether she holds assets in Colombia, her socioeconomic stratum, and whether she had ever needed government aid; her petitioner, who lives in Colombia and is not working, was questioned on his assets because the sponsorship rests on them, and the officer stepped away to confirm that was allowed. Her visa was printed the same afternoon. A third applicant there the same day was sent to find a joint sponsor because the foreign earned income exclusion had left the petitioner's adjusted gross income negative: the officer looked at the 1040 line, not the gross pay. At London in early October a non-plaintiff employment-based applicant was approved on a written statement covering savings, an accommodation plan and medical insurance.

Two smaller London data points from 6-7 October: a spouse approved on 6 October was asked how much the couple had in savings and a rough figure, between five and ten thousand dollars, satisfied the officer with no statement shown (the couple already own a home in the US); and the 8 July case re-interviewed on 2 October reached Issued with a courier pickup email two days later, so London's second-interview-to-passport time is about five days. Outside the pause, a K-1 applicant was handed a 221(g) asking for the petitioner's 2023 and 2024 tax transcripts and proof that a court judgment for a debt collector against him has been resolved: the first report we hold of a petitioner's unpaid debt being raised as a public-charge document request. The thread's advice, and ours from the pattern, is a joint sponsor.

Two more complete lists from 8 and 9 October, and the first two second-interview refusals of non-plaintiff spouses we hold first-hand. At a Western European post an applicant held in 221(g) since August was approved on 8 October by the same officer as before: the petitioner's job (contract shown), income and health insurance; whether she had ever been on benefits; her highest education; years of experience in her field; a job offer letter the officer recorded in full; the address, the number of bedrooms and whether the petitioner owns it. At Tbilisi a parent case was asked about the parents' potential employment, education, work history and bank accounts, the petitioner's work and finances, assets at assessed value, and insurance (the petitioner will buy a plan until they find work); Issued within days. At Johannesburg on 9 October the questionnaire reached the benefits question and the interview ended there: the beneficiary answered truthfully that the petitioner, a US-born citizen now earning about $92,000 with insurance in place, had received food assistance and WIC after a 2017 birth, and the officer handed over a 212(a)(4) refusal and a second 221(g) with no documents reviewed. Commenters point out the consular manual lists food assistance and WIC as not relevant to the public charge decision. At Paris the same week a pause-country applicant with a petitioner and joint sponsor earning five times the requirement was questioned almost entirely on his own salary, savings (under 5,000 euros) and assets, and refused on public charge with no explanation. Casablanca, meanwhile, is phoning applicants and telling them to bring "anything that helps" with no list.

Kathmandu, by contrast, sends a list. A non-plaintiff parent case (IR5) first interviewed 27 January was phoned on 9 October and then emailed a re-interview with: a resume, education certificates, evidence of bank balance and assets, a health insurance plan and a job offer letter. For a parent in their sixties whose finances are run by an adult child, the thread's working answer is to document the household: the child's income and holdings, the spouse's assets, the shop where the parent will work, and the insurance the petitioner will buy. Applicants in the non-spouse family categories are asking the same question about insurance, since there is no employer plan to join; a marketplace quote or a private insurer's quotation, as used at Frankfurt, is the evidence reported so far.

Frankfurt's 6 October second interview for a pause-country CR1 is the cleanest issued case we hold: the insurance plan named and the petitioner's employer family-plan card shown (enrolment conditional on a Social Security number), education, whether she holds bank accounts (a statement showing about $30,000 was ready and was asked for), the car loan's size and term, nothing on credit cards, no property. Visa issued two days later. Two smaller insurance data points: one applicant at a second interview brought only the name of an unsubsidised plan and its monthly cost, nothing printed, and that satisfied the question; an F11 applicant has obtained quotations from a private insurer for several plans to buy on issuance. And a joint-sponsor case approved and issued at a 14 September re-interview reports the officer wanted the sponsors' IRS transcripts, identity documents and a wet-signed I-864, not the 1040s and W-2s.

San José, Costa Rica, on 8 October, a Nicaraguan spouse refused in March on nationality: whether the US citizen petitioner had ever received public benefits; how much the applicant holds in checking and savings; his assets; his debts; his plans for work; whether he plans further education; how long ago the couple met; and the officer kept a copy of their son's birth certificate, the child having been born after the petition was filed. Health insurance was not asked about even though the scheduling email had said to bring proof of it. The passport was kept with one police certificate outstanding. At Guangzhou an EB-2 NIW applicant with no US job offer, in administrative processing since May 2025, was emailed for a second interview and told to bring 'evidence of financial plan in the USA'; that is a question about self-support, and applicants who have been through it suggest twelve months of statements, an employment or income letter, tax certificates, property and investments, and a written plan for the first year.

Money and assets

How much do you have saved? How much does your spouse have saved?
Do you own property? What is it worth? Do you have assets in your home country?
Do you have investments? Do you have debts? How large is the car loan and for how long? (Frankfurt; credit cards not asked)
How much would your household have available in an emergency?
How will you support yourself when you first arrive?
What are your own savings and assets, apart from the sponsors'? (Paris, where sponsors five times over the line did not save an applicant with under 5,000 euros)
Do you depend only on the petitioner's income?
Has anything changed since your first interview?
Are the businesses yours alone or with partners? What is the total revenue across them?
Is this every bank account you hold, or is something missing? (asked with each statement laid out by bank and account type)
Are your cars paid off? Where do you plan to retire? (Guatemala City)
Does the applicant own a business, and what are its assets and accounts? (Rio de Janeiro)
What is in your retirement accounts? Do you hold assets in your home country? What is your socioeconomic stratum? (Bogota)
What is your adjusted gross income on the 1040, not your salary? A negative line from the foreign earned income exclusion sent one petitioner for a joint sponsor. (Bogota)

Work

What does the petitioner do, and what is their salary?
What do you do now, and what did you do before?
Do you intend to work in the United States? What kind of work? Do you have an offer? How quickly do you expect to find work?
If you do not speak English, what is your plan for employment?
Can you work for at least ten years in the United States?
Where do you work now, and is the employer a US company?
Can the petitioner add you to their insurance plan? (the officer typed the insurance card details into the system)

Health and benefits

Do you have health insurance, or proof that you will be covered on arrival?
Do you have any health conditions? Do you take medication?
Have you ever received public benefits in your home country? Has the petitioner ever received public assistance in the United States?
Have you or your sponsors ever used any public services in the United States: benefit cards, hospitals, food assistance? (one Kingston applicant believes refusals there turned on this question alone)
Does your insurance cover everyone in the family? Is it your own or employer-provided?
Has a court judgment or garnishment against the petitioner been resolved? (asked of a K-1 by document request, with two years of tax transcripts)
Has the petitioner ever received benefits? A truthful yes about food assistance and WIC eight years earlier ended one Johannesburg interview in a refusal. Have you or the petitioner used cash assistance; do you have debts? (Frankfurt, by email after the interview)
Does anyone in the family have health problems?
Do you plan to take out health insurance, and what is your health history? (Guatemala City)

Age and household

Age, and whether it leaves enough working years to save, to reach forty quarters of contributions, or to qualify for a pension.
Education, and whether skills transfer.
Where you will live, and whether the petitioner owns the home.
Where the children study.
Does anyone living with the petitioner earn their own income, or are they financially dependent on the petitioner? Is anyone financially dependent on you?
What do the petitioner's parents and siblings do for work? What are the names of the petitioner's co-workers? (Bogota)
For an employment-based petition: whether you can send further evidence of the underlying criteria, such as awards or publications.

The documents asked for

The email that rescheduled the interview.
A contact sheet with the US address you will move to.
The most recent tax return and W-2, for the petitioner and any joint sponsor. One post also asked for a joint sponsor's spouse to sign an I-864A because the sponsor filed a joint return.
Proof of health insurance, arranged through the petitioner's employer in the one approved case that described it.
Bank statements and proof of assets, for both petitioner and applicant, with values.
Proof of the petitioner's employment and income.
Proof of property ownership.
Education and work history for the applicant.
Photographs of the couple, in a spouse case.
A new medical, if the old one has expired.
A police certificate from a country you previously lived in, requested with the re-interview email at Dakar.
What the Tashkent family brought, and the officer read: tax transcripts, three months of statements for every account, an employment letter, business documents, asset documentation, education originals, civil documents and new photographs.
Updated I-864 and financial evidence, plus every document from the original interview and anything previously requested, in a Bogota family case set for 1 October.
'Evidence of financial plan in the USA', with an updated police clearance and a new medical, in a Guangzhou second-interview email to an EB-2 NIW applicant without a US job offer.
At San José: a redone medical, a new apostilled police certificate from the country of residence, proof of health insurance and proof of where the couple will live, all named in the 30 September email. The applicant brought travel insurance bridging to the petitioner's employer open enrolment with a signed letter of intent to enrol him, and a notarised letter from the petitioner's parents confirming the couple will live with them; the post then asked only for the police certificate from his country of nationality.
A joint sponsor's most recent W-2s, requested at Kingston even though the primary sponsor's income was sufficient; the officer said it was to strengthen the file for a higher office's review.
Proof of the US health insurance plan you will use. At Tbilisi on 23 September the officer named no reason for refusal, kept the passport, and asked for this by email afterwards; the applicant, still abroad, sent a plan quote showing premium and benefits.
At Budapest, after the pause lifted: evidence of prospective US health insurance coverage, a potential job offer letter, and other evidence of financial support or assets, together with a new medical and a new police certificate, all within about ten days. The applicant could not complete the file at the interview and the visa was printed a week later, once the remaining documents were in.
At Rio de Janeiro the notice asked for every original previously requested plus any updated financial information; the family added an updated resume with evidence of pending work, business and joint account statements, retirement plan and insurance evidence and the petitioner's employment letter.

Almaty, in the week of 5 October, sent a non-plaintiff IR-5 parent the longest list yet with the re-interview email: a new medical, a personal credit report, a government certificate showing whether she had ever received targeted social assistance, a valuation of every asset with English translation, bank and pension statements, a US health insurance plan, and a job offer or work plan in the United States. The last two could not be produced for a retired 64-year-old, and the case was refused. If your post's list includes an insurance plan or a work plan, treat them as required rather than optional.

Domicile: when the petitioner lives abroad

A second interview can be refused under 212(a)(4) for a reason that has nothing to do with the joint sponsor. An IR1 first interviewed at Bangkok on 27 January was re-interviewed in mid-October and asked, after the usual questions on both spouses' work and education, where the couple would live and whether the petitioner owns a home in the United States. The couple has lived together abroad for more than five years; the petitioner works remotely for a US company at under 25,000 dollars a year, a joint sponsor earns many times the guideline, and the housing evidence was an invitation letter from a sibling with a mailing address at that house. The interview ended with a refusal letter citing public charge and a request for two documents: a lease or other proof of housing in the United States, and a job offer letter for either spouse. The joint sponsor's file was in front of the officer and was not discussed; no new medical was asked for.

This is the domicile requirement being written up under the public-charge ground. A petitioner who has lived outside the United States must show they have re-established, or will re-establish, a US home before the applicant arrives; an invitation letter from family was called insufficient for a married couple. If that is your situation, prepare the move as carefully as the money: a signed lease or purchase, a job offer or a letter from the current employer stating the US role, title and salary that will continue after the move, utilities or mail at the address, and a plain account of the timeline. A joint sponsor answers the income question. It does not answer where you will live, and the officer is now asking both.

How the cases ended

As of 9 October the second-interview route has produced its first two non-plaintiff spouse refusals on public charge that we hold first-hand, at Johannesburg (petitioner's past food assistance and WIC) and Paris (applicant's own savings), alongside continuing approvals at London, Bogota, Tbilisi and a Western European post. Both refused applicants were handed a worksheet with one box ticked and no explanation; both were told, in effect, to get a lawyer. What overcomes a 212(a)(4) finding at a consulate is not yet documented in these reports.

Three reports from 11-12 October bear on benefits history. A UK spouse who had herself claimed UK benefits while working, with children and a degree, was approved after the public-charge additions and credits the petitioner's high earnings, an established US home and medical insurance; benefits received abroad are not US public benefits, and this is the first first-hand approval in which the beneficiary's own benefits came up. At another post an applicant asked whether her petitioner husband had received anything answered that he may have as a minor, and the officer seemed satisfied; that case waits on a renewed medical and an IRS transcript. And the San José interview ended with the passport kept and one police certificate outstanding, the officer hoping no further interview would be needed. For scale: the Department's own declaration in the 6 October court filing, as summarised by the community, puts re-adjudications between 21 August and 30 September at about 706, with 318 approved and 388 refused. The first-hand reports collected here skew toward approvals, because applicants post good news more readily than refusals, so the outcomes on this page are examples, not a rate.

The first week of October brought the first cluster of non-plaintiff approvals we hold first-hand: Guatemala City (approved at the window on 2 October, passport pickup 5 October), Rio de Janeiro (second interview 29 September, Issued 1 October, passport in hand 2 October), Budapest (visa printed around 2 October after a short-notice medical and police certificate) and London (verbal approval on 2 October, CEAC to administrative processing the same day). Each of these had a first interview between January and August, none was a plaintiff, and in every case the second interview was about money, insurance and work rather than the relationship. Two of the four had a lawsuit or heavy outreach behind them; two had none.

Bogota added two more on 6 October, and the fastest ending yet: a spouse first interviewed in May was interviewed at 06:45, phoned at noon and collected the visa at 14:00, having turned down the offer of a new medical to avoid the delay (she must travel by 22 October). The other, first interviewed in late April, was approved with the passport kept for pickup within days. Sydney's 6 October second interview went to Issued on CEAC the next morning. Neither Bogota applicant was a plaintiff. At the other end, a Dhaka observer reports re-interviewed applicants there receiving 212(a)(4) refusals, with a relayed figure of two or three passports kept out of fifty to sixty; the report is disputed in the same thread and we have no first-hand account.

Two outcomes are new at the end of September. An employment-based applicant re-interviewed at Bogota on the 29th cleared a five-minute interview (age, work, earnings, money to be brought, property; nothing on insurance) and still got a 221(g), because no employment-based visa numbers were left in the fiscal year; the passport stays with the post until numbers return in October. And first interviews are now being refused on the public-charge ground as well: a diversity visa couple at London was refused on the spot on the 29th after questions on savings and job prospects, while another applicant there who brought insurance quotes, payslips and job applications was approved.

And a warning about the word Issued. At Tbilisi, diversity visa applicants whose CEAC read Issued after a second interview, and who were told the visa was printed, were messaged on 1 October to collect their passports without visas and await a decision. A CEAC status is not a visa until the passport is back with the foil in it; applicants at Juárez saw an Issued status revert to Ready after six weeks. Keep the screenshots.

The reverse also happens: passports come back with nothing in them and no decision. A Casablanca applicant refused in January was told on 29 September that his passport had been couriered and returned uncollected (no notice ever reached him), collected it in person on 5 October with no visa, and was told by phone the next day that immigrant visa work is still paused. If your passport is returned, ask in writing what the status of the case is; the return itself tells you nothing.

A fourth ending has appeared: no slip at all. At Amman a non-plaintiff spouse re-interviewed in late September for five minutes had the passport kept, was handed nothing, and was told the post had what it needed; CEAC then moved to Ready. Applicants read the kept passport with no 221(g) as the better sign, and a diversity visa applicant with the same pattern at Dakar went to Issued on 30 September.

The first wave of spouse-visa re-interviews at Cairo on 28 September ended in refusals on the public-charge ground, according to a plaintiff who was among them and says everyone interviewed that day was refused. That applicant had brought a health insurance plan, a job, a signed lease, a co-sponsor, savings and a good credit history, and had been told in January that the visa would have issued but for the pause. It is the first report of a whole re-interview session being refused; treat the "everyone" as one applicant's account of the waiting room.

Of the re-interviews reported with an outcome, three were approved, all after the full financial conversation, and a fourth, a non-plaintiff diversity visa case at Tbilisi, was told there was no reason for refusal and is waiting on an insurance document. Two pause cases were refused on public-charge grounds under section 212(a)(4), and in both the refusal came after a short phone call with no financial questions and no request for a joint sponsor. One petition was returned to the petitioning agency with a recommendation to revoke on the same ground, although the petitioner met the income threshold. Several plaintiffs re-interviewed together at Dhaka were each handed a new 221(g) slip; per one of them, the six whose passports were returned went to Issued within a day or two, while the one whose passport was kept was still waiting a week later. At Kathmandu, eight of sixteen diversity visa plaintiffs re-interviewed on 17 September were issued on 25 September, after a redone medical. At Dhaka a diversity visa plaintiff re-interviewed on 17 September was issued on 27 September after a week at Ready and three days in administrative processing, the first issuance there reported first-hand. Second interviews continue to end in another 221(g) for many: a pause-country diversity visa applicant re-interviewed on 25 September was handed a pink slip with no boxes ticked and the passport back. The Tashkent employment case and the Warsaw spouse case above both ended in a further 221(g). Government status reports on diversity visa cases in the same period show refusals outnumbering approvals by roughly six to one, then by seventeen to one.

The public-charge bond form now carries a field for a consular case number, which suggests that a bond may become an alternative to refusal. We hold one visitor-visa case conditioned on a bond of 10,000 dollars, and no immigrant visa case yet.

K-1 cases, relayed from London on 12 October: a fiance interviewed 1 October was refused on public-charge grounds although the petitioner earns over 65,000 dollars, owns a home, has no debt beyond the mortgage and had insurance ready to add the fiance; the fiance's own finances were questioned first. One reply says four of four interviews that day, the first since the training, ended the same way, and an observer at the post says beneficiaries whose petitioners clear the income line are still being refused on their own savings, debts and reliance on Universal Credit. Treat the beneficiary's own financial picture as a separate test that a strong petitioner does not pass for them.

Three more outcomes from 13 and 14 October. At Almaty the IR-5 parent above was handed a 212(a)(4) paper with no explanation after the follow-up interview, and her visitor visa was cancelled at the same time, although the petitioner's I-864 was above the guideline and a new one had been filed; commenters point to 22 CFR 42.81(e), which allows reconsideration within a year on new evidence without a new application. At Bogota an EB-3 (other workers) family, not plaintiffs, first interviewed 28 January, were told after a second interview that the case was approvable but that no visa numbers were available in the category at the post, so it waits for numbers with the passports left behind; the officer checked English first, asked about the job offer, the spouse's work plans, salary and childcare, looked at the health insurance research and took savings and assets by word. From London, relayed: the four K-1s refused on 1 October were 221(g) refusals rather than denials, two were students with a joint sponsor earning over 200k and one a homeowner on about 70k with insurance and no debt, and K-1s interviewed on 6 October were approved.

What the officer's worksheet covers

On 5 October the Department filed, under penalty of perjury, the clearest description yet of what happens to a remanded case. Officers do not reinstate the public-charge finding from the first interview: they keep the old record, complete the new worksheet, consider updated information, may call a second interview, and decide on the applicant's circumstances at the time of the new adjudication. The filing confirms what every re-interview report in this guide shows: employment, marital status, dependents, finances, medicals and insurance are all assessed afresh. It also discloses a 14 September cable (26 STATE 89798) requiring managerial review of immigrant visa decisions, including every case where an officer overcame a public-charge refusal and random samples of issued and refused cases, with the officer's analysis of the totality of circumstances documented in the case notes: age, health, family status, assets and financial status, education and skills including English proficiency, current or past public cash assistance, welfare received in the home country, and the sufficiency of the affidavit of support. A 21 September instruction tells posts to work pause cases in the order they were refused, with named plaintiffs and prior chief-of-mission exception requests first, and exempts remanded cases from the in-person part of the training (the online part still has to be done). The numbers filed: of roughly 43,000 cases refused under the pause, about 706 were adjudicated between 21 August and 30 September, 318 approved for issuance or issued and 388 refused under some provision of the law, with the Department unable to say how many of the 318 are visas physically in passports.

Internal instructions filed in court on 21 September, and reported secondhand, describe a Public Charge Worksheet that officers complete for every immigrant visa case. It asks for individualised findings on age, health, family status, assets and resources, debts and liabilities, education and skills, use of certain public benefits, any joint sponsor, and, for cases with an affidavit of support, a LexisNexis report on the sponsor. That report is a commercial compilation of public records: property, liens, judgments, bankruptcies, professional licences and address history. Sponsors can request their own copy free of charge once a year from LexisNexis, and it is worth reading before the interview so nothing in it is a surprise.

The same filing describes a review layer after the officer's decision. A case the officer finds eligible is authorised for printing, reviewed by a consular manager, and submitted through an internal application for a further adjudication review that returns a report. That review can reportedly result in further action, including spoiling a printed visa or considering revocation of an issued one. Applicants re-interviewed at Dhaka were told the officer was not the final decision-maker; this is the mechanism behind that remark. We have not read the documents ourselves.

On 21 September the government also told the court it had instructed all posts that they must adjudicate immigrant visa applications whether or not they have finished the training, with reconsideration of pause-refused cases prioritised. Within a day, Tashkent answered enquiries for the first time in a month and Tbilisi called a non-plaintiff diversity visa selectee for a second interview, asking for passport, financial support evidence and housing arrangements.

What to carry in

Three posts have now set out in writing what they want. London asks for a public charge statement covering housing, employment plans, health insurance and assets and liabilities, and from 30 September describes it as required rather than optional; one applicant added a line noting the affidavit of support is signed and the sponsor clears the threshold. Warsaw asks for "financial statement documents" without saying which. Tbilisi asked a non-working parent for her own financial information even though the petitioner supports her, so expect the question to be put to the applicant and not only to the sponsor.

From the cases that were approved: everything in the documents list above, organised so that any number you state can be shown. Applicants who said they had savings were asked to prove it. Know your realistic employment plan, and if English is weak, have an answer for how you will work without it. If a joint sponsor is involved, bring the sponsor's return and be ready for the spouse's form. From the cases that were refused: do not assume there will be a conversation, and do not assume a joint sponsor will be invited.

On health insurance specifically, this is what has been accepted and what has not. Accepted: printed quotes for short-term newcomer cover (one IR-5 parent approved on quotes alone, post not stated); a purchased visitor medical policy, about 260 dollars for ten weeks with 250k of cover, bought online before the San Jose interview; the travel cover attached to credit cards plus a US quote, at Bogota; and a written note from the petitioner's employer that the spouse can be added within 60 days of arrival, which several IR1 petitioners are obtaining. Not accepted: having no plan at all, as in the Almaty refusal, where neither an insurance plan nor a work plan could be shown. Marketplace plans need a US address and are of little use before arrival; newcomer policies are bought with an estimated arrival date. If you are a parent or sibling case who cannot join the sponsor's employer plan, bring a quote for a plan the sponsor could pay for.

Where this stands post by post

Not every post is calling anyone back, and at most of those that are, only named plaintiffs have been called. The status-by-embassy page shows what each post has done, updated daily.

Public-Charge Re-Interview: Every Question Applicants Were Asked, and What to Bring