S2N

Did you file on paper or via the website? And did the denial mention your I-130 or I-130A? Sorry, but I’m having a hard time following all the moving pieces here. It might be useful if you posted the (sanitized) notice you received from USCIS. Here is the USCIS signature guide: link Electronic signatures are only allowed on forms filed electronically, and word processing signatures are not allowed.

Correct. Like you mentioned earlier it’s unclear if new ones will even be issued. My reading is that existing K entry from Venezuela would be permitted under the strict wording of the order, but CBP always retains discretion to deny entry.

The wording of the EO for Venezuela is: The entry into the United States of nationals of Venezuela as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on B‑1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas is hereby suspended. I would read that as allowing K entries from Venezuela for now. Though how it’s implemented and if there are further changes is anyone’s guess. Not trying to say that to stoke fear, there’s just a lot of unknowns.

The other thread gives all the details, but the short of it is that if you want to live together in the U.S., you should get married. I’m assuming for Iran the Utah option and then meeting in a third-country would be easiest, but that’s for you and your fiancée to discuss.

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.

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.

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.

Current timeline is 14 months, fwiw. 17 months was the average in December/January. May 2025 saw the most I-130s processed than at any other in the last 18 months, and June is processing at roughly the same rate of cases per day. Know we try to give people the long-view here, but there has been improvement since the change in administrations on consular processing. OP: as I noted above, I-130 is at 14 months. Add on NVC plus consulate and you’re looking at 17-24 months from submission to visa issuance for most people. Consulates with more applicants and less staff take longer. They’re processing March/April 2024 now so you’re likely going to see action from USCIS in the August/September timeline, but that depends and can take longer based on the specific case and also if USCIS slows down processing times. They’ve been on the rise since January but they could slow down again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since no one has said this that directly yet, and I say this with all good will, beyond just recreating the interview I would encourage you to have a very frank conversation with your wife to see if there’s something that might have made her inadmissible beyond just the misunderstanding. While USCIS is prone to screw-ups, consular officers tend to be much more competent and while they can make a mistake the same as anyone else, 9/10 when they send an I-130 back to USCIS with intent to revoke they’re correct. There’s a reason you don’t hear the same horror stories about consulates you hear at USCIS field offices and during the DHS part of the I-130 process. You’re dealing with people who are very smart and good at their jobs. Knowing several, from what I’ve been told denying an IR-1/CR-1 application is seen as exceptional. K-1s they tend to go in with the presumption of fraud because USCIS is so incompetent at rooting it out, but they give a ton of leeway to spousal visa applicants (Nigeria is high fraud, but even there K-1 would be seen as much higher risk.) All that to say, IR-1/CR-1 is rarely sent back to USCIS without a good reason, and while your case might be the case where they screwed up, I would want to be sure of that before contacting the IV Chief. If you send an email talking about world travel and they’ve found her inadmissible for another reason that isn’t going to help your case.

You can fill out section 9 (last page of the PDF I-130) and upload it as unsolicited evidence correcting the address.

Requiring proof of legal name change for non-legal name changes are my particular favourite online glitch. One of the reasons I’m not overly pro-online even though USCIS has moved to paperless review of paper-filed I-130s now. That being said, I think it avoids circumstances like OP’s where there’s flat out denials because of issues with geography of the form. Plus it’s cheaper and has the advantage of you knowing all your evidence is there and will be reviewed. In a case like this where someone DIY’d it on paper and screwed up something basic, I think there’s a decent case to using online over paper since you know it will be right on signatures and other mandatory items.

I know there are a decent amount of believers in the paper I-130 here and in the legal world, but may I suggest to OP that the benefit of filing online is no issues like this and it being cheaper? Yes, it’s glitchy, but USCIS no longer even processes actual paper I-130s anymore — they’re all scanned in and the IO just reviews a scan of your paper I-130 and any supporting docs, many of which are already photo copies. The person making the decision never touches the paper. That’s different than even a few years ago and leads to all sorts of room for additional human error. If I were OP, I’d opt to avoid any additional misunderstandings that could come from not filling out the paper form correctly and input online; I think it’s easier to navigate even if the technology isn’t the greatest.

It’s also worth noting that there’s no prohibition of entering the U.S. with intent to marry. People do that all the time. The prohibition that leads to a ban is on misrepresentation to a CBP officer or other U.S. government official that you did not have immigrant intent (that’s an important distinction from actually having immigrant intent that’s often missed in these discussion.) What that means is never lie in any circumstance but never volunteer more than necessary to answer any question asked. Simply entering on a non-immigrant visa and adjusting is not misrepresentation.

You can create a USCIS online account and add a case using the receipt number you have. If I recall correctly anyone can create an online account and they’ll verify identity via SSN and a few questions from your credit report. I’m not sure how well that will work given USCIS technology (we filed online so no experience doing it myself), but it’s an option they give you on the online account.

If he has a valid J-1 visa and while he is here you all get married and decide to adjust status, that’s perfectly legal. Also the 90 day rule is from FAM, not USCIS, so applies to the Department of State, not Homeland Security. All things being equal, if he enters and you decide it makes sense for him to stay while he’s here, I’d take that approach over CR-1. ESTA/VWP, K-1, and B-1/B-2 AOS have a lot of disadvantages, but adjusting from other visas tends to be easier. Also, before someone chimes in with the visa fraud comment entering knowing that there’s a possibility to adjust and contemplating it is not misrepresentation and BIA precedents are pretty pro-AOS for spouses when there are grey areas.

I think that’s fine: I was just using “might be confusing” to explain why you’d do it here on the form. I figured you’d make it more straightforward

They care that you correctly disclose the information. They don’t particularly care where you disclose it if you have a reasonable explanation for why you disclosed it somewhere other than the default place and clear reference it. ”See additional responses” followed by “this address follows a naming convention in this country that might be confusing when you’re running background checks. This is the address not the city.” is a reasonable response.

Unclear if you’ve already submitted this, but @pushbrk provided the correct answers. If you didn’t fill it out properly and have already submitted you have the option of waiting for an RFE or uploading a new one as unsolicited evidence. If you do the latter I’d include a brief note explaining the corrections. USCIS employees on Reddit have claimed they read anything uploaded there. We saw an issue on our I-130A after submission and decided to go the “correct as unsolicited evidence route” to try to avoid an RFE. Time will tell if it works.

Correct. I was trying to hint at that in my last point. Essentially the options are change the passport now if possible (depending on the country this could be very hard to do) or wait until naturalization. I’m of the opinion that waiting until naturalization is usually the easiest in general, but I come from the Latin American context where anything involving marriage is needlessly complex.

My experience with other agencies is that congressional inquiries on lost or misplaced items tend to get attention vs. inquiries on why things are taking so long. Its one of the things Congress is remarkably good at, and if a paper packet was received and it had a tracking number, USCIS should be able to locate it and the senator or representative would most likely be able to provide the name of a specific person to talk to. This is why I’d go the senatorial or congressional inquiry route. Call their DC or local office tomorrow when it’s open and ask to talk to someone in constituent services. They’ll have you fill out a waiver to allow them to talk to USCIS. Might not help, but it means you’ll actually have someone looking for it vs. the black hole that Emma/general inquiries could be. I’d still do one of those as well, but that’s not a reason to avoid the congressional inquiry route.