A State plan under title I (OAA); title IV-A (AFDC); title X (AB); title XIV (APTD); and title XVI (AABD-disabled) of the Social Security Act shall provide that an otherwise eligible individual, dependent child, or a caretaker relative or any other person whose needs are considered in determining the need of the child or relative claiming aid, must be either:
(a) A citizen, or
(b) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law, including certain aliens lawfully present in the United States as a result of the application of the following provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
(1) Section 207(c), in effect after March 31, 1980—Aliens Admitted as Refugees.
(2) Section 203(a)(7), in effect prior to April 1, 1980—Individuals who were Granted Status as Conditional Entrant Refugees.
(3) Section 208—Aliens Granted Political Asylum by the Attorney General.
(4) Section 212(d)(5)—Aliens Granted Temporary Parole Status by the Attorney General, or
(c) An alien granted lawful temporary resident status pursuant to section 201, 302, or 303 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-603) who must be either:
(1) A Cuban and Haitian entrant as defined in paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 501(e) of Pub. L. 96-422, as in effect on April 1, 1983, or
(2) An adult assistance applicant for OAA, AB, APTD, or AABD, or
(3) An applicant for AFDC who is not a Cuban and Haitian applicant under paragraph (c)(1) of this section who was adjusted to lawful temporary resident status more than five years prior to application.
All other aliens granted lawful temporary or permanent resident status, pursuant to sections 201, 302, or 303 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, are disqualified for five years from the date lawful temporary resident status is granted.
[47 FR 5680, Feb. 5, 1982; 47 FR 43383, Oct. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 48689, Dec. 24, 1987; 53 FR 30433, Aug. 12, 1988; 54 FR 10544, Mar. 14, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1976–2007 · leading case:
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
· cites it 2× “4 (1981), the old-age assistance, aid to families with dependent children, aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and supplemental security income programs, 45 CFR § 233.50 (1981), the Medicare hospital insurance benefits program, 42 U.”
Darces v. Woods, 679 P.2d 458 (Cal. 1984).
· cites it 6× “) Due to their undocumented alien status, appellant and her three older children are ineligible for AFDC ( 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 ) [3] and are excluded from the FBU for purposes of determining the amount of the *878 AFDC grant (EAS § 44-206.”
Zurmati v. McMahon, 180 Cal. App. 3d 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “" [2] *171 The statutory requirements of 42 United States Code section 602 (a)(33) have been implemented by a regulation ( 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 ) which, in substance, repeats the language of the statute, and clarifies the examples of the classes of aliens whom the statute includes…”
Holley v. Lavine, 553 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1977).
· cites it 5× “§§ 601 , 602(a)(10), and 606(b)(1) and to the implementing regulation set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 . The relevant part of the Social Security Act, 42 U.”
Sudomir v. McMahon, 767 F.2d 1456 (9th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 3× “See 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 (1978). That regulation provided that aliens “permanently residing in the United States under color of law” include aliens “lawfully present in the United States as a result of the application of the provision of section 203(a)(7) [ 8 U.”
Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Penn. 2007).
“§ 1320b-7(b)(l) and 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 (AFDC); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320b-7(b)(2) and 1396b(v)(l) (Medicaid); 7 U.”
Cruz v. Comm'r of Pub. Welfare, 478 N.E.2d 1262 (Mass. 1985).
“See 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 (1984). The court held that the regulations encompassed not only aliens permanently residing in this coun *113 try under specific provisions of immigration law, but also aliens who were known by the INS to be residing in the United States unlawfully, but…”
Soto v. Dir. of the Michigan Dep't of Soc. Servs., 251 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“This is not the case. The degree of outside holdings is merely a criterion now used as a guideline to ascertain if the applicant’s subjective *274 intention is really to remain permanently in Michigan.”
Szewczyk v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 822 A.2d 957 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
“There is no dispute between the parties that but for the plaintiffs status as an undocumented alien, he would have been eligible for medicaid assistance.”
Papadopoulos v. Shang, 67 A.D.2d 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979).
“In so holding, we are fortified by the ruling in Holley v Lavine (553 F2d 845, supra) which involved a regulation (45 CFR 233.50) identical in scope with the regulation here involved.”
Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985).
“The AFDC regulations in issue, then contained at 45 C.F.R. § 233.50 , provided in relevant part that the "[s]tate plan .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.