Can I work with my EAD stamp that is up to May 2010 upon POE if my k1 visa will expire this August?

[Surf2Salsa 0]

I have been following this very interesting topic, with what sounds like to great legal minds battling to the finish, and I'm left askng why is one given an EAD stamp upon arrival if they aren't allowed to work? Is it the new policy, as of April 2009, to not issue this stamp unpon arrival for K1 Visa applicants?

Dionne

You hit the nail on the head.

[payxibka 10,045]

I have been following this very interesting topic, with what sounds like to great legal minds battling to the finish, and I'm left askng why is one given an EAD stamp upon arrival if they aren't allowed to work? Is it the new policy, as of April 2009, to not issue this stamp unpon arrival for K1 Visa applicants?

Dionne

You hit the nail on the head.

For the most part, all POE's, other than JFK, do not stamp the I-94

[Surf2Salsa 0]

I have been following this very interesting topic, with what sounds like great legal minds battling to the finish, and I'm left askng myself why, if it's virtually useless, is a K1 able to get an EAD stamp upon arrival?

Dionne

The problem is a micro example of the US immigration mess that we face. In this example, is the Family Based Immigration and its policies. Where the K-1 process is a part of that. The thought being and the policy that follows is that in a K-1 visa it is assumed that the beneficiary would marry and stay in the US, therefore they are allowed to apply for a social security card and are authorized to work. The flip side is that current procedures do not take that into account and an EAD stamp on an I-94 is not valid for an I-9 document proving the beneficiary is authorized to work. Hence a catch 22 situation.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

Good night guys, going to use my new MetroPCS phone with unlimited international long distance to call the DR, then off to sleep.

Pick this back up tomorrow.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This does beg the question, since the OP was given such a long EAD, had they received it in March would they be grandfathered in.

Also, in this situation it seems to me that it is the employer's responsibility to determine eligibility not the employee. Hence if the OP searches for work and finds an employer willing to hire them and they incorrectly fill out the I9 then it is the employer that carries the responsibility.

[Lisa and Ian 7]

I have been following this very interesting topic, with what sounds like to great legal minds battling to the finish, and I'm left askng why is one given an EAD stamp upon arrival if they aren't allowed to work? Is it the new policy, as of April 2009, to not issue this stamp unpon arrival for K1 Visa applicants?

Dionne

You hit the nail on the head.

For the most part, all POE's, other than JFK, do not stamp the I-94

I thought I read somewhere that even JFK was not issuing temp EAD's any longer. Is that not the case?

[Cuchita 1]

My hubby came in April 18th POE JFK, got stamp, got a job cause the manager pulled out a list with instructions of who can work, and checked I-94, stamp and said okay we can hire you till I-94 expires. The I-94 expires tomorrow but he already got the EAD for one year when applied for AOS.

So the answer to your question is there, she can't work cause the EAD will be valid but not the I-94 after three months.

The question is: are they still stamping I-94 with the red "work authorized" stamp anymore?. Anybody here who came in JFK after april the 18?.

If you came JFK before april 18th then you should be good to work if got EAD stamp right?. Can they take it back? The new law should apply afterwards. Or how does the law work?.

[mikeandjoana 1]

im surprised how many responses i got. But im still confuse, I dont want to take the risk of applying for a job here if the stamp that was given to me will not be legal anymore by august even if the red stamp EAD states that its valid up to 2010. What is I-9?

[mikeandjoana 1]

My hubby came in April 18th POE JFK, got stamp, got a job cause the manager pulled out a list with instructions of who can work, and checked I-94, stamp and said okay we can hire you till I-94 expires. The I-94 expires tomorrow but he already got the EAD for one year when applied for AOS.

So the answer to your question is there, she can't work cause the EAD will be valid but not the I-94 after three months.

The question is: are they still stamping I-94 with the red "work authorized" stamp anymore?. Anybody here who came in JFK after april the 18?.

If you came JFK before april 18th then you should be good to work if got EAD stamp right?. Can they take it back? The new law should apply afterwards. Or how does the law work?.

I arrived here in NY (JFK) last May 7, 2009 and yes the officer stamped my I-94 with red EAD that will be valid until May 7, 2010 which really got me so confuse. I havent heard anyone had the same experience. If I can work using the I-94 then that would be nice. How long will the EAD from AOS going to arrive after sending it? I really dont know who to ask regarding this because USCIS themselves cant answer me but I think majority of the answers here are 'it's not possible for me to work now' so I guess ill just wait for my EAD from my AOS.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

I'm surprised at all the debate this has caused.

The I-9 is a USCIS form "Employment Eligibility Verification" required to be filled out and retained by an employer to verify that an employee is indeed eligible to work. Some employers will take your social security card, identification and I-94 with the EAD stamp fill out the I-9 have you sign it and say you are eligible to work, others upon following the letter of written procedures may not. The reason is that the i-94 with an EAD stamp of a K-1 Visa beneficiary is not listed as an acceptable document for employment verification as per the I-9 instructions. However a K-1 fiancee is eligible to work according the the Family Based Immigration Guidelines, thus the reason that a K-1 Fiancee gets a social security card.

Looks like, legally a K-1 Fiancee Beneficiary is entitled to work, however they can't legally prove it. Confused? Absolutely, immigration is confusing.

The answer is? The I-9 is on the burden of the employer, not the employee. I don't believe you are breaking any laws by working (don't know if others on this forum will jump all over me on that) but the employer may be breaking laws by not following the I-9 requirements. This seems like a catch 22 problem arising out of different departments within USCIS writing procedures based on guidelines and directives pertaining to their area while not being aware of the other.

It can get long and complicated describing all of these, and the bottom line is none of that is going to correct the problem.

I'm sure others will post more opinions on it for you.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It is good to remember that the reason K-1s are employment authorized has nothing to do with employment - it has to do with some states requiring a SSN before they will issue a marriage license and K-1s -who need to marry within 90 days- can only get a SSN if they are eligible to be employment authorized. It is NOT good advice to suggest someone work without proper authorization. It just takes the heartbreak of one workplace raid by ICE to discover someone working illegally, even if they are in the US legally. Extreme? yes - but also possible. Just because you 'might' be able to get away with something and someone else suffer the consequences, doesn't mean it is good advice to follow.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

Kathryn;

I'm sure that if you sat down 3 ICE officers and discussed this scenario you'll get 3 opinions. I'm going to dig up the Family Based Immigration Guidelines and quote some of it verbatim, hopefully by tonight. There is a big difference between being an illegal worker and being a legal one without the proper documentation proving you are legally entitled to work.

[mikeandjoana 1]

I'm surprised at all the debate this has caused.

The I-9 is a USCIS form "Employment Eligibility Verification" required to be filled out and retained by an employer to verify that an employee is indeed eligible to work. Some employers will take your social security card, identification and I-94 with the EAD stamp fill out the I-9 have you sign it and say you are eligible to work, others upon following the letter of written procedures may not. The reason is that the i-94 with an EAD stamp of a K-1 Visa beneficiary is not listed as an acceptable document for employment verification as per the I-9 instructions. However a K-1 fiancee is eligible to work according the the Family Based Immigration Guidelines, thus the reason that a K-1 Fiancee gets a social security card.

Looks like, legally a K-1 Fiancee Beneficiary is entitled to work, however they can't legally prove it. Confused? Absolutely, immigration is confusing.

The answer is? The I-9 is on the burden of the employer, not the employee. I don't believe you are breaking any laws by working (don't know if others on this forum will jump all over me on that) but the employer may be breaking laws by not following the I-9 requirements. This seems like a catch 22 problem arising out of different departments within USCIS writing procedures based on guidelines and directives pertaining to their area while not being aware of the other.

It can get long and complicated describing all of these, and the bottom line is none of that is going to correct the problem.

I'm sure others will post more opinions on it for you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ok. I understand what I-9 now is. i tried to research it too. Thanks! It's ok. It's actually nice to know and learn all these immigration stuffs though it is really confusing for all of us coz everyone has different understanding and interpretations even lawyers and USCIS sometimes doesnt know the answers to some of our questions.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Kathryn;

I'm sure that if you sat down 3 ICE officers and discussed this scenario you'll get 3 opinions. I'm going to dig up the Family Based Immigration Guidelines and quote some of it verbatim, hopefully by tonight. There is a big difference between being an illegal worker and being a legal one without the proper documentation proving you are legally entitled to work.

We can leave the ICE comment out of it - it still doesn't change the fact that it is bad advice to suggest someone accepts employment without having proper authorization. Again, just because you 'might' be able to get away with something and someone else suffer the consequences, doesn't mean it is good advice to follow.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I have to go with Surf2Salsa on this one. If you are given a document that says you can work by an immigration official and then you use that document the responsibility is either with the employer or the immigration official that gave you the document.

That would be like the DMV giving you a license because they goofed up and then 2 months later charging you with driving without one...its not your responsibility to determine the validity of a government document that clearly states "work authorized".

In the above situation regarding ICE the only "heartbreak" would be on the employer's side.

Edited July 15, 2009 by lancer1655