## Facts

- Two applicants, husband and wife, were natives and citizens of Japan, ages 73 and 65, who last entered the United States on December 10, 1975 as B-2 visitors authorized to remain until March 16, 1976.
- Their naturalized U.S.-citizen daughter filed immediate-relative visa petitions for them on March 23, 1976; the petitions were approved in May 1976.
- The applicants filed applications to adjust status under INA § 245, but were elderly, unemployed, and had no savings or independent means of support.
- The daughter and son-in-law executed affidavits of support and submitted documentation showing a combined income of approximately $34,000 per year.
- At interview, the District Director required each applicant to post a $5,000 public-charge bond; the family advised the Service it would be financially difficult to post both bonds.
- The District Director denied adjustment on the ground that, without bonds, reliance on the daughter and son-in-law did not show the applicants would not become public charges.
- On a motion to reopen and reconsider, the son-in-law stated the couple had supported the parents for years, that the parents had not used public assistance, and that three employed siblings could also help; the District Director denied the motion and certified the case for review.

## Issues

1. What weight should be given to affidavits of support in assessing likely public-charge inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(15) (then numbered § 212(a)(16)), despite judicial statements that such affidavits create only a moral obligation.
2. Whether the applicants, on this record, established they were not likely to become public charges and therefore were eligible for adjustment of status under INA § 245.

## Decision

- The Associate Commissioner sustained the challenge to the District Director’s denial and granted both adjustment applications.
- The affidavits of support were given substantial weight because they were accompanied by acceptable evidence of the affiants’ ability to provide support and corroborated by a multi-year history of actual support.
- The record that the applicants had never sought public assistance, combined with the affiants’ documented income and broader family support, sufficiently established the applicants were not likely to become public charges.
- Prior agency precedent requiring closer scrutiny of affidavits of support was treated as fact-specific and distinguished on the stronger support evidence in this case; the absence of bonds was not dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- In public-charge determinations, affidavits of support must receive due consideration consistent with the affiants’ demonstrated ability to provide the promised support, even if the affidavits are characterized as creating only a moral obligation.
- Likely public-charge inadmissibility is a prospective inquiry that may be evaluated using the sponsor’s income and resources, the applicant’s support history, the availability of other family assistance, and the absence of prior public assistance.
- Prior decisions treating affidavits of support as insufficient do not create a categorical rule; the evidentiary showing and the reliability of actual support control on the facts presented.
- A public-charge bond may be requested, but when credible financial evidence and a demonstrated pattern of support show the applicant is unlikely to rely on public assistance, failure to post a bond does not require denial of adjustment.

## Conclusion

The agency granted adjustment of status where elderly applicants lacked independent means but presented affidavits of support supported by credible financial documentation, a proven history of family support, and no record of public assistance, establishing they were not likely to become public charges.


Matter of Kohama, 17 I. & N. Dec. 257 (Assoc. Comm’r Examinations 1978)