S2N

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.

Did you send it with a tracking number? If so reach out to your senator’s office and get them to help with the inquiry. Effectively losing an application is the type of government screw up that benefits from going directly to a senator or member of congress first rather than after an inquiry with the agency.

A lot has been written on this before but the short version is: —The visa will be issued in the name of her passport, and the green card will be issued in the name on the visa. —What you put on the I-130 or DS-260 doesn’t matter. They’ll still issue the visa since they can figure out who the person is, but it’ll be in the name on the passport. DS-260 you should use the passport name, but if you already submitted and didn’t they’ll be able to figure it out. —If having her green card in the passport name is important, change the passport name before the interview —If she is from a country where it’s not common to change last names upon marriage, it’s easiest to just wait until naturalization. This is basically all of Latin America (unsure of where she’s from.) —It’s cheaper and easier to change to married names upon naturalization than to change the green card after issuance.

You can also upload a letter notifying them of the change as unsolicited evidence. Not sure if it would have any impact, but it wouldn’t hurt.

You can upload an explanation as unsolicited evidence or add it as an additional answer per pushbrk

I’d go ahead and log a ticket with them just so it’s tracked. IT departments live and breath on tickets.

Your choice. The I-130 is glitchy on online, but it’s cheaper and you have less room for human data entry/scan errors. USCIS doesn’t process paper I-130s on paper anymore based on online comments from ISOs. It’s all scanned or typed in once you mail it.

Our situation is different (gay couple), but I basically told my husband the same as he’s considering changing his last name to either be mine or incorporate mine. We’re just waiting 4.5 years from now until (hopeful) naturalization. Chile has a way to do it, but it’s needlessly complicated and like most things dealing with their government it’s easier to do it through the consulate in DC than while living there.

Simple. Truthful. Automated (GE or MPC) Those are the three key words with CBP. She can do the first two this time. Every visit after she can do all three.