Bar ends in January, should I push back the interview?

[jan22 3,174]

5 minutes ago, S2N said:

The risk there is that the CO determines you’re admissible and then 2-5 years later when applying for removal of conditions or naturalization a USCIS official determines the visa should never have been issued in the first place and initiates removal proceedings.

 

Theres been several news stories of “one officially incorrectly did something a while ago and/or turned a blind eye and now someone years later found out and is using it to deport an immigrant.”

 

If OP thinks they overstayed I’d stay on the safe side and ask to reschedule until after they think the 3 year ban ends. Unfortunately the current climate means you have to think about things like this.

That is not a risk if the visa is not issued until after the potential ban is up.  

[S2N 273]

11 minutes ago, jan22 said:

That is not a risk if the visa is not issued until after the potential ban is up.  

Correct, which is why I’m having trouble following your previous post. OP said their calculation is that the potential ban ends Jan 2026. You said they could go to the interview and see if the CO issues a visa.

 

If they have a late-November 2025 interview, get a visa and enter in December 2025, and later during ROC or naturalization USCIS determines the ban should have applied and was incorrectly ignored, that’s a potential issue in the current environment where USCIS is double checking previous work.

 

I just don’t see why OP wouldn’t push the interview to a date where they know they will be fine, especially since it’s just 6 months from now. Seems too risky in the current climate to play the game where you see if the CO catches something you think they should catch, and if they don’t, enter the U.S.

Edited June 7 by S2N

[jan22 3,174]

27 minutes ago, S2N said:

Correct, which is why I’m having trouble following your previous post. OP said their calculation is that the potential ban ends Jan 2026. You said they could go to the interview and see if the CO issues a visa.

 

If they have a late-November 2025 interview, get a visa and enter in December 2025, and later during ROC or naturalization USCIS determines the ban should have applied and was incorrectly ignored, that’s a potential issue in the current environment where USCIS is double checking previous work.

 

I just don’t see why OP wouldn’t push the interview to a date where they know they will be fine, especially since it’s just 6 months from now. Seems too risky in the current climate to play the game where you see if the CO catches something you think they should catch, and if they don’t, enter the U.S.

What I said was go to the interview and have the officer adjudicate whether there actually is a ban.  It is actually very difficult for someone on a student visa to accumulate unlawful presence/overstay, so there quite possibly isn’t a ban and a visa can be issued.  The officer would not be “turning a blind eye” if, after reviewing the information, determines that there was no overstay. Your scenario is, IMO, so extremely remote in this case that even in the current climate it is very close to fear-mongering 

 

If the OP is still unsure, they could request a delay in visa printing — might not be done, as the officer would reassure that there was no ban and everything was good to go.  But it may not be enough reassurance for them.

Pushing the interview — taking it out if the normal processing stream — could result in it falling between the cracks and a long delay for an interview.  There is no guarantee that it would be right after the ban is up.

Edited June 7 by jan22

[S2N 273]

4 minutes ago, jan22 said:

What I said was go to the interview and have 5th officer adjudicate whether there actually is a ban.  It is actually very difficult for someone on a student visa to accumulate unlawful presence/overstay, so there quite possibly isn’t a ban and a visa can be issued.  The officer would not be “turning a blind eye” if, after reviewing the information, determines that there was no overstay. Your scenario is, IMO, so extremely remote in this case that even in the current climate it is very close to fear-mongering 

 

If the OP is still unsure, they could request a delay in visa printing — might not be done, as the officer would reassure that there was no ban and everything was good to go.  But it may not be enough reassurance for them.

Pushing the interview — taking it out if the normal processing stream — could result in it falling between the cracks and a long delay for an interview.

I’m usually the person telling others not to fear-monger given the current climate, and I have a ton of respect for the FSC and COs who adjudicate IVs — they’re usually top of the line and the most well qualified people you deal with in the entire process.
 

I think OP’s situation is unique in that they have determined that they did accumulate sufficient unlawful presence, and USCIS has been coordinating with ICE on reviewing what used to be routine applications to see if something was previously missed. For 99% of people it’s nothing to worry about since most people don’t have potential bans and if they’re in the U.S. overstay is forgiven during AOS.

OP’s is one of the cases that requires more judgement because 1) student and the specific rules around that which have changed within the last decade 2) potential accumulation of unlawful presence for 3 year ban 3) consular processing. That makes considering the paragraph above more relevant.

 

In cases like that and when the timeline is so similar either way, holding off on scheduling the interview makes the most sense to me. Asking NVC to hold on scheduling an interview is pretty common, the risk of falling through the cracks is low, and given the short time frame, I’d consider it the lowest risk option.

 

Asking NVC to hold the case is low risk/high reward. Going to a consular interview when you know you have a potential ban that you could just wait out before the interview is high risk/low reward imo. I’d personally go with the low risk/high reward option.

[Boiler 47,431]

I have seen plenty of cases where people have had an interview been refused and waited it out for the ban and then had the visa issued.

 

Might be cleaner to have the interview as soon after the bar is over.

[pushbrk 13,609]

12 hours ago, Pressna said:

Should we disclose that the inadmissiblity? Does it affect anything?

I already said no reason to explain why.

[TBoneTX 47,478]

5 hours ago, S2N said:

I have a ton of respect for the FSC and COs who adjudicate IVs — they’re usually top of the line and the most well qualified people you deal with in the entire process.

This is why you can accept anything said by jan22 on these topics with 100% confidence.   

[Pressna 3]

I wanna give an update here. We emailed NVC and they didn’t get back to us, instead just made my appointment. I tried to contact the embassy to push back our interview but they said there might be a significant wait. Right now I’m just choosing to go with the interview which is in August. For now. Would love to hear everyone’s opinions.

Regarding my F1 overstay and if it triggers the ban, my lawyer says I didn’t, and ChatGPT says it’s a grey area. From what I researched on this website it’s saying the same thing. Some people go about the interview fine while some get rejected. But according to current law I should not have triggered the ban. 

 

[Pressna 3]

On 6/8/2025 at 4:19 AM, Boiler said:

I have seen plenty of cases where people have had an interview been refused and waited it out for the ban and then had the visa issued.

 

Might be cleaner to have the interview as soon after the bar is over.

Are you saying that they waited out for the ban AFTER interview was had? Or they rescheduled as well?

[Dashinka 25,816]

3 hours ago, Pressna said:

Are you saying that they waited out for the ban AFTER interview was had? Or they rescheduled as well?

In general yes.  Essentially you go to the interview, meet all the requirements to get the visa with the exception of the bar, but since the end of the bar is so close, you will be put in "Refused" or "Administrative Processing" status until the bar is completed.

 

Good Luck!

[Pressna 3]

On 6/8/2025 at 5:45 AM, TBoneTX said:

This is why you can accept anything said by jan22 on these topics with 100% confidence.   

Is this sarcasm? I don’t understand 

I’m gonna go to the interview, wish me luck every one

[S2N 273]

2 hours ago, Pressna said:

Is this sarcasm? I don’t understand 

I’m gonna go to the interview, wish me luck every one

@TBoneTX was graciously telling me to stop before I stuck too many feet into my mouth.

 

Best of luck and keep us updated.

Edited June 19 by S2N

[TBoneTX 47,478]

13 hours ago, Pressna said:

Is this sarcasm? I don’t understand 

If you knew jan22's background, you'd view him as a "VJ god" in this area.

13 hours ago, Pressna said:

I’m gonna go to the interview, wish me luck every one

Good luck, and definitely report back!

[Pressna 3]

On 6/18/2025 at 6:13 PM, Dashinka said:

In general yes.  Essentially you go to the interview, meet all the requirements to get the visa with the exception of the bar, but since the end of the bar is so close, you will be put in "Refused" or "Administrative Processing" status until the bar is completed.

 

Good Luck!

Do I need to communicate with the CO in order for this to happen? 

[TBoneTX 47,478]

6 minutes ago, Pressna said:

Do I need to communicate with the CO in order for this to happen? 

They'll be well aware of this ahead of time, but you should certainly talk about it and learn precisely what the protocol, procedures, and timing will be.