US F-1 visa rejection: Choose self-respect over degree, says Indian student

An Indian engineering graduate admitted to a top American university was denied an F-1 visa under Section 214(b), exposing how subjective interviews can derail study plans

For most Indian students, studying in the United States represents years of effort, expense, and anticipation, but sometimes the dream ends not with a rejection from a university, but from a visa officer. That was the case for one engineering graduate who had secured a place in a top-15 American university to study Computer Science, only to be denied an F-1 student visa. “I’ve spent enough time and resources chasing a fleeting dream,” he wrote. “I’ve decided to keep working, prioritising my peace and self-respect over a degree.”

 

What followed was a story that exposes the uncertainty of the system, and how easily a promising student’s plans can collapse on a single officer’s decision.

 

The student, who had a strong academic record and two years of professional experience, was admitted for the Fall 2025 intake, he wrote on Reddit. But because of visa appointment delays caused by an F-1 processing freeze, he deferred to Spring 2026. When the time finally came, he travelled for biometrics and the interview. After waiting three hours in line, he was refused under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a clause that lets consular officers deny visas if they believe the applicant hasn’t proved they will return home after study.

 

“For a so-called officer to say I’m ‘ineligible’ to study in the US after making me stand in line for three hours felt pretty bad,” he said.

 

He later reflected that the questions asked gave him little scope to explain his case, and that his rejection seemed less about his credentials and more about a system built on subjective judgement.

 

What is the F-1 visa and what does Section 214(b) mean?

 

The F-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa for students coming to the US for full-time study at accredited institutions. Applicants must show they have secured admission, can pay their tuition and living expenses, and intend to return home after graduation.

 

Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act places the burden on the applicant to prove they qualify for non-immigrant status. The law reads: “Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he is entitled to non-immigrant status.”

 

In effect, this means a refusal under 214(b) usually reflects one of two conclusions:

• The officer is not convinced the applicant will leave the US at the end of their studies.

• The applicant has failed to meet one or more of the specific visa requirements such as sufficient funds or valid admission.

 

Why do Indian students face 214(b) refusals?

 

Many Indian students are vulnerable to this clause. Reasons often include:

 

Weak ties to home country: Applicants are expected to show strong personal or economic connections, such as employment, family, or property, that would bring them back after graduation. Without persuasive evidence, officers may assume an intent to immigrate.

Short interviews and subjective impressions: Some students report being asked only one or two questions before being handed a refusal slip, leaving little room to explain their intent or plans.

Unclear standards: The rules do not specify what qualifies as “strong enough” ties, leaving decisions open to individual interpretation.

Increased scrutiny: With the large number of Indian applicants, consular officers sometimes review cases more cautiously, particularly if the chosen programme or institution appears loosely connected to the applicant’s professional background.

 

The applicant’s perspective

 

Even for those with excellent profiles, a refusal can feel arbitrary. As the student wrote, “Although some cases of refusal are for blatant immigrant intent, a refusal in cases like these are nothing short of cruel. A bright student just trying to get a good education is being denied an opportunity just because the VO wasn’t feeling bonita.”

 

He suggested alternatives such as replacing interviews with a written statement of intent, requiring officers to provide clearer reasons for rejection, and creating a process for appeal. He also cited examples from online forums showing applicants who were denied once and approved later with almost identical profiles, calling it “borderline arbitrary”.

 

Faced with rejection and uncertainty, the student decided to stop reapplying. “I have a reasonably good job and a supportive family,” he wrote. “With ever increasing xenophobia, fewer job opportunities and restrictions, I’ve decided to keep working, prioritising my peace and self-respect over a degree.”