Affordable Care Act | The Insightful Immigration Blog

Tag Archive for: Affordable Care Act

Trump Is Not King, Cannot Rewrite Public Charge Law Through Executive Fiat

November 4, 2019/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

Can President Trump act like a king by rewriting US immigration law through the invocation of INA 212(f)? Although America shrugged itself from the yoke of King George III in 1776, Trump issued a Proclamation on October 4, 2019 in total disregard of a Congressional statute – defining who is likely to become a public charge – that would bar intending immigrants from the United States if they do not have health insurance lined up within 30 days of their admission. A federal court in Oregon in Doe v. Trump issued a Temporary Restraining Order on November 2, 2019, one day before the Proclamation was to take effect. Although the TRO is only valid for 28 days, it is still a significant victory in the opening salvo of yet another challenge to thwart Trump’s ability to rewrite large swaths of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

While INA § 212(f) does give extraordinary power to a president, Trump has tried to use his powers beyond what could have been imagined when Congress enacted this provision. INA §212(f) states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Trump soon after becoming president invoked INA § 212(f) through presidential proclamations to impose his travel ban against nationals of mainly Muslim countries. This was done to fulfill a campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims, which is also why it is known as a Muslim ban. He decided without foundation that the entry of Iranian nationals (one of the countries subject to the ban) would be detrimental to the interests of the United States even though they came to marry a US citizen or visit relatives. The Supreme Court, disappointingly, upheld the third version of the ban in Trump v. Hawaii in June 2018 stating that INA § 212(f) “exudes deference to the President” and thus empowers him to deny entry of noncitizens if he determines that allowing entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” One should still give credit to prior lower federal court decisions that blocked the first and second versions of the travel ban, on the grounds that Trump exceeded INA 212(f), which were far worse than the watered down third version that was finally upheld.

Trump got more emboldened. On November 9, 2018, he issued another proclamation invoking INA § 212(f), which banned people who cross the Southern border outside a designated port of entry from applying for asylum in the United States. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security followed by jointly issuing a rule implementing the proclamation. The key issue is whether INA § 212(f) allowed a president like Trump with authoritarian impulses to override entire visa categories or change the US asylum system? INA § 208(a)(1) categorically allows any alien who is physically present in the United States to apply for asylum regardless of his or her manner of arrival in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.” Trump attempted to change that by virtue of the authority given to him in INA § 212(f) by not allowing people who cross outside a port of entry from applying for asylum. Never mind that the administration had virtually closed the designated ports of entry for asylum seekers, which forced them to cross the border through irregular methods. In East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742 (2018), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Trump administration had unlawfully done what the “Executive cannot do directly; amend the INA”. Indeed, even in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration successfully argued that INA § 212(f) only supplanted other provisions that allowed the administration to bar aliens from entering the United States, but did not expressly override statutory provisions. Thus, INA § 212(f) could not be used as a justification to override INA § 208. Although the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked East Bay Sanctuary Covenant from taking effect until the government’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court is decided, Supreme Court has not passed any judgment on the merits of the case.

On October 3, 2019, Trump yet again invoked INA §212 (f) by issuing a Proclamation to ban intending immigrants from entering the United States if they did not have health insurance within 30 days of their arrival in the United States. Under the Proclamation, an intending immigrant who has satisfied all statutory requirements set out in the INA will nevertheless be permanently barred from entering the United States if that person cannot show, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, that he or she either “will be covered by approved health insurance” within 30 days of entering the United States, or “possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” Except for certain special Immigrant Visa applicants specifically from Iraq and Afghanistan, and unaccompanied biological and adopted children, the Proclamation will be applied to all intending immigrants. The Proclamation, which was to take effect on November 3, 2019, was expected to affect nearly two-thirds of all legal immigrants, with a disproportionate impact on immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The Proclamation provides eight specific types of “approved health insurance” for an intending immigrant: (1) an employer-sponsored plan; (2) an “unsubsidized health plan offered in the individual market within a State;” (3) a short-term limited duration insurance (“STLDI”) plan “effective for a minimum of 364 days;” (4) a catastrophic plan; (5) a family member’s plan; (6) TRICARE and similar plans made available to the U.S. military; (7) a visitor health insurance plan “that provides adequate coverage for medical care for a minimum of 364 days;” and (8) Medicare. A prospective immigrant may also obtain a “health plan that provides adequate coverage for medical care as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his designee,” but the Proclamation provides no guidance as to how “adequate coverage” is defined.

The Proclamation excludes from the scope of “approved health insurance” any “subsidized” healthcare offered in the individual market within a State under the Affordable Care Act, as well as Medicaid for individuals over 18 years of age, even though some states have chosen to make Medicaid available to certain adults over 18 years of age, including certain new and recently arrived immigrants. The Proclamation relies on a single dispositive factor—the health care insurance status of an individual—to determine whether the individual will “financially burden” the United States. It is designed to exclude a large number of otherwise qualified immigrants because in reality only an STDI plan and a visitor health insurance plan would be available to one who has yet to enter the United States. Even if such plans were available, they would exclude people with preexisting conditions and would not have the essential health benefits as required under the ACA to which a new immigrant could access, but which would not qualify under the Proclamation.

Based on the likelihood of success on the merits standard that applicable for the grant of a TRO, Judge Michael Simon in Doe v. Trump found that the Proclamation’s reliance on the health care insurance status of an individual as the sole factor for determining inadmissibility as a public charge conflicted with INA § 212(a)(4) in at least five ways.

First, Congress in INA §212(a)(4)(A) has spoken directly to the circumstances in which an individual may be deemed to become a “financial burden” to the United States and has rejected the Proclamation’s core premise of lack of health insurance being the sole factor. This provision states that “[a]ny alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” When determining whether an individual may become a public charge, the statute enumerates the factors that are to be considered “at a minimum” to include the applicant’s age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; and education and skills. The statute outlines the permissible factors in the public charge determination and nowhere mentions an individual’s health care insurance status as one of the permissible factors, according to Judge Simon. Given the statute’s enumeration of age and health, the statute’s omission of “health care insurance status” is important.

Second the statute precludes any single factor from being a dispositive factor, which requires a totality of the circumstances test to be applied. The totality of the circumstances test has long been a feature of the public charge ground even before Congress statutorily mandated it in 1996. The court in Doe v. Trump cited Matter of Perez, 15 I. & N. Dec. 136, 137 (BIA 1974) in support of the long use of the totality of circumstances test. The Proclamation, on the other hand, conflicts with the statutory text by deeming an individual to be a financial burden based solely on her health care insurance status and eschewing all the other statutory factors including, perhaps most incongruously, the health of the individual herself.

Third, the Proclamation’s dispositive reliance on health care insurance status contravenes decades of agency interpretation.

Fourth, the Proclamation’s reliance on an individual’s accessing short-term health care benefits as a reason to find the person a “financial burden” has been expressly rejected. Citing City & Cty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019) (the public charge statute has had a “longstanding allowance for short-term aid”).

Fifth, the Proclamation revives a test for financial burden—the receipt of non-cash benefits—that Congress has rejected. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 531, 110 Stat. 3009, 3674-75 (1996), which amended the INA by codifying five factors relevant to a public charge determination. The Senate rejected the effort to include previously unconsidered, non-cash public benefits in the public charge test and to create a bright-line framework of considering whether the immigrant has received public benefits for an aggregate of twelve months as “too quick to label people as public charges for utilizing the same public assistance that many Americans need to get on their feet.” S. Rep. No. 104-249, at *63-64 (1996) (Senator Leahy’s remarks). Accordingly, in its final bill, Congress did not include the receipt of Medicaid, Security Income, and other means-tested public benefits as determinative of a public charge.

Based on these five reasons, the court in Doe v. Trump issued the TRO on the ground that plaintiffs were able to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court specifically relied on East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, supra, which specifically held that a president cannot rely on INA 212(f) to amend the INA. The court also held that notwithstanding this being a presidential proclamation, it was “not in accordance with the law” under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Further, the court also noted that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of showing Defendants’ implementation of the Proclamation likely constitutes final agency action, thus akin to a final substantive rule, that is “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion.” While the government has yet to submit arguments, and another hearing is scheduled shortly, it is remarkable that once again a court has struck down Trump’s use of INA §212(f) to rewrite the immigration law. In the instant case, Trump has undermined provisions that Congress has specifically enacted to determine who is likely to become a public charge. If courts do not check the president’s use of INA §212(f) to issue policies that reflect his racist views, there will be no limit with what Trump can do with our immigration laws without having to go through Congress to change them, or even issuing regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act.

There are other arguments that can be advanced to show how utterly incompatible the Proclamation is to specific provisions of the INA. The Proclamation would also bar immigrants based on approved self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act. Congress specifically indicated that VAWA self-petitioners will be excepted from the public charge requirements in INA 212(a)(4)(A)-(C). How can the Proclamation override these provisions in the INA that created an exception for VAWA petitioners and require them to have health insurance?

In addition, the Proclamation is also a gross violation of the APA as the Proclamation is ultra vires of the INA. This argument can be further bolstered if the court considers Justice Robert’s invocation of Justice Friendly in the census case, Department of Commerce v. New York, favoring judicial review of executive actions:

Our review is deferential, but we are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” United States v. Stanchich, 550 F. 2d 1294, 1300 (CA2 1977) (Friendly, J.). The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.

Furthermore, a presidential executive order cannot supersede a law previously passed by Congress. A case in point is Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (1996) which held that a 1995 executive order of President Clinton violated a provision of the National Labor Relations Act. President Clinton’s EO No. 12, 954 declared federal agencies shall not contract with employers that permanently replace lawfully striking employees. The lower district court held that the president’s interpretation of a statute was entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The DC Court of Appeals, however, overruled the district court, without explicitly stating whether the president’s interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference or not.

It is also no secret that the Proclamation is designed to exclude immigrants from poorer countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa, which Trump has derided as “shithole countries.” The President’s derisive language towards Muslims was successfully used against him in the Fourth Circuit decision in IRAP v. Trump, to demonstrate that the Muslim ban violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. It has also been used against him in litigation opposing the termination of Temporary Protected Status. Although the Supreme Court did not consider violation of the Establishment Clause argument, it does not mean that plaintiffs cannot pursue constitutional arguments in Doe v. Trump. Here, the Proclamation has violated the Equal Protection Clause as it discriminates against immigrants from poorer countries who will not be able to afford the health insurance or will be forced to buy substandard insurance plans. The healthcare exchanges under the Affordable Care Act clearly allows a new immigrant to buy into a subsidized healthcare plan, which they cannot decline under a particular income level. This is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory structure that directs a lawful permanent resident to do so under the ACA.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association along with a coalition of civil rights groups under Latino Network inspired the lawsuit, which makes me feel proud to be a member of AILA and especially AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force. We have a long road ahead as the government will respond with arguments in favor of presidential power, but now is the time to make the most compelling arguments to stop a president like Trump from invoking INA § 212(f) to rewrite immigration law in a way that is both inconsistent with the INA and with the foundational principle of America being a nation of immigrants.

Keeping Tabs On a Non-Citizen’s Eligibility For Health Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act

June 29, 2015/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

President Obama’s healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is here to stay especially after the law withstood a challenge in King v. Burwell that allows the federal government to provide subsidies to poor and middle class people to buy health insurance on a nationwide basis.

Even non-citizens who are lawfully present may access the health exchange to buy insurance under the ACA. Many non-citizens will also be subject to the individual mandate or “individual shared responsibility provision” if they do not maintain essential health coverage. It is thus important to keep track of a non-citizen’s eligibility as well as when such an individual may be penalized on his or her next tax return for not maintaining essential coverage, which has been explained in Who is Lawfully Present Under the Affordable Care Act?

Becoming Lawfully Present After Enrollment Period Has Closed

The next open enrollment period for 2016 starts November 1, 2015 and ends January 31, 2016. The last open enrollment closed on February 15, 2015. What if a non-citizen becomes eligible for ACA coverage between February 15, 2015 and November 1, 2015?

Take the example of a US citizen who has sponsored her parents, John Smith and Jane Smith, under the immediate relative category through the filing of an I-130 petition while they were outside the United States. They came to the United States on June 25, 2015 as permanent residents upon the approval of the I-130 and the issuance of immigrant visas at the consular post overseas. A permanent resident is a qualified alien who is eligible for coverage on a health exchange and is also subject to the mandate. Although the open enrollment closed on February 15, 2015, John and Jane are eligible under the 60 day special enrollment period because they just became permanent residents after the prior enrollment period closed on February 15, 2015. Assuming that they do not have minimum essential coverage as yet, if John and Jane do not take advantage of the special enrollment period and get coverage in the first full month during which they are present for the entirety of the month, they will be subject to a penalty when they file their tax returns for 2015. Even if John and Jane choose to return to their original country for two years on a reentry permit to wrap up their business and sell their home, they must still enroll for health coverage or qualify for an exception, which includes qualifying under the foreign earned income exclusion pursuant to section 911(d)(1)(A) or 911(d)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. This is more fully explained in the blog entitled The Impact of Obamacare on Green Card Holders Who Reside Outside the United States.

Let’s discuss another example of a person who applies for permanent residence from within the United States. Maria Fernandez entered the United States on a B-2 visitor’s visa on January 1, 2009 and has remained ever since. She overstayed her authorized stay as a visitor after July 1, 2009. As a result of overstaying her B-2 visa status, she is not considered lawfully present under the ACA. On April 1, 2015, Maria married a US citizen, who filed an I-130 petition on her behalf and she concurrently filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status. Under the definition of “lawfully present” in 45 CFR 152.2(4)(vii), she is not yet lawfully present as the underlying I-130 visa petition has not been approved. For immigration purposes, Maria will be considered lawfully present as an adjustment application, but some of the definitions of “lawfully present” under the ACA are not in harmony under immigration law. However, if Maria obtains employment authorization as an adjustment applicant, she will be considered lawfully present pursuant to 45 CFR 152.2(4)(iii). Suppose Maria obtains employment authorization on July 1, 2015, although the next open enrollment starts on November 1, 2015 and assuming she does not have minimum essential coverage, Maria will be eligible for the special 60 day enrollment period under 45 CFR 155.420(d)(3).

If on the other hand, Maria does not apply for employment authorization as an adjustment applicant pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9), she will not be considered lawfully present until after her I-130 petition is approved or when she becomes a lawful permanent resident, whichever is earlier.

Special enrollment is available when “[t]he qualified individual, or his or her dependent, which was not previously a citizen, national, or lawfully present individual gains such status.” 45 CFR 155.420(d)(3). It is unclear whether special enrollment would be available to someone who was previously lawfully present, then fell out of status, and now regains another status. However, it would be bizarre if this rule precluded someone who had ever been lawfully present in their life previously. If the rule was applied so rigidly, someone like Maria in the above example would not qualify for special enrollment and would have to wait for the next open enrollment on November 1, 2015. Even visitors in B-2 status may be considered lawfully present under the ACA, but they may not be required to seek health coverage if they have not yet become tax residents. Special enrollment ought to cover anyone who goes from not being lawfully present to being lawfully present.

Lawfully Present Non-Citizens with Low Incomes

Lawful Permanent residents are excluded from Medicaid unless they have had this status for at least 5 years under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The Children’s Health Insurance Program of 1997 (CHIP), however, allows pregnant women and children lawfully residing in the United States to access both Medicaid and CHIP even if they have not resided in the United States for five years. Not all states, though, have lifted the 5 year waiting period for CHIP coverage. Although newly minted LPRs with low incomes may not be able to access Medicaid within the first five years unless they qualify for CHIP, the ACA provides subsidies to eligible non-citizens, which are now protected even if offered through the federal health exchange after King v. Burwell. Lawfully present non-citizens with incomes up to 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) are eligible for cost sharing subsidies, and those up to 400% of the FPL are eligible for tax credits to offset the costs of purchasing private plans. Due to the 5 year Medicaid ban, lawfully present immigrants that have incomes under 100% of the FPL can also receive subsidies and tax credits that their US citizen counterparts are precluded from obtaining in states that have refused to expand Medicaid. Although the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, it also gave states the choice of whether or not to expand Medicaid. At the time of writing, 30 states including the District of Columbia have opted for expanded Medicaid.

Low income non-citizens who avail of either Medicaid or other subsidies will not be rendered a public charge for immigration purposes. According to USCIS policy, “Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are generally supplemental in nature and do not make the person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence do not impact a public charge determination.” On the other hand institutionalization for long term care through Medicaid or other subsidies would be considered as a factor in making a public charge determination.

Conclusion

In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority opinion stated that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” Since the ACA is here to stay and will most likely be firmly entrenched in the nation’s DNA like Social Security and Medicare, many qualified and lawfully present non-citizens will also be able to access benefits the ACA and may also become subject to the mandate. At this point, undocumented immigrants or recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) cannot access the health exchanges or avail of the subsidies. Some states may have their own rules, so for example in New York, DACA recipients and other ‘permanent residents under color of law” (PRUCOL) can still avail of Medicaid since the New York Court of Appeals in Aliessa ex rel. Fayad v. Novello held that PRWORA violated New York’s Equal Protection Clause. The ACA is becoming more and more linked to immigration issues. While an immigration practitioner need not be an expert in other disciplines, he or she must be aware of eligible statuses for coverage under the ACA, the deadlines for enrollment and when the 60 day special enrollment may become available and the potential for someone to be subject to additional payment to the IRS for failing to obtain coverage, unless the client can qualify for an exemption.

Who is ‘lawfully Present’ Under the Affordable Care Act?

February 9, 2015/1 Comment/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

Had I been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe.

Alphonse X the Wise of Castile

Many non-citizens will be subject to additional payment to the Internal Revenue Service if they do not maintain “minimum essential healthcare coverage” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act – ACA). This is known as the “individual mandate” or the “individual shared responsibility provision.” By the same token, eligible non-citizens can also access health plans on the health exchanges or Marketplace. The last day to enroll is February 15, 2015 for the current year. Our first blog discussed the impact of the ACA on lawful permanent residents or green card holders who reside outside the United States. This blog focuses on non-citizens who are lawfully present in the United States. Section 1411(a) (1) of the ACA renders non-citizens lawfully present in the United States subject to the individual mandate.

The ACA is linked to immigration issues, just as it is joined at the hip with tax law, and it behooves the careful practitioner to consider the commonality of all these issues and how each of them can inform our understanding of the others when advising non-citizen clients. While an immigration practitioner need not be an expert in other disciplines, he or she must be aware of the eligible statuses for coverage under the ACA, the deadlines for enrollment, and the potential for the client to being subject to an additional payment to the IRS for failing to obtain coverage, unless the client can qualify for an exemption.

The definition of “lawfully present” in 45 CFR 155.2 tracks the prior definition, as it applied to pre-existing condition insurance plans, under 45 CFR 152.2. A summary of the definitions of “lawfully present” is posted on healthcare.gov, which we reproduce below:

Immigrants with the following statuses qualify to use the Marketplace:

Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR/Green Card holder)
Asylee
Refugee
Cuban/Haitian Entrant
Paroled into the U.S.
Conditional Entrant Granted before 1980
Battered Spouse, Child and Parent
Victim of Trafficking and his/her Spouse, Child, Sibling or Parent
Granted Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal, under the immigration laws or under the Convention against Torture (CAT)
Individual with Non-immigrant Status (includes worker visas, student visas, and citizens of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau)
Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)
Deferred Action Status (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is not an eligible immigration status for applying for health insurance)
Lawful Temporary Resident
Administrative order staying removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security
Member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe or American Indian Born in Canada
Resident of American Samoa

Applicants for any of these statuses qualify to use the Marketplace:

Temporary Protected Status with Employment Authorization
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
Victim of Trafficking Visa
Adjustment to LPR Status
Asylum (see note below)
Withholding of Deportation, or Withholding of Removal, under the immigration laws or under the Convention against Torture (CAT) (see note below)

Applicants for asylum are eligible for Marketplace coverage only if they’ve been granted employment authorization or are under the age of 14 and have had an application pending for at least 180 days.

People with the following statuses and who have employment authorization qualify for the Marketplace:

Registry Applicants
Order of Supervision
Applicant for Cancellation of Removal or Suspension of Deportation
Applicant for Legalization under Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
Legalization under the LIFE Act

Note that undocumented aliens are not included in the above definitions, including beneficiaries of the 2012 DACA program as well as future recipients of the November 20, 2014 Obama Executive Actions that expand DACA as well as the Deferred Action for Parents Accountability program (DAPA).

While the above list provides a comprehensive summary and quick reference, some analysis of the actual regulatory definitions is warranted under 45 CFR 152.2.

A nonimmigrant is only considered “lawfully present” if he or she “has not violated the terms of the status under which he or she was admitted or to which he or she has changed after admission.” See 45 CFR 152.2(2). This is unclear as a nonimmigrant may have technically violated his or her status unwittingly in many ways, but may still have eventually cured it. For example, if a person on an H-1B visa was mistakenly admitted into the United States for a lesser period of time than the validity period in the H-1B approval notice, and does not realize this, he or she has potentially technically violated status. Still, this person can hope to correct it by filing a late extension of status in the US, or leaving the US and returning, or at times, asking the CBP to extend the date within the US. An individual who is presently in lawful status should be considered “lawfully present” in order to access a health plan on the exchange. The larger point is that maintenance of status may now have a wider significance beyond the more modest confines of the INA. In turn, this commends the value of an inter-disciplinary approach to the whole question of ACA jurisprudence. Interestingly, while 45 C.F.R. 152.2 gives a precise definition of “lawfully present” it does not contemplate nor define “unlawful presence” thus reflecting a refreshing preference for inclusion as opposed to exclusion, something the INA would do well to emulate.

Under 45 CFR 152.2(4) (vii), only an applicant for adjustment of status whose visa petition has been approved is subject to the ACA. However, it is possible to file an adjustment of status application concurrently with an I-130 or I-140 immigrant visa petition, without the need for such a petition to be approved. Thus, one who has filed an adjustment of status application concurrently with an I-130 or I-140 petition cannot have access to a plan under the health exchange until the petition is approved. Still, once the person is issued employment authorization after filing an adjustment application pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (9) he or she can access the ACA even if the I-130 or I-140 petition has not been approved. 45 CFR 152.2(4) (iii) renders one who has been granted employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c) (9), (10), (16), (18), (20), (22), or (24) as lawfully present. But 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(20) is conspicuous by its absence in the ACA rules determining lawful presence, which allows those in a nonimmigrant status to continue employment for 240 days during the pendency of a timely filed extension request. It is thus unclear whether someone in a period of stay authorized by the Attorney General (POSABAG) while a timely extension request is pending could take advantage of the ACA. Even if a noncitizen is lawfully present, he or she has to also be a tax resident. IRS regulations at 26 CFR 1.5000A-3(c) exempt noncitizens who are nonresident tax aliens from the individual mandate. So while a non-citizen may be lawfully present and can access the health exchange, he or she will not be subject to the individual mandate under the IRS rules. It is also worth noting that one who is lawfully present may not be eligible to access health insurance who is here in the United States briefly. 45 CFR 155.305, which establishes eligibility criteria for enrolling exchange, requires the applicant to be a “citizen or national of the United States, or is a non-citizen who is lawfully present in the United States, and is reasonably expected to be a citizen, national, or a non-citizen who is lawfully present for the entire period for which enrollment is sought.” See 45 CFR 155.305(a) (1).This durational requirement reinforces our understanding that the ACA is not a new form of government welfare nor can we view such a durational requirement as denying or abridging a fundamental constitutional right. Compare this to the lesson taught by the Supreme Court in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) that struck down waiting periods for public assistance.

Being a “resident” for immigration purposes is not the same as being a “resident” for tax purposes. Tax law uses many of the same terms as immigration but the identical words or concepts can have dramatically different meaning. It is a measure of the ever-growing extent to which immigration has become inextricably interconnected to so many other areas of American life that we are increasingly prone to use immigration terms such as “lawfully present” when discussing non-immigration topics, sometimes with significantly different meanings. Definition therefore is inherently contextual and the relationship of the ACA to our immigration law is a fluid and dynamic one. INA § 101(a)(33) states: “The term ‘residence’ means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.” Note that the concept of domicile, which considers the applicant’s intent rather than the place where he or she actually lives, is absent from this definition. Remember, in the naturalization context, if your client did not stay away one year, he or she must be considered a resident of the same state where they lived before leaving. 8 C.F.R. 316.5 (b) (5). See Accardi V. Shaughnessy, 347 US 260 (1954); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 US 199, 235 (1974) (“Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures”).

Nonimmigrants are considered to be resident aliens for tax purposes if they meet the “substantial presence” test. Non-citizens are considered residents through the substantial presence test if they are physically present in the US for 31 days during the current year; and a total of 183 days during a 3-year period by counting all the days of the current calendar year, 1/3 days of the previous calendar year, and 1/6 days of the second previous calendar year. See IRC §7701(b) (1) and (3).

Even those who become tax residents under the substantial presence test may continue to remain non-residents if they meet a closer connection to a foreign country test. However, not all may be able to meet this test. A frequent tourist to the US in B-2 status can potentially become a tax resident under the substantial presence test, and thus subject to the ACA. If this tourist is the subject of an immigrant visa petition, such as an I-130 petition filed by a sibling, whose date has not become current, he or she can no longer meet the closer connection test. At the time of filing the 1040 return, this individual will be subject to the shared responsibility payment.

Most students lawfully present in the US in F, J, M or Q status, or their dependents, are exempt for 5 years from counting days of presence under the substantial presence test. Even after five years and having become subject to the substantial presence test, they can continue to be treated as nonresident aliens if they meet the closer connection to a foreign country test. Teachers or trainees present in the US in J or Q status (and their dependents) are exempt from counting days towards substantial presence only for the first two years in the United States. This includes all Js and Qs who are not students, such as research scholars, professors, short-term scholars, specialists, physicians, trainees, interns, au pairs, and camp counselors. Even if these students are not subject to the individual mandate, they can still qualify for coverage through the health exchanges in the event that the school does not provide equivalent coverage

It is hard today to harken back to a time when immigration was less central to the rhythm of American life than it is now. Yet, before the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), most employers did not need to worry about immigration nor was immigration policy a matter of white-hot national debate. The lasting importance of IRCA was to bring immigration and immigrants in from the shadows, a process that continues to the present day. The ACA continues this process of inclusion and the extent to which the marriage of immigration with health care can be a lasting and meaningful one will go far towards assuring the success of both.

(Guest author Gary Endelman is the Senior Counsel at Foster)

DACA RENEWALS AND THE UPHOLDING OF EXECUTIVE ACTION IN ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. BREWER

July 14, 2014/0 Comments/in Blog, uncategorized/by Michelle S. Velasco

August 15, 2014 marks the two-year anniversary of the implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The policy was announced through a memorandum by then Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. The Memo directed the heads of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement DHS’s decision to grant deferred action, and employment authorization, to certain eligible individuals who entered the U.S. when they were younger than 16 years old. Now, nearly two years have passed since DHS began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012. DACA recipients who were among the first to apply and receive DACA and employment authorization must now undergo the process of renewing their DACA.

ICE and USCIS released their renewal processes in February and early June, respectively. ICE had begun issuing DACA to eligible immigrants in removal proceedings prior to August 15, 2012, when USCIS began accepting applications. To be eligible for DACA renewal, the recipient must (1) not have departed from the U.S. on or after August 15, 2012 without advance parole; (2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since the first DACA approval; and (3) not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national safety or public safety.

The renewal process for ICE-granted and USCIS-granted DACA recipients is the same:

Complete and submit the following forms:

The new version of Form I-821D (6/4/2014 edition)
Form I-765
Form I-765 Worksheet

Submit the $465 fee for the employment authorization application
Submit only new documents involving removal proceedings or criminal history that was not previously provided to USCIS (Note: USCIS does not require previously submitted documentation establishing the applicant’s DACA eligibility)

USCIS has advised DACA recipients to renew approximately 120 days (4 months), but no more than 150 days (5 months), before their current DACA grant expires. USCIS also anticipates that in the event it cannot process the submitted applications before the initial DACA expires, it might issue extensions of the initial DACA to prevent any lapse in time before the renewal is approved.

Since its implementation, DACA has been granted to over 550,000 recipients, according to USCIS statistics released on March 2014. DACA has provided more than half a million young immigrants security from removal and a means to work lawfully in the U.S. The DACA recipients, sometimes also called Dreamers, can now live openly, work, and contribute to their own and their families’ wellbeing. The economic and social repercussions of this have not yet been fully studied or revealed, though the American Immigration Council recently published a studyof the economic impact of DACA on the recipients. The study found that through DACA, many young immigrants have benefitted economically through such activities as obtaining new jobs, getting driver’s licenses, and opening bank accounts. We can also imagine what has been the psychological impact on these young immigrants of coming out of hiding and being able to be productive members of American society and the American workforce. They have experienced the excitement of receiving an approval notice and the much sought after work permit, then a valid Social Security Number and card, and then oftentimes a State Identification Document in the form of an ID or driver’s license.

Though it has undoubtedly bettered the lives of half a million recipients, DACA has been a double-edged sword. While it provides recipients protection from removal from the U.S. and allows them to work legally, DACA is still far less than what these young immigrants would have received from the government had the DREAM Act or Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) passed in Congress. The DREAM Act would have granted a way for eligible young immigrants to apply for permanent residence, and therefore, lawful status. S.744, the CIR bill passed by the U.S. Senate on June 27, 2013, and that has since stalled in the House of Representatives, included stipulations for the implementation of the DREAM Act’s provisions. In contrast, DACA is only granted for two years, and DACA recipients must renew before the expiration of their deferred action and work permits. Moreover, DACA recipients do not have lawful status in the U.S. (although they do not accrue unlawful presence upon the grant of DACA since they are still authorized to remain), and there is no direct pathway to permanent residency or U.S. citizenship.

One limitation that some DACA recipients face is getting a driver’s license. Until recently, two states, Arizona and Nebraska, refused to grant driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. The Ninth Circuit, on July 7, 2014, struck down Arizona’s law that denied driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, No. 13-16248, WL 3029759 (9th Cir. July 7, 2014). This much-maligned law (see Cyrus Mehta’s take down of it here) was put in place as soon as DACA was first announced in the summer of 2012. Governor Jan Brewer issued Executive Order 2012-06 “Re-Affirming Intent of Arizona Law In Response to the Federal Government’s Deferred Action Program,” August 15, 2012, directing Arizona state agencies to design rules to prevent DACA recipients from becoming eligible to obtain state identification such as driver’s licenses. Arizona’s Department of Transportation’s Motor Vehicle Decision changed its requirements for state identification eligibility such that Employment Authorization Documents (EADs or work permits) with the DACA category code of (c)(33) would not be accepted as proof that the license or ID applicant’s presence was authorized in the U.S. Five DACA recipients living in Arizona, along with the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, filed suit to stop Arizona from enforcing its policy. The Ninth Circuit found that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and there was no rational basis for the Arizona government’s policy. The decision hinged on Arizona’s refusal to accept as proof of “authorized presence” in the U.S. an EAD based on DACA category (c)(33) work while they continued to accept EADs based on (c)(9) and (c)(10) categories, which respectively correspond to applicants for adjustment of status and applicants for cancellation of removal. The Ninth Circuit systematically rejected each of Arizona’s arguments that it had a legitimate state interest in upholding the policy. Initially the Court rejected Arizona’s argument that (c)(9) and (c)(10) noncitizens could demonstrate authorized presence in the U.S. while (c)(33) could not. Putting aside the nonsensical use of the term “authorized presence” which holds no actual meaning in immigration law, Arizona conflates the immigration concepts of unlawful presence and unlawful status – two very different things. Unlawful presence is used in determining admissibility under the 3- and 10-year bars, while a noncitizen not in lawful status may be authorized to stay in the U.S. The Court’s clearly did not make that mistake: “Employment Authorization Documents merely “tied” to the potentialfor relief [i.e. (c)(9) and (c)(10) categories] do not indicate that the document holder has current federally authorized presence, as Arizona law expressly requires.” Arizona Dream Act Coalition, at *9. Moreover, the Court found that Arizona’s other four arguments also could not hold up against a rational basis test. Arizona could not show it might have to issue licenses to 80,000 unauthorized immigrants (less than 15,000 Arizona residents have applied for DACA). DACA recipients cannot access state or federal benefits using a driver’s license alone. Though the DACA program might be canceled at any time and DACAs could lose their authorized stay, the same could occur to (c)(9) and (c)(10) noncitizens whose corresponding applications are denied. Therefore, these arguments also do not pass the rational basis test. The Court went on and mentioned that additionally, Arizona’s policy “appears intended to express animus toward DACA recipients themselves, in part because of the federal government’s policy toward them.” Id. at *25. The court pointedly stated: “Such animus, however, is not a legitimate state interest.” Id.

Interestingly, the Court struck down the law on equal protection grounds rather than conflict-preemption. Generally, courts use preemption analysis to strike down a conflicting state law acting to regulate immigration. In a concurrence, Circuit Court Judge Christen analyzed the case’s conflict-preemption argument and found that Arizona’s policy effectively created a new class of noncitizens who are not under “authorized presence” – a descriptor not recognized in immigration law. The act of creating a new immigration classification, in Judge Christen’s view, is preempted by federal law because states may not directly regulate immigration. Id. at *13, citing Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1023 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014). Moreover, in footnote 3, the Court notes that Judges Pregerson and Berzon agree with the concurring opinion, and specifically that the plaintiffs in the case could succeed on a conflict preemption argument.

Here, however, the Court’s majority analyzed Arizona’s law from an equal protection perspective, which gives it lasting and powerful impact. By going this route, the 9th Circuit recognized DACA recipients to be part of a protected class. This can have huge implications for any other state laws that purport to discriminate against this now recognized protected class of noncitizens. Moreover, the Court, in footnote 4, acknowledged that the Supreme Court in other cases applied strict scrutiny standard of review when state action discriminates against noncitizens authorized to be present in the U.S., see e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). But here, the Court states it did not have to analyze under strict scrutiny review because Arizona could not even make its case under the lower rational basis test. In its analysis the Court found it could “identify no legitimate state interest that is rationally related to Defendant’s decision to treat DACA recipients disparately from noncitizens holding (c)(9) and (c)(10) Employment Authorization Documents” Arizona Dream Act Coalition at *8. (emphasis added). It is also worthwhile to note that, unlike the Arizona district court which also held that the Arizona government’s arguments failed a rational basis review, the 9th Circuit found that the protected class, here the DACA recipients, would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The irreparable harm was the limiting of the DACA recipients’ professional opportunities, hurting their abilities to seek or maintain a job in a state where 87 percent of its workers commute by car.

The decision lays bare the type of backlash that occurred after the Obama administration introduced DACA. Conservative pundits and anti-immigration groups believe that these young people should receive no acknowledgement or benefits from a country to which they do not belong. This type of thinking is not only wrong, but it fuels hatred toward a group that, for all intents and purposes, took no part in the decision to enter the U.S. without inspection or to overstay visas. The point of the DACA policy is to respond to the cries from millions of young immigrants brought into the U.S. as children, who have grown up in the U.S., but who are forced to stay in hiding. They are punished for someone else’s sins.

I have personally processed over 100 DACA applications in the past two years. When talking to these young immigrants and their families, it is often impossible to tell apart the individuals who were born here and the ones who were brought here. DACA requestors speak like Americans, look like Americans, and dream the American dream like native-born Americans. It is hard to put into words the unfairness of their lives: to live in a country that is oftentimes the only one they have known, and yet to be denied full recognition and basic equal treatment. Worse, they are called “illegal” and are made to feel unwanted and unwelcome. This treatment is confusing and painful to many of these young people who had no choice about coming to the U.S. Yet they are undoubtedly the future of this country. They will help shape the U.S. cultural, economic, and political landscape. And we are not doing enough to acknowledge their presence, since they are here to stay, and provide them with the tools to be full active members of American society.

The Obama administration has implemented regulations and executive policies to alleviate some of the pain from long-standing immigration problems that Congress has time and again failed to address. DACA, for instance, was the Executive’s response to Congress’s failure to pass the DREAM Act in 2010. Recently President Obama spoke out angrily against Congress’s ability to compromise on immigration reform, calling it the reason behind his decision to direct more resources to address the ongoing crisis of unaccompanied children. As has been pointed out on this blog, Obama can expand the use of Executive action to confront problems in immigration law while we wait for Congress pass CIR. The Obama administration can do more than just grant deferred action to young immigrants. DHS could grant deferred action to DACA parents. The Department of Education could grant federal student loans to DACA recipients. Paradoxically, the Obama administration has specifically rendered DACA recipients ineligible for healthcare benefits under the Affordable Care Act even though prior to the August 2013 rule, DACA recipients would have been eligible. There are myriad ways Executive action, such as DACA, can provide relief to millions of immigrants who live and work beside us every day. Until such time that Congress takes action, the Executive will have to be the branch taking action, and immigrants must be content with its limitations.

Because the basis of a deferred action grant is DHS’s policy of prosecutorial discretion, it remains only in the form of executive action and it is not an actual law passed by Congress and signed by the President. DACA and any other executive action are thus vulnerable to attacks from groups and individuals who consider them an overreach by the Obama administration. These attacks, such as Arizona’s driver’s license law, are often informed by fear and a fundamental misunderstanding of immigration law. Litigation to strike down these anti-immigrant and anti-immigration state laws, which are arguably preempted by federal law, can sometimes take years. Moreover, executive action while necessary in the face of Congressional inaction is limited in scope: it cannot grant visas or permanent residence, which only Congress can do by expanding the eligibility categories for permanent residence. Meanwhile, immigrants languish in backlogged visa lines, wait months and years for hearings before an immigration judge, face harsh vitriol from anti-immigration groups, and DACA recipients still do not have a way to become fully integrated into American life.

The Impact of Obamacare on Green Card Holders Who Reside Outside the United States

March 31, 2014/0 Comments/in Blog/by Cyrus Mehta

By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta

Unlike many, if not most countries, the long reach of Uncle Sam’s tax laws extend far beyond geographic boundaries to affect citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) on an extraterritorial basis. Status not physical presence triggers the tax obligation. The need for LPRs living abroad to comply with US tax regimes is another example of how, since enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, immigration has become increasingly and inextricably intertwined with all other aspects of American life and law. Beyond that, lawful permanent residence is not only a legal status but an economic one as well with tax implications that intimately affect the maintenance of such status and the fiscal consequences of its continued exercise. The impact of the individual health care mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also popularly known as Obamacare, upon LPRs who reside overseas is the most recent example of a growing tension between a domestically focused immigration policy and the increasingly global nature of both individual and national economic conduct in the global economy of the 21^st century.

A number of LPRs, also known as green card holders, temporarily live outside the United States for a variety of legitimate reasons. In a globalized world, LPRs may more readily find employment assignments in other countries or they may need to be outside the United States to look after a sick relative. Essentially, an LPR must be returning from a temporary visit abroad under INA § 101(a)(27) in order to avoid a charge of abandonment. The term “temporary visit abroad” has been subject to interpretation by the Circuit Courts, and although the LPR may remain outside the United States for an extended period of time, the visit may still be considered temporary so long as there is an intention to return. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) is generally followed:

A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a relatively short period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.” If as in (b) “the length of the visit is contingent upon the occurrence of an event and is not fixed in time and if the event does not occur within a relatively short period of time, the visit will be considered a “temporary visit abroad” only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the visit.

For a more extensive review on this subject, we refer you to our article, Home Is Where TheCard Is: How To Preserve Lawful Permanent Resident Status In A Global Economy, 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 849, July 1, 2008.

With the deadline period for enrollment on March 31, 2014, a number of non-citizens, including LPRs, are eligible for health care benefits under the ACA. The ACA requires all “applicable individuals” including LPRs to maintain “minimum essential health coverage,” and the failure to do so will result in a penalty when they file their federal income tax returns for year 2014 onwards. The “minimum essential coverage” is required on a monthly basis, but only during those months that qualify people as applicable individuals.” On March 26, HHS released guidance which clarifies that many consumers who were unable to enroll through the marketplace before the March 31 deadline are eligible for a special enrollment period (SEP). The SEP gives qualifying consumers additional time to get health coverage without being assessed a penalty. To be eligible for the SEP, the consumer must have experienced one of the barriers identified in the guidance. These barriers include experiencing errors related to immigration status and being transferred between the marketplace and state Medicaid/CHIP agency. The additional time available to apply depends on the specific barrier and when it is resolved.

An LPR residing outside will need to purchase health insurance under the ACA. There are circumstances under which LPRs can still be deemed to be maintaining minimum essential coverage even when they are outside the United States if they meet the Internal Revenue Service test for shielding their foreign income from US taxation.

Under 26 CFR 1.5000A-1, “An individual is treated as having minimum essential coverage for a month—

(i) If the month occurs during any period described in section 911(d)(1)(A) or section 911(d)(1)(B) that is applicable to the individual”.

In turn, section 911(d)(1) provides:(d) Definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section—

(1) Qualified individual

The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is—

(A) a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or

(B) a citizen or resident of the United States and who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days in such period.

Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain US citizens and LPRs to shield their foreign income from US taxation by virtue of living outside the United States. The foreign earned income exclusion for 2013 is $97, 600.

Since the full consequences of decisions on Obamacare will not become plainly evident until April 2015, any interpretations advanced now must be necessarily both preliminary and tentative, subject to modification if and when the IRS provides future guidance. It is this continuing involvement of the IRS, as well as the byzantine complexity of the ACA itself, that commends a healthy dose of modesty to all commentators. LPRs who are eligible to take the section 911 exemption because they are not physically present in the United States for a full 330 days within a 12 month consecutive month period are treated as having minimum coverage for that 12- month period. It is still not clear whether LPRs would have to elect to claim the foreign earned income exclusion by filing Form 2555 with their tax returns so that they be deemed to have minimum essential coverage or whether the IRS will develop a special form for that purpose.

While it is true that only a US citizen can claim the bona fide resident of a foreign country exception, an LPR, if s/he is also tax resident in a county with which the US has an income tax treaty, can use the bona fide residence test pursuant to the treaty’s nondiscrimination provisions to also claim the foreign earned income exclusion. The bona fide residence test can be utilized even if the individual has not been physically present in the United States for 330 or more days. If that is the case, can a non US citizen of a treaty country also claim minimum coverage under the ACA?

For example, the nondiscrimination provision of the US-India tax treaty, states in relevant part:

Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nationals of that other State in the same circumstances are or may be subjected. This provision shall apply to persons who are not residents of one or both of the Contracting States.

This language in the US-India tax treaty would seem to apply to the ACA health mandate exemption, since it is taxation or a requirement connected therewith. After all, the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, especially Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, upheld the constitutionality of the health mandate in the ACA by characterizing it as a tax. “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” according to Chief Justice Roberts. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” the Chief Justice further opined. While the commerce power apparently has its distinct limits for the Roberts Court, the power to tax does not. For this reason, Solicitor General Donald Verelli, who suggested the possible utility of such reasoning to the Court, may turn out to have singular, if unexpected importance.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the ACA statutes refer only to section 911 and not to treaties. Also, the treaties define the scope of their application, which may have to be revised to include the ACA penalty. The US-India treaty, for example, applies to the following US taxes:

“In the United States, the Federal income taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code (but excludingthe accumulated earnings tax, the personal holding company tax, and social security taxes), and the excise taxes imposed on insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers and with respect to private foundations (hereinafter referred to as “United States tax”)”

Therefore, unless the IRS provides more specific guidance, it is not clear at this time whether an LPR who takes the bona fide residence exception for purposes of shielding foreign income can also be deemed to have the minimum essential coverage.

LPRs who seek to claim a section 911 type foreign earned income exclusion to get out of the mandate under ACA should beware of adverse consequences on their LPR status. Living outside the United States for 330 days or more in itself could lead to a finding of abandonment if the LPR cannot successfully establish that his or her visit abroad was temporary under Singh v. Reno, supra. Even if LPRs assert that their trip abroad was temporary, claiming a section 911 benefit to avoid the health insurance coverage under Obamacare could bolster the government’s charges that they abandoned their status. As we discussed in The Taxman Cometh: When Taking a Foreign Earned Income Exclusion On Your Tax Return Can Hurt Your Ability To Naturalize, taking a section 911 exemption can also impair the applicant’s ability to show that he or she did not disrupt continuity of residence during the relevant 5 or 3 year period. INA § 316(b) states that an absence from the United States of more than six months but less than one year during the 5-year period immediately preceding the filing of the application may break the continuity of such residence. Indeed, utilizing the bona fide residence exception, if it is allowed for LPRs under the ACA, would be more perilous than the physical presence exception as the individual must declare a residence in a foreign country. Another issue worth noting for people who claim bona fide residence under tax treaties is that they must file Form 8833 to do so. Page 4 of the instructions to that form warns that this sort of bona fide residency claim for an LPR under a tax treaty triggers the exit tax for Long Term Residents (LTR):

If you are a dual-resident taxpayer and a long-term resident (LTR) and you are filing this form to be treated as a resident of a foreign country for purposes of claiming benefits under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty, you will be deemed to have terminated your U.S. residency status for federal income tax purposes. Because you are terminating your U.S. residency status, you may be subject to tax under section 877A and you must file Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement. You are an LTR if you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States in at least 8 of the last 15 tax years ending with the year your status as an LTR ends.

LPRs who live outside may wish to seek other ways to claim minimum essential coverage under the ACA if they do not wish to risk jeopardizing their green cards or their ability to naturalize in the future. For instance, LPRs who have health insurance provided by foreign insurers may qualify as having minimum essential coverage if the coverage is recognized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Coverage under group health plans provided through insurance regulated by a foreign government may also be recognized as minimum essential coverage, depending on specific circumstances and whether those plans have received U.S. approval. There are also the following statutory exemptions:

Religious conscience. Membership of a religious sect that is recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration administers the process for recognizing these sects according to the criteria in the law.

Health care sharing ministry. Membership of a recognized health care sharing ministry.

Indian tribes. (1) Membership of a federally recognized Indian tribe or (2) an individual eligible for services through an Indian care provider.

Income below the income tax return filing requirement. If the individual’s income is below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return. To find out if you are required to file a federal tax return, use the IRS Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA).

Short coverage gap. Going without coverage for less than three consecutive months during the year.

Hardship. Suffering a hardship that makes one unable to obtain coverage, as defined in final regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Affordability. Unable to afford coverage because the minimum amount the individual must pay for the premiums is more than eight percent of household income.

Incarceration. Being in a jail, prison, or similar penal institution or correctional facility after the disposition of charges against the individual.

Not lawfully present. Not being a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or an alien lawfully present in the United States.

LPRs can also avail of the short coverage gap exemption. In general, a gap in coverage that lasts less than three months qualifies as a short coverage gap. If an individual has more than one short coverage gap during a year, the short coverage gap exemption only applies to the first gap.

LPRs who fail to maintain the required minimum essential coverage must pay a penalty known as the “individual shared responsibility payment.” In general, according to the IRS, the payment amount is either a percentage of your income or a flat dollar amount, whichever is greater. The individual will owe 1/12^thof the annual payment for each month he or she (or dependents) do not have coverage and are not exempt. The annual payment amount for 2014 is the greater of:

1 percent of household income that is above the tax return threshold for the indvidual’s filing status, such as Married Filing Jointly or single, or

the family’s flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285.

The individual shared responsibility payment is capped at the cost of the national average premium for the bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace in 2014. The individual will make the payment when he or she files the 2014 federal income tax return in 2015.

For example, a single adult under age 65 with household income less than $19,650 (but more than $10,150) would pay the $95 flat rate. However, a single adult under age 65 with household income greater than $19,650 would pay an annual payment based on the 1 percent rate.

If an LPR chooses to pay the penalty instead of purchasing insurance, and fails to pay the penalty or delays in making the payment, this would need to be disclosed on an N-400 application relating to whether the applicant owes any taxes. This too could jeopardize the naturalization application, and would bring the penalty section of the ACA directly into the context of immigration issues. Furthermore, an LPR opting for the penalty over health insurance may create the impression, whether intentional or unintended, that he or she may not be maintaining ties with the US, further bolstering the government’s charge of abandonment of LPR status.

The ACA is connected to immigration issues, and it behooves a careful practitioner to review the provisions of the ACA as they apply to non-citizens, and LPRs in particular. The interconnectedness of all these issues to the authors is the larger and more widely significant point, such as how seeking an exemption from the health insurance mandate can trigger potential loss of LPR status, invocation of the exit tax, or the ineligibility to become a US citizen in the future. No longer can any of these decisions be made in a vacuum without consideration of the broader consequences. The practice of immigration and tax law must invite the collaboration of experts from both disciplines.

Any consideration of the possible adverse consequences resulting from a decision to seek an exemption from the individual mandate imposed by the ACA must be informed by an understanding of the fact that an extended absence from the United States, without more, should never serve as the basis for involuntary abandonment of LPR status. We live in a global economy where international relocation is often the price for career advancement and even job retention. The law should and must provide that no LPR can be stripped of their “green card” on the basis of abandonment unless he or she clearly manifests or overtly states an intention to give it up. No inference from proven conduct can be possible absent compelling evidence that such was the desired and intended consequence. Application of this caution to the debate over Obamacare would properly reflect the profound importance of LPR status while also serving as a recognition of the enormous and continuing contributions that such permanent residents have made and continue to render to their adopted home.

(Guest writer Gary Endelman is the Senior Counsel of FosterQuan)