In recent months, many applicants have been caught off guard by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issuing Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) in change of status cases, citing travel bans under INA §212(f) as a negative factor. This trend has especially impacted people trying to change from to F-1 student status while already inside the United States. But, in the near future this trend could expand. If you’ve received an RFE or NOID referencing a presidential travel ban, you’re not alone. Below, we’ll explain what these travel bans are, why USCIS’s use of them in domestic applications is controversial, and how you can respond.

What Are INA §212(f) “Travel Bans”?

“Travel ban” is a shorthand for restrictions issued by the President under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This law gives the President authority to suspend the entry of certain noncitizens into the U.S. if their entry is deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. In practice, presidents issue Presidential Proclamations under 212(f) to bar or limit entry of specific groups of people. These bans have taken various forms over the years. For example, restricting entry from certain countries due to security concerns, or (in one 2020 proclamation) suspending entry of certain Chinese graduate students believed to have ties to China’s military programs.

It’s important to understand that by their nature 212(f) bans are about entry into the United States. They typically prevent visa issuance or admission at a U.S. port of entry for affected individuals. Traditionally, if you were already inside the U.S., these entry bans did not directly apply to you. You wouldn’t be deported just because your home country was subject to a travel ban, and you could still apply for immigration benefits like extensions or change of status. The travel ban was meant to stop someone from coming into the country, not to stop a person who is lawfully present from changing to another legal status.

However, USCIS has recently started using these proclamations in a new way. There is a recent trend whereby USCIS is using 212(f) bans as a factor in deciding whether to grant discretionary applications. Certain immigration benefits (including a change to student status) are not guaranteed even if you meet the basic requirements; the government can deny them as a matter of discretion. Now, USCIS is saying that a 212(f) travel ban can make someone a disfavored applicant for a discretionary benefit, even if that person is already here in the U.S. legally.

\How Travel Bans Are Being Used in Change of Status Cases

Under new policy guidance issued in late 2025, USCIS officers must consider country-specific travel restrictions as a factor when reviewing discretionary immigration requests. In practice, this means if you are from a country or group covered by a current 212(f) proclamation, USCIS might flag your change of status (COS) application for extra scrutiny. The logic (from USCIS’s perspective) is that you might be “circumventing” the normal security vetting that you would undergo if you had to apply for a visa abroad. By changing status inside the U.S., you avoid the consular visa interview and security checks associated with the travel ban – and USCIS has started to view that as a potential problem.

Why is this controversial? Because, as mentioned, 212(f) bans technically suspend entry, not the granting of status inside the country. There is a good argument that USCIS is inappropriately repurposing an entry ban as a tool to deny or delay cases for people who are already here. In the past, if a person from a “banned” country was in the U.S. and applied to change status (for example, from visitor to student), USCIS would evaluate the application on its own merits. In other words, the travel ban would only affect them if they left the U.S. and tried to come back. Now, however, officers are instructed to treat the existence of a travel ban as a “negative discretionary factor” against the applicant. That means that even if you’ve done nothing wrong and qualify for the status you seek, USCIS might deny you because of your nationality or background under the travel ban, claiming it raises security concerns.

Examples: RFEs and NOIDs Citing Travel Bans

To make this issue concrete, here are a couple of real scenarios that have been unfolding:

• Chinese Students and PP 10043: Presidential Proclamation 10043, issued in 2020, is a travel ban that suspends entry of certain Chinese graduate students and researchers in science and engineering fields, due to national security concerns. It was meant to stop those with ties to China’s military modernization efforts from obtaining F-1 or J-1 visas. Fast forward to today, and this proclamation is still in effect. USCIS has begun citing PP 10043 in cases where Chinese nationals already in the U.S. seek a change of status to F-1 student. For instance, Chinese students who came to the U.S. in another status (such as J-1) and then applied for F-1 have received NOIDs referencing PP 10043. The notices suggest that because the student opted to change status domestically instead of applying for a new F-1 visa in China, they might be trying to avoid the security screening mandated by PP 10043. USCIS then threatens denial as a matter of discretion, even if the person has no record of wrongdoing. In these cases, there is often no specific allegation of espionage or misconduct – the mere possibility that the person would have been subject to extra vetting if they applied abroad is being used against them. USCIS essentially says: “Had you applied for a student visa overseas, you would face tougher screening under PP 10043. We see your decision to change status in the U.S. as a negative factor, since it bypasses that screening.” This is alarming for many students and universities, since it means even those who followed the rules and have been studying in the U.S. for years can be viewed with suspicion under a proclamation that was originally about entry restrictions.
• Applicants from Travel Ban Countries (PP 10998): In December 2025, a new Presidential Proclamation 10998 was issued, expanding travel bans to nationals of 39 countries (as well as certain travelers from the Palestinian Authority). This proclamation, like others, prohibits those nationals from entering the U.S. as immigrants or nonimmigrants, with very few exceptions, due to security and public safety concerns. Now we are seeing USCIS drag this entry ban into the domestic arena. Applicants from these listed countries who file for benefits like a change to F-1 status have gotten RFEs/NOIDs referencing the proclamation. For example, a tourist from Nigeria (one of the countries on the list) applied to change status to F-1 student in late 2025. He received a USCIS notice acknowledging that Nigeria is under a travel ban and that while he was admitted to the U.S. before the ban took effect, the agency is now considering those country-based restrictions in deciding his case. The RFE/NOID essentially implied: “Nationals of your country are now partially barred from entering the U.S. under PP 10998. Even though you’re already here, we must evaluate whether granting you a student status would undermine the purpose of that ban.” The person was asked to prove why a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted – in other words, to convince USCIS to overlook the negative factor of his nationality. This is a dramatic shift. It means even if you came to the U.S. legally and have maintained your status, a new rule targeting your home country can suddenly throw your application in doubt.

In both these examples, the pattern is the same: USCIS cites a 212(f) proclamation (like PP 10043 or PP 10998) and suggests that approving the change of status would let the applicant “circumvent” important vetting or restrictions. It turns the travel ban into a quasi-inadmissibility factor for people who are already inside the U.S. The result has been a wave of surprise and anxiety for applicants and their attorneys, because this wasn’t how travel bans were enforced in the past.

How to Respond to a Travel Ban RFE/NOID: Practical Guidance

If you or your attorney receive an RFE or NOID that invokes a travel ban as a negative factor, it’s crucial to address it thoroughly. Here are some practical steps and tips:

1. Confirm if the Travel Ban Truly Applies to You. Don’t just take USCIS’s assertion at face value – review the specific Presidential Proclamation they cited and see who is actually subject to it. Sometimes officers may misapply or overgeneralize the ban. For instance, PP 10043 (the China proclamation) does not ban all Chinese students; it targets mainly post-graduate STEM students affiliated with certain institutions in China. If you are a Chinese applicant in a field or education level not covered by the ban, point that out. Similarly, PP 10998 covers nationals of certain countries, but check if you fall under any exception or exemption. Were you in the U.S. before the effective date of the ban? Do you hold dual citizenship or another passport that might not be subject to the ban? Are you applying for a status or visa category that the ban doesn’t restrict? It’s possible USCIS flagged you just because of your birth country, even if legally the proclamation’s scope is narrower. Make sure to clarify in your response whether or not you are actually one of the people the proclamation was intended to bar. If USCIS made a mistake in assuming you’re subject to the ban, correct them with evidence and explanation.
2. Review the Scope and Language of the Proclamation. Even if the ban does list your nationality or group, read the text of the proclamation (or a reliable summary) to understand its purpose and limits. Most 212(f) proclamations specify categories of people and often list exceptions or waivers. Understanding this context will help you craft a response. For example, the proclamation might suspend entry for certain visa types or certain age/education levels, or it might allow exceptions for permanent residents, certain relatives, or those whose travel is in the U.S. interest. While these exceptions primarily apply to entry, knowing them can bolster your argument that your situation is not a threat to U.S. interests. Also note that the proclamation likely says it’s suspending entry into the U.S. – which you can remind USCIS is not what you are seeking. Quote or paraphrase key lines that show the ban is about entry, and that applying for a change of status from inside is not prohibited by the proclamation. By demonstrating that you’ve studied the actual policy, you show USCIS that you might not be the kind of person the ban was designed to stop.
3. Emphasize Positive Discretionary Factors. Since USCIS is treating this as a matter of discretion, your goal is to outweigh the negative with as many positive factors as possible. In your RFE/NOID response, include evidence and arguments that highlight your good character, compliance with laws, and the beneficial aspects of your stay in the U.S. Here are some examples of positive factors you can present:
   • Strong Ties to the U.S. or Reasons for Studying Here: Maybe you have close family members in the U.S., or you’ve built a life here during your stay. Perhaps your area of study is something uniquely offered by a U.S. institution. Explain any compelling reasons why remaining in the U.S. as a student is important and how it benefits not just you, but potentially the community or field of study.
   • Academic Merit and Contributions: If you’re already studying or have been accepted to a reputable program, provide evidence of your academic achievements. This could be transcripts, recommendation letters, awards, or a statement from a professor or advisor. Show that you are a serious student who will positively contribute to the academic community. Academic and research contributions can counter the narrative that you are a security threat; it frames you instead as a talented individual pursuing knowledge.
   • Lack of Any Violations or Negative History: Emphasize that you have obeyed U.S. laws and immigration rules. If you entered lawfully and have maintained your status without any overstays or violations, point that out clearly. Highlight things like clean criminal record certificates (if available), and the fact that you have never been involved in any security incidents. Essentially, show that your record is spotless – you’ve done everything by the book.
   • Community Involvement and Character: Personal character references can carry weight. You can include letters from community leaders, teachers, employers, or others who can vouch for your good moral character, volunteer work, or other contributions. Maybe you volunteer at a local charity, or you’re active in a community organization. If so, get a letter confirming that. These testimonials humanize you and show that you’re a valued member of the community, not just a statistic from a “banned” country.
   • Humanitarian or Personal Hardships: If there are sympathetic factors in your case, bring them up. For instance, maybe it would be dangerous or untenable for you to return to your home country right now (due to conflict, persecution, or other crises). Or perhaps you have a health condition or family situation that makes it particularly important for you to stay in the U.S. to study. While a change to F-1 is not a humanitarian status per se, explaining the context of your situation can only help. USCIS can exercise discretion favorably if there are compelling humanitarian grounds.

When presenting these factors, be sure to organize your evidence well. You might group documents and letters by theme and provide a cover sheet or index explaining each exhibit. In your written explanation, explicitly argue that “the positive factors in my case outweigh any generalized concerns related to [the travel ban]”. You want to assure the officer that granting your change of status aligns with U.S. interests, rather than undermines them.

1. Address the “Circumvention” Concern Head-On. A key claim USCIS is making in these RFEs/NOIDs is that by changing status in the U.S., you are trying to evade security vetting or entry restrictions. It’s critical to counter this implication. In your response, explain your reasons for pursuing a change of status without leaving the U.S., and make the case that this was done for legitimate reasons and not to sneak around the law. For example:
   • Safety or Feasibility: Perhaps traveling back to your home country for a visa interview is currently unsafe or impractical. (During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, many resorted to change of status because consulates were closed or travel was risky. Similarly, if your country is in turmoil, it’s reasonable to avoid travel.) If there were travel barriers or personal safety concerns, describe them.
   • Legal Convenience vs. Illegal Evasion: Emphasize that changing status in the U.S. is a legal process provided by Congress. You are following the rules set out in U.S. law – there’s nothing illegal or underhanded about it. Point out that you submitted to all required checks for your current visa when you first entered. If USCIS or other agencies need to vet you further for the new status, you are fully willing to comply. You simply chose the path that made sense for you, which the law allows, and not to undermine any vetting. In fact, USCIS has access to background checks and security screening for applicants inside the U.S. as well. Make it clear that you are not asking for a free pass on security screening – you underwent screening to enter the U.S., and you can be screened again if needed. The goal is to show that you’re not hiding anything or exploiting a loophole; you’re just utilizing a lawful procedure.
   • Prior Visa History: If you have previously been issued U.S. visas or undergone security clearances, mention that. For instance, if you held a B-1/B-2 visa or a J-1 visa and went through the standard background checks for those, note it. This can help argue: “I have been vetted before and complied with all procedures, so my choice to apply for F-1 here is not to dodge vetting – I have a history of good compliance.”
   • Intentions and Transparency: State clearly that your intention is to study and that you fully intend to comply with all immigration rules going forward. You might add that if circumstances required, you would comply with any future visa requirements as well. The idea is to reassure USCIS that approving your F-1 status won’t enable any threat – you’re not trying to game the system, you’re trying to continue your education without interruption.

By directly addressing the “you’re trying to get around the travel ban” insinuation, you take the wind out of that sail. You can acknowledge the proclamation’s existence but firmly assert that following the change-of-status process is not an abuse, it’s a necessity or a prudent choice in your case. It often helps to phrase your rebuttal in respectful terms, like: “I understand the agency’s concern regarding security screening under PP XXXX. I want to clarify that my decision to apply for a change of status was based on X, Y, Z reasons – not to evade any security checks. I remain willing to undergo all required security screening.” Such language shows you take their concern seriously but have a valid explanation.

Conclusion: Stay Informed and Seek Legal Help

Facing an RFE or NOID that raises a travel ban issue can be daunting. This is an evolving and complex area of immigration policy. If you find yourself in this situation, consider consulting an experienced immigration attorney for guidance. An attorney can help craft a compelling response, ensuring you cover all the points above and tailoring the argument to your specific case. They can also advise you on the bigger picture – for instance, what to do if your change of status is ultimately denied. (In some cases, it might be possible to challenge a denial in federal court, especially if USCIS’s reasoning is seen as arbitrary or beyond their authority. These are uncharted waters, and litigation strategies are still developing as this trend unfolds.)

Above all, don’t ignore or take lightly an RFE/NOID referencing a 212(f) travel ban. It doesn’t mean your case is hopeless, but it does mean you need a careful, well-documented response. By understanding the issue and responding with strong evidence and arguments, you give yourself the best chance at success. And with knowledgeable legal counsel in your corner, you can navigate this new hurdle more confidently.

Bottom line: Travel bans were designed to protect U.S. security at the point of entry, and using them to refuse changes of status for those already here is a novel tactic by USCIS. If you’re affected by this, arm yourself with information, address the concerns head-on, and get professional support. With a solid strategy, you can push back against a wrongful denial and continue on your path in the United States. Good luck, and stay informed!

Reddy Neumann Brown PC located in Houston, Texas, has been serving the business immigration community for over 25 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on U.S. Employment-based and investor-based immigration. We work with employers, employees and investors helping them navigate the immigration process quickly and cost-effectively.

By: Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, where he leads the firm’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration benefits, FOIA requests, and policy and regulatory challenges. Steven is dedicated to delivering practical and effective solutions for clients facing unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration benefits, including Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, green cards, 221(g) decisions, EB-5 delays, and other immigration-related matters. His litigation efforts were instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. government recognizing that under the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are authorized to work incident to their status, eliminating the need for separate EAD applications. This case has transformed work authorization for thousands of families across the United States.