Presidential Executive Order for Travel Restrictions and effect on K-1 Visas

[S2N 309]

Posting this here as other places on the internet are raising questions and figured it’d be good to have a reference post.

 

The short of it: the Trump administration has released an executive order banning entry from certain countries as of 4 June 2025: RESTRICTING THE ENTRY OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

K-1 visas are not included in the exceptions as fiancés are not immediate family members. IR-1/CR-1 is included in the exceptions.

While it is still early, based on previous iterations of this, it is considered unlikely to be struck down by the courts by most legal observers, though there is some discussion as to if individuals such as K-1 petitioners could sue based on the specifics of their circumstances. If this is something you would prefer as compared to refile as IR-1/CR-1, you should contact a lawyer who can provide you legal advice — no one on this forum can.

 

If you want the most practical approach at this time it would be to get married and then file an I-130, withdrawing the I-129F petition as it would no longer be valid after the marriage.

 

Probably the easiest way for people going the K-1 route impacted by this would be the Utah online marriage route followed by an in-person meeting, but a marriage in your fiancé’s country or a third country would also work. If you go the Utah route, you must meet in person after the wedding and before filing the I-130.

Edit: edited to be more specific in word choice.

Edited June 10 by Crazy Cat

[OldUser 9,880]

What do you mean by "converting to IR-1 / CR-1"? There's no process to convert from K-1 to CR-1 visa once you filed it.

Where's this information from? While it makes sense, some of it looks like AI generated content? 

 

My recommendation was always to go CR-1 route VS K-1, and it's another reason to go marriage route.

Edited June 6 by OldUser

[S2N 309]

5 minutes ago, OldUser said:

What do you mean by "converting to IR-1 / CR-1"? There's no process to convert from K-1 to CR-1 visa once you filed it.

Where's this information from? While it makes sense, some of it looks like AI generated content? 

 

My recommendation was always to go CR-1 route VS K-1, and it's another reason to go marriage route.

Sorry — edited to be more specific in word choice. I meant get married and refile as I-130.

 

Nothing AI-generated; though I guess it means I’m good at typing summary text? The commentary on unlikely to be struck down on courts, etc. is what’s being widely reported by NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.

 

Also agree on IR-1/CR-1 usually being better and this being another reason.

Edited June 6 by S2N

[OldUser 9,880]

1 minute ago, S2N said:

Sorry — edited to be more specific in word choice. I meant get married and refile as I-130.

 

Nothing AI-generated; though I guess it means I’m good at typing summary text? The commentary on unlikely to be struck down on courts, etc. is what’s being widely reported by NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.

Sorry for assuming AI and thank you for summarizing information!

[Boiler 47,456]

We can add it to the list of issues with a K

[Crazy Cat 44,423]

45 minutes ago, Boiler said:

We can add it to the list of issues with a K

I will add that to my list.  I just read the EO, and I don't see any exemptions for K-1s, either.

[Crazy Cat 44,423]

I wonder if consulates will even process K-1s in affected countries since issued visas would be valid for only 6 months or less.

I see this statement in the EO for each country listed.

"Consular officers shall reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of _______ to the extent permitted by law."

Edited June 6 by Crazy Cat

[S2N 309]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

I wonder if consulates will even process K-1s in affected countries since issued visas would be valid for only 6 months or less.

Honestly l wouldn’t be shocked if there’s more changes to K-1 coming down the pipeline, especially in high fraud countries.

 

State has long viewed K-1 as a hive for fraud everywhere and COs don’t like doing the interviews. 

[JeanneAdil 7,078]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

I will add that to my list.  I just read the EO, and I don't see any exemptions for K-1s, either.

It doesn't mention K1 but it does say

June 4 is the date of the proclamation

 

(c)  No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation

 

So,  anyone with a valid K1 visa is what?  

banned if country is now banned?

or allowed in ?

[JeanneAdil 7,078]

1 minute ago, JeanneAdil said:

It doesn't mention K1 but it does say

June 4 is the date of the proclamation

 

(c)  No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation

 

So,  anyone with a valid K1 visa is what?  

banned if country is now banned?

or allowed in ?

and white read says Supreme Court (Hawaii) already upheld the ban

 

• In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the United States through entry restrictions.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/06/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-restricts-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/

[OldUser 9,880]

4 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

It doesn't mention K1 but it does say

June 4 is the date of the proclamation

 

(c)  No immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date of this proclamation shall be revoked pursuant to this proclamation

 

So,  anyone with a valid K1 visa is what?  

banned if country is now banned?

or allowed in ?

Banned. You can have valid visa and still be denied entry.

Edited June 6 by OldUser

[S2N 309]

8 minutes ago, OldUser said:

Banned. You can have valid visa and still be denied entry.

Correct — even an immigrant visa like an IR-1 is only permission to apply for admission under a certain class at a port of entry.

 

Theoretically someone from an impacted country with a previously issued K-1 could still get on a plane since it does give them that right, but CBP would turn them away and it’s likely that the airline would deny boarding as they don’t want to give a free flight home or deal with a potential fine.

Edited June 6 by S2N

[JeanneAdil 7,078]

12 minutes ago, OldUser said:

Banned

there's a word for this but i can't print it

i feel for anyone in this situation that has spent all this money and time

[S2N 309]

16 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

and white read says Supreme Court (Hawaii) already upheld the ban

 

• In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to use section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect the United States through entry restrictions.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/06/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-restricts-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/

That was the previous ban (I think third iteration) under Trump 1.0 that got upheld. The reason the legal talking heads are saying the new one is likely to stand is because of that ruling. I forget which of the newspapers I mentioned above had commentary about individuals suing for relief, but the thought from a few law professors who commented was that individuals with specific cases had a better chance at getting a carve out through the courts than the standard non-profit and state AGs suing bit.

 

Regardless the point of my initial post was that questions about this have already started to circulate on other parts of the immigration internet.
 

The short answer is that it looks like the best option would be an Utah zoom wedding followed by visit and filing an I-130 for those with pending K-1s from impacted countries.

Edited June 6 by S2N

[Boiler 47,456]

I also understand that one has been designed to comply.