Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

A Second Visa Bond, Aimed at Immigrants: DOS Launches a Public Charge Bond Pilot Beginning in the Dominican Republic

By Shahana Farishta on August 26, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Global business and economy. World globe crystal glass on various international money banknotes. Currency exchange rate. Financial investment concept-shutterstock_1208760601

Table of Contents

  • A Bond, Not a Waiver: The Legal Foundation
  • Who May Be Affected
  • Why Santo Domingo Went First
  • Bond Amounts and How They Are Posted
  • Cancellation, Breach, and Refunds
  • How It Differs From the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program
  • Practical Steps for Petitioners, Sponsors, and Applicants
  • Public Charge Is Reshaping the Landscape

Only days after the U.S. Department of State (DOS) made its B-1/B-2 visa bond program permanent, the agency has opened a second, more expensive front in its use of financial guarantees. On Aug. 5, 2026, DOS announced the Immigrant Visa Public Charge Bond Pilot Program, which allows consular officers to invite certain immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds to post a bond as a condition of visa issuance. Reports indicate the pilot is beginning at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo.

Where the permanent nonimmigrant program caps bonds at $20,000 for business visitors and tourists, this pilot reaches would-be permanent residents and, according to public reporting, contemplates bonds from roughly $100,000 to as much as $250,000. For families pursuing immigrant visas, and the sponsors behind them, it injects a potential six-figure requirement into a process some assumed would depend on the Affidavit of Support alone.

Link to A Bond, Not a Waiver: The Legal Foundation A Bond, Not a Waiver: The Legal Foundation

The legal foundation is longstanding. Section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) has for more than a century authorized the admission of a noncitizen who is otherwise inadmissible as likely to become a public charge upon the posting of a suitable and proper bond, with regulations at 8 CFR 213.1 and 103.6. What has changed is not the authority but the decision to use it at scale in the immigrant visa context, where it has rarely been exercised in the modern era.

The bond is an additional remedy layered on top of, not a substitute for, the Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA (Form I-864). When Congress amended INA 213 in 1996, it clarified that a bond may be requested in addition to, not in lieu of, a sufficient Form I-864. Nor is the bond a waiver of the public charge ground; it does not erase the officer’s finding but offers a conditional path to a visa despite it.

Link to Who May Be Affected Who May Be Affected

The pilot reaches a narrow, specifically identified population. It applies only after a consular officer finds an applicant inadmissible under INA Section 212(a)(4) as likely to become a public charge, a determination made under the totality of the circumstances, weighing factors such as age, health, family status, finances, education, and skills. An applicant cannot request the option; the officer decides whether to offer it, and the applicant is notified.

Being offered a bond is not a guarantee of approval; it opens a route around a denial, but the officer retains discretion and the applicant must still be otherwise admissible. The pilot also does not affect immigrant visas already issued, which remain valid; it concerns applicants still in process. Family-based applicants, routinely subject to the public charge assessment, fall within its scope; humanitarian categories generally do not.

Link to Why Santo Domingo Went First Why Santo Domingo Went First

DOS selected the Dominican Republic because of the scope and scale of immigrant visa operations at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, one of the highest-volume posts in the world, letting it test the machinery, including moving large sums into Treasury-held accounts. The choice is also practical: the Dominican Republic is not among the countries covered by the immigrant visa issuance pause DOS imposed earlier in 2026, so launching there avoids entangling the bond in that litigation. DOS has signaled the program may expand, so Santo Domingo appears to be a starting point, not a boundary.

That broader pause has since run into trouble. On Jan. 14, 2026, DOS announced it would suspend immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries deemed at high risk of becoming a public charge. On Aug. 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York struck that policy down, holding in a 61-page decision that it was contrary to law and exceeded the secretary of state’s authority by categorically refusing visas based on nationality and displacing consular officers’ individualized public charge determinations. The bond pilot is a separate mechanism and does not rise or fall with that ruling, but the decision underscores that public charge findings must rest on the individualized statutory factors rather than blanket, nationality-based bars. The government may appeal.

Link to Bond Amounts and How They Are Posted Bond Amounts and How They Are Posted

Public reporting places bond amounts between $100,000 and $250,000, with the exact figure set by the consular officer’s assessment, far above the historical minimums. The mechanics run on the established Form I-945 framework.

An applicant may post a bond only after being invited to do so and must include the government’s invitation when submitting Form I-945, Public Charge Bond. The bond may be cash, secured by a deposit of the full-face value or a surety bond. USCIS administers it, with funds held in a U.S. Treasury account. Cash deposits accrue interest at the Treasury rate; on cancellation, USCIS refunds the deposit plus interest, but on breach the principal is forfeited and only the interest is remitted.

Link to Cancellation, Breach, and Refunds Cancellation, Breach, and Refunds

A public charge bond is not open-ended, but it does not cancel automatically, either. Under INA 213 and 8 CFR 103.6, it may be cancelled when the noncitizen dies, permanently departs, naturalizes, or reaches the fifth anniversary of becoming a lawful permanent resident, provided in that last case the individual did not receive public cash assistance for income maintenance or long-term institutionalization at government expense. It may also be cancelled earlier if USCIS determines the individual is not likely to become a public charge.

Cancellation must be requested. The obligor, an agent or co-obligor, or the noncitizen or their representative may file Form I-356, Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, which USCIS adjudicates. If USCIS denies cancellation, it states the reasons and the right to appeal under 8 CFR part 103, subpart A. A breach, such as receipt of the specified public benefits in violation of the bond’s conditions, forfeits the principal, subject to the administrative process before any demand for payment becomes final.

Link to How It Differs From the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program How It Differs From the B-1/B-2 Visa Bond Program

Though similarly named, the two programs rest on different foundations. The nonimmigrant program rests on INA Section 221(g)(3), reaches B-1/B-2 applicants from designated countries, caps bonds at $20,000, and runs through the consular and DHS bond process. This pilot rests on INA Section 213, reaches immigrant visa applicants found inadmissible on public charge grounds, runs through USCIS on Form I-945, and contemplates larger bonds. The nonimmigrant program is now a permanent regulation; the immigrant program is, for now, a discretionary pilot at a single post. The two programs are easy to confuse but they differ in who selects the applicant, which agency holds the funds, and what conduct triggers forfeiture.

Link to Practical Steps for Petitioners, Sponsors, and Applicants Practical Steps for Petitioners, Sponsors, and Applicants

For families with immigrant visa cases at Santo Domingo, the pilot makes early attention to the public charge assessment essential. Because the bond is offered only after a Section 212(a)(4) finding, the best strategy may be to avoid that finding altogether, through a sufficient Form I-864, a well-qualified sponsor, and documentation of the applicant’s assets, income, education, and skills before the interview. Where a bond is offered, applicants and sponsors might prepare for a possible six-figure cash requirement, the time needed to move funds into a Treasury-held account, and the risk to the principal if the bond’s conditions are later breached.

Employers that sponsor employees for permanent residence, or support relocating key personnel and their families, may wish to weigh how a potential bond might affect timelines, budgets, and relocation planning, and to involve counsel early to strengthen the record against a public charge finding.

Link to Public Charge Is Reshaping the Landscape Public Charge Is Reshaping the Landscape

Taken together, these developments show public charge moving to the center of U.S. immigration policy. In a matter of months, the concept has driven a permanent bond program for business visitors and tourists, this six-figure bond pilot for immigrant visa applicants, the rescission of the 2022 public charge rule, and the now-enjoined suspension of immigrant visa issuance for 75 countries, alongside stepped-up consular vetting for potential public benefit use. A ground once rarely invoked has become a primary lever over who receives a visa, and the bonds attached to it carry real stakes for families and their U.S. sponsors.

Public charge is also only one front. The same period has brought new fees, tighter adjudication standards, and travel and processing limits across DOS, DHS, and USCIS, with rules, guidance, and litigation shifting the ground almost weekly. Employers, sponsors, and families may wish to plan accordingly: treating immigration planning as dynamic, building the possibility of a bond or other new requirement into timelines and budgets, strengthening the financial record well before an interview, and staying alert to where these programs expand next.

Shahana Farishta

Shahana Farishta focuses her practice on business immigration, representing health care systems, academic medical centers, and institutional employers in complex workforce immigration matters. She advises hospitals and large corporate clients on immigration strategy, including high-volume H-1B and PERM labor certification programs, physician immigration,

…

Shahana Farishta focuses her practice on business immigration, representing health care systems, academic medical centers, and institutional employers in complex workforce immigration matters. She advises hospitals and large corporate clients on immigration strategy, including high-volume H-1B and PERM labor certification programs, physician immigration, and compliance planning. Her practice spans both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories, with particular depth in the regulatory challenges medical institutions face when sponsoring foreign national physicians and other professionals.

Shahana counsels clients across the full spectrum of employment-based immigration, including H-1B petitions, O-1 extraordinary ability cases, TN classifications, EB-1 and EB-2 petitions, National Interest Waivers, J-1 waivers, and E-3 matters. Her extraordinary ability practice extends beyond scientists and researchers to artists, entertainers, and athletes, reflecting the breadth of O-1 and EB-1 criteria across creative, cultural, and sports-related fields. She has guided institutional clients through the immigration implications of mergers and acquisitions, including successor-in-interest analysis, post-transaction compliance strategy, and workforce impact assessments across multiple visa categories. She also has experience with H-2B seasonal worker programs, advising hospitality and resort employers on workforce planning, lottery risk, and recruitment obligations.

Shahana has particular experience with the Conrad 30 Waiver Program, guiding physicians and health care employers through state department of health waiver applications, J-1 waiver sponsorship, and the underserved-area service commitments tied to waiver approval. She regularly advises health care institutions on I-9 compliance, including internal audits, self-audits ahead of government inspections, and remediation strategies for large, multi-site workforces.

In addition to her business immigration practice, Shahana has represented individuals in humanitarian and removal defense matters, including asylum applications, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) petitions, and habeas corpus proceedings challenging unlawful detention. She has appeared before immigration courts and federal district courts, representing clients through merits hearings, bond proceedings, and federal litigation.

Beyond case-level work, Shahana serves as a strategic adviser to human resources leadership and in-house legal teams, delivering portfolio-level updates, regulatory guidance, and forward-looking workforce planning. She closely tracks developments in immigration law and policy, preparing client advisories and identifying affected foreign nationals when regulatory shifts occur.

Read more about Shahana FarishtaEmailShahana's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Immigration
  • Blog:
    Inside Business Immigration
  • Organization:
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo