Immigration Law
Short Answer: Being out of status and accruing unlawful presence are two different concepts under U.S. immigration law. A person can violate nonimmigrant status without necessarily accruing unlawful presence. That distinction matters because more than 180 days or one year of unlawful presence can trigger the three-year or ten-year inadmissibility bars after departure. The calculation depends on the person’s immigration history, Form I-94, pending applications, and sometimes the type of admission.
Not long ago, a client came to me in a panic. She had been in the United States as a J-1 exchange visitor, and after her program ended, she stayed. By the time she walked into my office, she had been out of her authorized program for over a year.
She was convinced she had triggered a ten-year bar. She hadn’t, at least not based on the facts of her case and the Duration of Status rules that applied to her admission. Her situation was serious, but because she had been admitted for Duration of Status, or D/S, the unlawful presence clock that could trigger the three-year or ten-year bars had not begun running.
That distinction changed the analysis of her options. If you have overstayed a visa or fallen out of status, the consequences depend on a legal distinction that is easy to miss: being out of status is not necessarily the same thing as accruing unlawful presence. Beginning September 15, 2026, the way that distinction applies to F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors is scheduled to change significantly.
Being out of status and accruing unlawful presence are different concepts under immigration law, and one does not always begin on the same day as the other. Being out of status generally means you have violated the terms of the nonimmigrant classification under which you were admitted.
An F-1 student might stop attending school. An H-1B worker might stop working for the petitioning employer. A B-2 visitor might remain beyond the authorized period of admission. Those circumstances can create serious immigration consequences even before unlawful presence becomes an issue.
Unlawful presence is a separate statutory concept. INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) generally defines unlawful presence as presence in the United States after the expiration of a period of stay authorized by the government, or presence in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Why does the distinction matter? Unlawful presence is what drives the three-year and ten-year inadmissibility bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). But not every period in which a person lacks valid immigration status counts as unlawful presence.
That means someone can be out of status and potentially removable while accruing no unlawful presence for purposes of the three-year and ten-year bars. The reverse point is equally important: not accruing unlawful presence does not mean someone has lawful immigration status. Those are separate questions and should be analyzed separately.
INA § 212(a)(9)(B) can impose a three-year or ten-year bar after a person accumulates a specified amount of unlawful presence and then departs the United States. If a person accrues more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence during a single stay and voluntarily departs before removal proceedings begin, INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) generally creates a three-year period of inadmissibility.
If a person accrues one year or more of unlawful presence during a single stay and then departs or is removed, INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) generally creates a ten-year period of inadmissibility. There are statutory exceptions, and not every day physically spent in the United States counts toward unlawful presence.
One point is especially important: the three-year and ten-year unlawful presence bars generally require a departure or removal. Unlawful presence accumulates while the person is in the United States, but departure is what can trigger the inadmissibility consequence. This is why leaving the United States without first determining how much unlawful presence you have accrued can be a serious mistake.
Immigration law recognizes several circumstances in which a person may be physically present in the United States without accruing unlawful presence for purposes of INA § 212(a)(9)(B). For example, unlawful presence generally does not accrue before a person’s 18th birthday for purposes of the three-year and ten-year bars.
INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(II) also provides protection for certain periods during which a bona fide asylum application is pending, subject to the statutory limitation involving unauthorized employment. Another important distinction involves a period of stay authorized by the government.
A person can sometimes be in a period of authorized stay without holding lawful nonimmigrant status. A pending Form I-485 application is an important example. Filing an adjustment application generally prevents unlawful presence from accruing while the application is pending, but it does not automatically restore a nonimmigrant status that the applicant previously lost.
The same distinction can arise with certain timely filed applications to extend or change nonimmigrant status. A timely, non-frivolous filing may prevent unlawful presence from accruing during the authorized pendency of the application even after the prior I-94 expires, but the precise consequences depend on the type of filing, the person’s underlying status history, and what ultimately happens to the application.
That is why I would not determine unlawful presence simply by looking at whether someone currently has an unexpired visa stamp or a pending USCIS receipt. The entire immigration history matters.
F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors admitted for Duration of Status historically had a different unlawful presence calculation because their Forms I-94 generally said D/S rather than listing a fixed expiration date. Under the longstanding D/S framework, an F-1 student or J-1 exchange visitor was generally admitted for the duration of the authorized program or activity rather than until a particular calendar date.
That created an important distinction. A person could violate F-1 or J-1 status without necessarily beginning to accrue unlawful presence on the date of the violation. Under the USCIS framework applicable to D/S admissions, unlawful presence generally began after USCIS formally found a status violation while adjudicating an immigration benefit request, or after an immigration judge made the relevant determination.
That was the rule that mattered in my J-1 client’s case. She had unquestionably violated her J-1 status, but she had been admitted for D/S, and there had been no formal determination that started the unlawful presence clock under the framework applicable to her. On the facts of her case, her departure therefore would not have triggered the three-year or ten-year unlawful presence bar.
That conclusion was highly fact-specific. The absence of unlawful presence did not erase her status violation, and different facts, including a prior formal status determination, a different admission history, or another ground of inadmissibility, could have produced a different result. DHS is now changing the D/S system itself.
DHS published a final rule on July 17, 2026 that is scheduled to eliminate Duration of Status for F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors, and I representatives of foreign information media beginning September 15, 2026. This is no longer merely a proposed rule.
Under the final rule, future F-1 and J-1 admissions will generally use a fixed period of admission reflected by an Admit Until Date on Form I-94 rather than D/S. For someone admitted under the new fixed-date system, remaining in the United States after the authorized period expires will generally cause unlawful presence to begin accruing unless another rule provides a period of authorized stay.
In other words, the government will no longer necessarily need the type of later formal status determination that was so important under the traditional D/S framework. But the change does not mean every F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant currently in the United States suddenly begins accruing unlawful presence on September 15.
DHS created transition provisions for certain F and J nonimmigrants who were admitted for D/S before the rule takes effect and are maintaining status on the effective date. Those transition provisions create their own unlawful presence questions, and the final rule does not clearly resolve every possible scenario involving an existing D/S holder.
I address those questions separately in my article, “When Does Unlawful Presence Begin for F-1 and J-1 Visa Holders Under the New Duration of Status Rule?” The distinction is important because a person admitted under the new fixed-date system and someone who remains subject to the D/S transition provisions may have very different unlawful presence calculations.
As of the date of this article, the final rule is scheduled to take effect September 15, 2026.
A visa overstay does not automatically prevent someone from obtaining a green card inside the United States, but adjustment eligibility depends heavily on the immigration category and the person’s manner of entry. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, generally spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21, receive important exemptions from certain adjustment-of-status bars.
For example, a person who was inspected and admitted or paroled and later overstayed may still be able to adjust status as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen despite the overstay, assuming the person otherwise qualifies. If the applicant can adjust status without leaving the United States, departure may never occur and the three-year or ten-year unlawful presence bar may never be triggered.
But an overstay being excused for adjustment purposes does not eliminate every other immigration problem. Fraud or misrepresentation, certain criminal grounds, prior removal orders, entry without inspection, and other grounds of inadmissibility can independently affect eligibility.
The rules are also different for many family-preference and employment-based applicants. INA §§ 245(c) and 245(k), for example, contain separate rules concerning failures to maintain status and unauthorized employment. For some people, consular processing may therefore be necessary, and once departure becomes necessary, the unlawful presence calculation becomes especially important.
A person subject to the three-year or ten-year unlawful presence bar may qualify for a waiver, but eligibility depends on the immigration process and the existence of the required qualifying relative. For certain immigrant visa applicants, Form I-601A allows an applicant to seek a provisional unlawful presence waiver before departing the United States for the immigrant visa interview.
The waiver does not erase every possible immigration problem. Form I-601A addresses specified unlawful presence inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). It does not provide advance forgiveness for unrelated inadmissibility grounds that may arise during consular processing.
The applicant must also establish the required extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. Hardship to children is not independently enough to satisfy that statutory qualifying-relative requirement, although circumstances involving children can be relevant to the extent they affect the qualifying spouse or parent.
For someone who may need a waiver, identifying the actual inadmissibility ground before departure is critical.
Someone who may have overstayed or violated immigration status should determine both the status consequences and the unlawful presence consequences before making a decision about departure from the United States. The first step is to identify what actually governs the authorized stay.
Look at the Form I-94, not simply the expiration date printed on the visa in the passport. Then determine whether anything happened after admission that changed the analysis, such as a status violation, USCIS filing, pending adjustment application, SEVIS termination, extension or change-of-status request, removal proceeding, or formal government finding.
For F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors, there is now another question: Does the person’s case fall under the historical D/S framework, the 2026 transition provisions, or the new fixed-period admission system? A Form I-94 that still says D/S may not answer that question by itself once the new rule takes effect.
Most importantly, do not assume that leaving the United States is the safest way to “fix” an overstay. Departure can be the event that triggers a three-year or ten-year bar that was not preventing the person from remaining in the United States before departure.
At the same time, do not assume that the absence of unlawful presence means there is no immigration problem. A person can be out of status, removable, or ineligible for a particular immigration benefit without having accrued unlawful presence. These are separate legal questions.
If you are concerned about a visa overstay, a status violation, or possible unlawful presence, contact me at SG Legal Group to discuss your circumstances. The most important step is determining which rules apply before making a decision that cannot easily be undone.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and policies are subject to change, and individual circumstances vary. For advice specific to your situation, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney.
Legal research verified as of: August 27, 2026
Oleg Gherasimov, Esq.
Stay informed with our latest articles and resources.
