EAD stamp needed?

[rebeccajo 14]

Cheers for the links Johnny. I'm so glad it's a point of interest for some at least because, to me, there has to be a reason why JFK issue EAD's and why the other POE's don't issue them anymore. There just had to be some little memo somewhere or other. But, as you say, (and this is true for those obtaining the precious stamp) the real issue is the period awaiting AOS. Is it worth getting a job for a couple of months then being forced into unemployment anyway? I would rather have that option though and rather not go through JFK since getting to LA from England via JFK is a complete nightmare

You mean a "little memo" like the CFR, for example

TITLE 8 OF CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (8 CFR) \ 8 CFR PART 274a -- CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS \ Sec. 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

"Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)-(a)(8), (a)(10)-(a)(15), or (a)(20) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a document evidencing such employment authorization."

lol, that wasn't quite the 'memo' I was referring to. So, the SSA are going against federal law by accepting an unstamped K1 visa as employment authorisation for the first 90 days? I'm confused why one organisation says one thing...also still confused as to why JFK issue the stamp but nowhere else will.

No.

The Social Security Administration doesn't 'work authorize' anyone. The give out Social Security numbers (so that your employer can collect SS deductions from your legal earned wages) and administer benefits to you (when you are eligible for them).

To those of you with a K1 visa in your passport, they will give you a Social Security card imprinted with the big black letters "Authorized for Employment only with USCIS Approval" (or something close to that - I forget what my husband's said verbatim).

The EAD stamp from JFK is the "document evidencing employment authorization". Without it, even though you may be work authorized as a K1, you possess no document proving that authorization.

[rebeccajo 14]

I know that their is always the concern about the I-9 about this issue. However this section appears to outline the k1 status very clearly.

List A - Documents that Establish Both Identity and Employment Eligibility

5. An unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, if that status authorizes the alien to work for the employer

Are there any thoughts on this? Since K1 is a status that allows the alien employee to work is this issue really about employer confusion and not about work eligibility?

Thanks

Read that closely. It's not referring to K1's at all. The verbage is 'authorizes the alien to work for THE employer'.

Remember when you read language regarding aliens in this country that there is more than one class of them. Many are employment based. Employment-authorized aliens have visas which specificially authorize them to work for one individual employer. The language you are reading refers to them.

[bakofoil 27]

No.

The Social Security Administration doesn't 'work authorize' anyone. The give out Social Security numbers (so that your employer can collect SS deductions from your legal earned wages) and administer benefits to you (when you are eligible for them).

To those of you with a K1 visa in your passport, they will give you a Social Security card imprinted with the big black letters "Authorized for Employment only with USCIS Approval" (or something close to that - I forget what my husband's said verbatim).

The EAD stamp from JFK is the "document evidencing employment authorization". Without it, even though you may be work authorized as a K1, you possess no document proving that authorization.

Rebecca, I apologise but I find this totally confusing. So please don't think I'm arguing for argument's sake. I find the US legal terminology confusing for one thing.

The OP posted a memo from the SSA which states that K1 holders can be issued with a work authorised SSN, then I-9 seems to suggest that an unstamped K1 visa can be accepted as proof of work authorisation alongside other documents but the CFR which diaddie posted states otherwise. I get what you're saying about the SSA, in practice, not being able to authorise without USCIS approval (as per the CFR I take it) but why is the memo and I-9 info conflicting with that?

I feel like I'm saying 'but why?' like a child but it just seems so unclear to me (at least). It seems there *might* be a way around this, but I trust you and diaddie and others who have experienced this that there isn't. However, I am still finding it hard getting why there is conflicting info at all, and why JFK is the chosen one for stamping visas. Do they have specialised immigration officers or something? I'm sorry, I am really not trying to be awkward here

[rebeccajo 14]

Have you looked at the I9 and the instructions for it?

[bakofoil 27]

Yeah, I read it the other day. I think I read the following:

List A:

An unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, if that status authorizes the alien to work for the employer

and assumed that because it didn't state stamped and the SSA stuff stated that a K1 could be considered as work authorised even if the visa was not stamped that production of the visa along with a work authorised SSN would be sufficient.

But, this is saying that the visa has to be specific to a particular employer - so a work visa?

[rebeccajo 14]

Yeah, I read it the other day. I think I read the following:

List A:

An unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, if that status authorizes the alien to work for the employer

and assumed that because it didn't state stamped and the SSA stuff stated that a K1 could be considered as work authorised even if the visa was not stamped that production of the visa along with a work authorised SSN would be sufficient.

But, this is saying that the visa has to be specific to a particular employer - so a work visa?

I believe so, yes.

[bakofoil 27]

Ok thanks.

[StoryAngel 4]

babblesgirl, I also find this situation to be entirely unsatisfactory and as yet I'm not convinced I understand it fully or know what I shall do. If you come up with any other ideas please share them!

[Johnnie Oz 0]

I know that their is always the concern about the I-9 about this issue. However this section appears to outline the k1 status very clearly.

List A - Documents that Establish Both Identity and Employment Eligibility

5. An unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, if that status authorizes the alien to work for the employer

Are there any thoughts on this? Since K1 is a status that allows the alien employee to work is this issue really about employer confusion and not about work eligibility?

Thanks

Read that closely. It's not referring to K1's at all. The verbage is 'authorizes the alien to work for THE employer'.

Remember when you read language regarding aliens in this country that there is more than one class of them. Many are employment based. Employment-authorized aliens have visas which specificially authorize them to work for one individual employer. The language you are reading refers to them.

We have been down this road before and there is MORE than one way to interpret this Speaking in absolutes does no one any favors...

On this forum, we tend to be too family visa centered and do indeed tend to forget about other alien classes. Rebeccajo is right about this... Read this USCIS bulletin for some clarity.

Look,

The other key to this part of the I-9 is the word "status" and if you combine this with "authorizes the alien to work for the employer", the following interpretation strikes me as equally plausible:

- in the case of H-1Bs, we are talking about a status that only authorizes an alien to work for ONE particular employer (as specified on the I-129 petition and mentioned on I-94). That employer can under very specific conditions "place the H-1B" on the worksite of another employer. Click here.

Thus if they try to work elsewhere, while "work authorized", they must be turned away. In those cases, they are not authorized for THE employer.

Remember that H1-Bs do NOT receive EADs (we do) and thus this phrasing is particularly important for them.

- conversely, in the case of K1s the status authorizes aliens to work for ANY employer (as long as you have EA/EAD, unexpired I-94). Thus our status authorizes us to work for "THE employer", any employer.

My take: this part of the I-9 DOES refer to us (and several other visa statuses), but in our case only during the first 90 days WITH or WITHOUT JFK EA stamp. JFK stamp helps since it is more convincing, but until our I-94 expires (another key word, unexpired foreign passport with unexpired I-94" ) we do not really need anything else. And with the help of various US Gov't printouts I'm sure we can convince an employer of this.

The problem remains: once I-94 expires, before I-766 (EAD) is approved. There appears to be no way of filling out the

I-9 during this gap. Either because we are not allowed to work then, or because we just can't prove it.

them's my two cents...

[Johnnie Oz 0]

Forgot to add the phrasing from the USCIS bulletin

Eg, Folks with green cards are aliens who fall under "PERMANENT, UNRESTRICTED EMPLOYMENT"

Eg, K1s are aliens who fall under "TEMPORARY, UNRESTRICTED EMPLOYMENT"

Eg, H1bs are aliens who fall under "TEMPORARY, RESTRICTED EMPLOYMENT (EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC)"

surely if a category on the I-9 only applies to one of these, it would state so. If not, a section can refer to one or the other. Otherwise, there is NO section of the I-9 that refers to K1s with the JFK stamp! The only category that mentions I-94s and status is the one we are discussing. The rest require actual EADS or GCs or US Passports...

Either it applies to us or we really cannot work during the first 90 days (which of course makes no sense since we are indeed "work authorized")

[rebeccajo 14]

You can work. With the proper documents. Mermaid put up the language and it's clear.

Johnnie, I'm glad you cited the threads wherein we had this conversation before, as I cited two law firms who clearly explain what the language means.

Here's my thinking on this whole deal anyway - and I'm coming at this from the standpoint of an employer. Why would I want to mess with hiring you for less than 90 days? And especially when you have such a foggy argument? Unless you are highly skilled and exactly what I need for the job at hand, I can easily get someone else who is arguably more employable.

From a practical standpoint, 'arguing' your case to an employer makes no sense. As the employer, I would just turn you off. And it wouldn't be discrimination either. The fact that I have to let you go at the end of your 90 days is enough for me to justify not investing in your training.

For all practical purposes, a K1 should plan on an extended holiday when they first arrive stateside. I personally have never understood the fuss to get to work right away. There's loads plenty of other 'assimilation' the immigrant can be busying themselves with. And yes - I understand that some people NEED to work as soon as possible. We were no exception to that rule. But we made a financial plan that allowed for my husband to be unemployed for about 9 months - it was enough time.

Edited February 16, 2008 by rebeccajo

[bakofoil 27]

Well, I do happen to have a contingency fund in case I am not able to work for an extended period of time. It would be nice though, to use that money towards a down payment on a house, but if not then hey ho. Don't assume that I have not prepared or thought this through to the nth degree.

Like others here, I am considering going through JFK and equally considering not going through JFK. I am trying to source as much information as I can so that I can make an informed decision on what precisely to do. Either way I'm sure I will be fine.

I don't understand why it seems so irksome to ask questions about some of the obvious anomalies in documentation. I agree though that perhaps arguing this point to an employer may prove fruitless and irksome. But, lets just suppose that I am in a profession which is highly skilled and in high demand and therefore being able to say to an employer "I can work for you until July" would bear fruit. Then I would be perfectly within my rights to want to argue this point. What I would prefer to do though is understand the process fully before wasting my breath.

For the record, I am in precisely the position I have just described.

[rebeccajo 14]

Well, I do happen to have a contingency fund in case I am not able to work for an extended period of time. It would be nice though, to use that money towards a down payment on a house, but if not then hey ho. Don't assume that I have not prepared or thought this through to the nth degree.

Like others here, I am considering going through JFK and equally considering not going through JFK. I am trying to source as much information as I can so that I can make an informed decision on what precisely to do. Either way I'm sure I will be fine.

I don't understand why it seems so irksome to ask questions about some of the obvious anomalies in documentation. I agree though that perhaps arguing this point to an employer may prove fruitless and irksome. But, lets just suppose that I am in a profession which is highly skilled and in high demand and therefore being able to say to an employer "I can work for you until July" would bear fruit. Then I would be perfectly within my rights to want to argue this point. What I would prefer to do though is understand the process fully before wasting my breath.

For the record, I am in precisely the position I have just described.

Oh, it's not 'irksome' at all. It is rather 'tiresome' sometimes to explain it - over and over again - when it seems like the readers don't want to accept the facts, that's all. And I'm not speaking of you specifically. To those who desperately want or need to work, of course they will try to find the answer they want to hear. It isn't always there. So I suppose we end up sounding like 'harpies'.

If you are indeed in the position you describe, then you need to go through JFK, because you need a document from the service that PROVES your work authorization.

Why? Well, here's something else for you to ponder. Employers need to be versed in being able to collect the proof of someone's legal employment. But they shouldn't be expected to understand all the nuances of immigration. Even though you and I might know a K1 is work authorized, realistically is it up to the employer to know that? Why shouldn't an immigrant be expected to prove it with something stronger than a cite from the code that even we can debate till the cows come home.

Get yourself the JFK stamp. Then - you have the proof.

Edited February 17, 2008 by rebeccajo

[bakofoil 27]

Oh, it's not 'irksome' at all. It is rather 'tiresome' sometimes to explain it - over and over again - when it seems like the readers don't want to accept the facts, that's all. And I'm not speaking of you specifically. To those who desperately want or need to work, of course they will try to find the answer they want to hear. It isn't always there. So I suppose we end up sounding like 'harpies'.

If you are indeed in the position you describe, then you need to go through JFK, because you need a document from the service that PROVES your work authorization.

Why? Well, here's something else for you to ponder. Employers need to be versed in being able to collect the proof of someone's legal employment. But they shouldn't be expected to understand all the nuances of immigration. Even though you and I might know a K1 is work authorized, realistically is it up to the employer to know that? Why shouldn't an immigrant be expected to prove it with something stronger than a cite from the code that even we can debate till the cows come home.

Get yourself the JFK stamp. Then - you have the proof.

Well, since you put it like that - I'm inclined to agree. I rather like the words 'irksome' and 'harpies'. I am always grateful for your input Rebecca, so don't think I consider it harping when you attempt to boot me up the backside from time to time with the facts. I was more irked, if anything, by the differing interpretation of these 'facts' by me and by others. We all seem to have an intelligent view on the matter, however those views may differ, but, as you say, arguing these points with the powers that be is not so easy as arguing the to$$ on a message board.

I hope, one day, when I'm gray and old (and more irksome than I am now) that the powers that be will make these issues more clear cut.

[Texanadian 10]

Question for the people who got the JFK stamp. When you went for the SS card, did you get the regular SS card or the "valid only with DHS authorization" card?

I picked up the pamphlet "Your Social Security Number and Card" from the SS office the other day. There are 3 different types of cards they give out.

1) Regular SS card: given to US citizens and green card holders.

2) "The second type of card shows your name and number and notes VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION. We issue this type of card to people lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis who have DHS authorization to work."

3) "The third type of card shows your name and umber and notes NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT. We issue this to people from other countries who are lawfully admitted to the United States without work authorization from DHS.

Isn't that interesting? That the 2) card above that we all get states that you need DHS for work. Yet they only give the card out to people who are already DHS authorized. Kind of putting the cart before the horse if you ask me.