Demise

I imagine it could be re-visited down the line as a part of some other visa application, in case of which OP should bring proof of admission for D/S and copy of the relevant parts of the AFM. Getting a tourist visa after any overstay is hard, but the ban should not be an issue for a work visa or a family petition. Like none of you knew this is the policy, you think the low level government drone knows about it?

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030211.html 9 FAM 302.11-3(B)(1)(b)(2): b. (U) DHS has interpreted "period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security," as used in this context, to include: (2) For individuals inspected and admitted for "duration of status" (DOS), any period of presence in the United States, unless DHS, an IJ, or the BIA makes a formal finding of a status violation, in which case unlawful presence will only being to accrue the day after the formal finding is made; 9 FAM 302.11-3(B)(1)(d): For persons who have been admitted for duration of status (DOS) (as is usually the case with individuals in A, G, F, J, and I visa status), unlawful presence will not accrue unless DHS, IJ, or the BIA finds a status violation in the context of a request for an immigration benefit or during removal proceedings. This finding of status violation by the DHS, an IJ, or the BIA will cause a period of "unlawful presence" to begin. In DOS cases where DHS or an IJ or the BIA makes a formal status violation finding, the individual begins accruing unlawful presence on the day after the finding (i.e., the date the finding was published /communicated). For example, if an applicant presents a letter from DHS dated December 1, 2008, that says the applicant was out of status starting on May 28, 2001, the applicant began to accrue unlawful presence as of December 2, 2008, not May 28, 2001. In fact I'm not sure if the 2018 policy ever applied to the DOS but I suspect that it did because it's up to DHS to define what is and isn't unlawful presence. Moreover the bars don't trigger until after departure which would create a weird scenario where literally the only people who the DHS memo would apply to would be those who'd fall out of the F-1 status, depart, and then return to US legally somehow (e.g. via 212(d)(3) waiver).

So yeah to summarize and undo the mess I made: There was a memo that would make unlawful presence in case of D/S admitted non-immigrants start counting as of the day they drop out: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/2018-08-09-PM-602-1060.1-Accrual-of-Unlawful-Presence-and-F-J-and-M-Nonimmigrants.pdf That memo got tied up in a lawsuit where a court issued a permanent injunction stopping it and returning to a prior 2009 policy: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/injunctions/Guilford-College-v.-Nielsen-summary-judgment-permanent-injunction.pdf The 2009 memo that came back into effect: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF USCIS did appeal the decision to the 4th circuit but withdrew the appeal later leaving 2009 memo as the current state of affairs. So yeah, we're here because the source I wanted to use decided to put the document I had saved behind a login so I grabbed something else without reading it fully. Back to the topic at hand I guess.

Disagree all you want but that doesn't change the fact as to how this all works. Unlawful presence after a D/S overstay doesn't start ticking until there's a formal finding of it by USCIS or an immigration judge, and these findings only happen in one of two cases: 1. You apply for something with USCIS (like AOS) and get denied. 2. You end up in removal proceedings and get a removal order. Then it starts counting from the following day. If it were to happen today first day of unlawful presence would be tomorrow and the unlawful presence bans would come into play after departure after staying in US for another 180+ days. If there's no unlawful presence then there's no bar. Edit: @Chancy Yeah hold on I'm a moron, let me get you the right one... Sorry about that one, the one I wanted to use got put behind a login so I figured I'd look right for the source. https://www.nafsa.org/professional-resources/browse-by-interest/accrual-unlawful-presence-and-f-j-and-m-nonimmigrants Text to get around login requirements: Injunction in question: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/injunctions/Guilford-College-v.-Nielsen-summary-judgment-permanent-injunction.pdf

Were you admitted for D/S or until a specific date. If D/S then the 10 year ban does not apply and the consulate erred in the decision, doesn't mean you'd get the visa, but the bar just shouldn't apply: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/2018-08-09-PM-602-1060.1-Accrual-of-Unlawful-Presence-and-F-J-and-M-Nonimmigrants.pdf