On August 31, USCIS released a new version of Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) with no transition period. The main change — instructions appeared at the end of the document regarding checks of sponsors’ credit reports, though it remains unclear what data the agency will look for and how this will affect approval decisions.

How and when the form took effect

On August 31, the USCIS administration suddenly released an updated version of I-864 with immediate effect — with no adaptation period whatsoever. This means that all adjustment of status applications filed with the incorrect version of the form in the days preceding the release could theoretically be rejected entirely or sent back for evidence request without prior warning.

Such sudden changes have happened before in immigration regulation history. During the first Trump administration (around 2018), a court later struck down such a decision, ruling that introducing a new version of the form without a transition period was impermissible. However, until the court decision, applicants face delays, rejections, and potential notices to appear before immigration court if they had been outside lawful status.

New requirement: credit history check

A note about credit reports was added to the new version of I-864. It states that if a sponsor has established a credit freeze or security freeze on their credit file, the agency may not be able to assess the sufficiency of Form I-864. USCIS asks applicants to lift such freezes immediately to avoid delays.

This means that upon petition approval, USCIS will request access to the sponsor’s credit reports — at least when they are frozen. Practicing immigration attorneys speculate that the agency will be looking for information about bankruptcies, but there is no full understanding yet of exactly what the agency will examine and how it will affect the decision.

Uncertainty in rule application

Among immigration attorneys, discussion has begun about whether they should proactively request credit reports from sponsors before filing a petition. However, there is no unified approach because USCIS has not provided detailed guidance.

Many questions remain: will the agency reject applications solely based on the sponsor’s poor credit history? Will circumstances be taken into account — for example, divorce or medical situations after which financial position improved? How does credit score affect the decision if the sponsor is currently financially stable?

Most attorneys are not yet taking on the role of financial advisors and are not giving sponsors advice on improving credit scores. They recommend that applicants lift their credit freeze before filing and wait for further official guidance from USCIS.

Connection to new ‘public charge’ rules

The I-864 update coincides with the introduction of new guidance on the ‘public charge’ rule, which takes effect on September 18. This rule expands USCIS’s ability to reject applicants based on the likelihood that they will become recipients of government benefits in the future.

Unlike the Biden-era public charge rule (around 2022), which considered someone a dependent only in cases of long-term institutional care or systematic use of benefits, the new guidance gives USCIS officers discretion to consider practically any factor that might increase the likelihood of future benefit receipt.

The Department of Homeland Security specifically noted that one goal of this rule is to discourage immigrants from using the Medicaid program, even if they are eligible for it. According to the rule’s own text, it is expected that approximately 9 million immigrants will voluntarily forgo Medicaid due to the new risk assessments.

What comes next

After September 18, USCIS will publish detailed guidance for its officers on applying the new ‘public charge’ rule. Based on this guidance, the requirements for sponsors’ credit history in the context of I-864 will become clear.

Until then, attorneys recommend that sponsors make sure they have lifted any credit freezes and wait for more precise guidance from the agency. The bottom line is that it cannot be ruled out that a court will once again overturn the hasty introduction of these requirements, as happened during Trump’s first term, but until then applicants may face significant complications when filing.