S2N

Your question seems to be related to the memo about potentially adding new countries (including Nigeria) to the entrance ban. If Nigeria gets hit with an full entrance ban, a pre-existing B1/B2 wouldn’t be any help. An IR-1/CR-1 would be exempt assuming it follows the format of the existing one. A visa is just permission to get on the plane and ask CBP to admit you under a specific class. If someone has a B1/B2 and they’re from a country with an entrance ban, CBP will not permit them to enter.

If the consulate has a phone number could be worth a call. Worst they can do is say they don’t do phone calls.

While I get wanting to ask for reassurance online, if you have a competent attorney who has experience with this topic do what they say exactly and don’t differ from it. Yes, we get a lot of people who have incompetent attorneys here, but if you have a good one who has experience with Adam Walsh and can thus tell you whether this falls under it based on the specifics of your situation, which when you share with them is legally privileged, unlike here, trust them. They are also licensed to provide you professional judgment you can rely upon in other legal proceedings and sue them if it is negligent. I can’t understate this: you should really, really, really trust your attorney. If you don’t, ask why, and if there’s a reason why not, find a new attorney you do trust and follow their advice 100%

If it was pre-1998ish you didn’t have to. After that technically the federal law requires all people to have an SSN, but it’s been interpreted by the executive branch of both state and federal governments not to apply to people who cannot acquire one. States have to keep it on file to make it easier to garnish wages for child support. Citation is 42 USC 666 (a)13(A): Link

SSN is required for marriage for anyone who has one under a federal law passed in the late 90s/early 00s aimed at cracking down on deadbeat dads. DOJ issued an opinion stating that those without one don’t need to provide it so long as there’s some procedure verifying they don’t (which is usually just the clerk asking you to check a box, but some jurisdictions have affidavits.)

The easiest way to deal with this is to file a tax return reporting $1 in interest income for the years you haven’t filed. This is accepted by the IRS as a way to e-File for anyone with zero income. You can e-File for tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024 still. In addition to generating a transcript, which is useful for immigration purposes, it prevents tax return identity theft fraud (someone fraudulently requesting a refund using your SSN), which is why it’s a recommended practice by many CPAs. Theres ways around it by providing proof you don’t have a filing requirement, but NVC has pushed back on that in some posts here. They’re wrong, but it’s largely irrelevant whether they’re right or wrong since the solution is free and incredibly easy to do. You can use FreeTaxUSA to do it for free: -2024: Link for current year -2022 and 2023: Link to start back year taxes You can use other software if you prefer, but I usually recommend FreeTaxUSA because they won’t try to upsell you on what’s an informational return used to report $1 in income to the IRS. From a practical standpoint it isn’t worth filling out 2021 and earlier since those can’t be e-Filed, which substantially decreases the risk of tax return fraud and identity theft.

I was under the impression that for immigrant admission classes and classes with work authorization it was CBP that sent over the request to SSA, not USCIS. For K-1 it’s their admission data that the SSA needs, not USCIS, and there used to be a box the CBP officer had to manually check on admissions related to the SSN question. If that’s the case that would explain someone with an EB visa receiving one even if USCIS isn’t transmitting data to SSA. USCIS not transmitting would definitely impact AOS from VWP/B2 overstay (which we don’t like to talk about here, but under Biden it was the go-to method for a lot of people so it’s worth mentioning for their sakes.) SSNs and admission is weird. 3-4 years ago it was hit or miss. Seemed to be dependent on if the CBP agent who admitted someone read through the packet from the consulate and remembered to check a box in the CBP competer saying the immigrant wanted an SSN. It’d gotten better recently after the consulates had moved to electronic transmission. Weird that it might be back tracking

What date did the officiant list as the date of marriage on the marriage document. Not the date it was filed.

CBP can deny admission even if someone has a valid K-1, correct. Visas do not give right of entry to the United States. That’s the case with or without the travel ban in place. It’ll be interesting to see how they and the airlines handle pre-existing K-1s from partial ban countries or if consulates move to revoke.

I’ll also mention what I said above — CBP retains the discretion to refuse to admit someone even if they have a valid visa. K-1 is permission to ask CBP to let you into the country to get married and adjust status. It’s not permission to actually do it. Usually the distinction doesn’t matter, but we’re dealing with a new situation. There’s a lot of unknowns here and the easiest way to reunite for K-1 applicants impacted is going to be CR-1/IR-1.

I would recommend you talk to a lawyer with experience in these matters. Based on your past posts on this topic you’re trying to find the exact minimum way to get the I-130 approved and visa issued. When taking that approach legal counsel is a lot more useful than a forum as they’re trained to exercise professional judgement, provide you with advice as to the probability of various approaches working, and tell you their professional opinion as to what your options are. Thats not judging you, by the way. That’s just pointing out you’re in an atypical situation and taking an approach that would benefit from a professional.

It looks like the archival PDF copy generated when he filed online shows the wife’s name in box 6a — which means she filled it out and signed as the petitioner or he signed her name as the petitioner after he filled it out. Either way it’s valid grounds for a denial. The beneficiary can’t petition themselves.

No: your I-130 was not signed properly. Your wife signed form I-130 for you with her name, which means you didn’t file a petition on her behalf. By signing it in her name it is equivalent to her filing a petition for herself, which isn’t allowed. You have to file and sign as petitioner, not her. That’s why USCIS denied it. Box 6a on the I-130 needs to have the petitioner (the USC or LPR) sign it, not the beneficiary. Your wife couldn’t sign over your pre-existing bank accounts to be joint accounts by signing her name — the bank would require you to sign it. Same principle here — the government requires the petitioner to sign the petition since they are asking the government for the right to sponsor their spouse for a visa.

It says your wife signed the I-130 on your behalf. Check box 6a on the form I-130 PDF. Does it say your name or your wife’s name?

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.