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

[Kathryn41 3,205]

The document you are given authorizes you to work with employment authorization - which means having an EAD. The K-1 by itself is not an employment authorization - it allows you to apply for one. The problem is that the EAD generally takes 3 months to approve and is only valid for the same length of time as the I-94 - 90 days. The EAD often expires before it is even issued. The K-1 by itself is NOT enough to work - you NEED the employment authorization to go with it. The stamp is no longer considered valid employment authorization. I repeat - just because you may not suffer the consequences first hand does not mean that you are free to engage in illegal activity.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Kathyrn, my point is this. If someone is given that stamp at entry that says they are work authorized then there is nothing illegal about them seeking work. It is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to determine if they should or should not have received it.

Simply put if they are caught working with it is both the fault of the employer and USCIS itself for giving it in the first place. USCIS SHOULD NOT BE GIVING THESE STAMPS OUT ANY LONGER and it IS THEIR mistake not the K1 holder - the K1 holder has done NOTHING illegal.

Edited July 16, 2009 by lancer1655

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Also I think I get your point which I agree with that while the K1 holder isn't doing anything illegal they should not knowingly endanger a company.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

I don't know if it's worth it to make any more comments on this topic anymore.

But, apparently every K-1 Fiancee visa holder using JFK as a POE is getting an EAD stamp on their I-94, subsequently going to the nearest social security office and applying for and receiving a social security number and the corresponding card in the mail. Yet it there they are intentionally breaking the law if they seek employment thereafter. I would love to see a Federal Judge's face as he/she looks at the prosecution on a case like this whether they charge the employer and/or the beneficiary with a violation.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't know if it's worth it to make any more comments on this topic anymore.

But, apparently every K-1 Fiancee visa holder using JFK as a POE is getting an EAD stamp on their I-94, subsequently going to the nearest social security office and applying for and receiving a social security number and the corresponding card in the mail. Yet it there they are intentionally breaking the law if they seek employment thereafter. I would love to see a Federal Judge's face as he/she looks at the prosecution on a case like this whether they charge the employer and/or the beneficiary with a violation.

Can you rephrase that because I don't understand what you mean.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

What I'm trying to say is that JFK is issuing a EAD stamp (Employment Authorization Stamp) on the I-94 upon entry. It seems to be fact that such a stamp is not valid for employment. Yet some of the responses in this thread have implied that it would be illegal to pursue and obtain employment thereafter. My comment being that I would love to see a Judge that would convict someone for that.

Going to bed, it's late.

I might make more sense in the morning.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ah now I see what you were saying. Yes I agree. I am arguing from two stand points here. On one hand I agree 100%, K1's are not authorized to work and it is illegal to do so until the EAD card has arrived. Yet I also recognize that if a K1 holder received that stamp, took it at face value and then became employed with it that individual did nothing wrong. The only individuals that did do something wrong were the Immigration Officer handing out the out of date stamp and the HR representative who accepted it. The holder is simply an innocent victim of all of this. Now I will clarify my position on this and say that I am speaking in principle terms for someone who committed such actions without knowing the back store to work authorization or the I 9 guidelines which, lets be fair, are not written with the intention of K1 holders to see.

I find posts in this thread that use terms such as illegal, criminal, and heartbreaking with regards to the would be employee inaccurate at best and equal to fear mongering at worst. Imagine that someone had logged on to this thread that had already gotten a job with the out of date temporary stamp. They were probably given no instructions on the stamps use and took it for face value. It is not their fault as they are not responsible for knowing the I 9 employer instructions. They are an employee. Now they'll be running around thinking they are in serious trouble and a criminal when in fact they are innocent in all of this.

USCIS needs to:

A. Educate the border officers IF they are still giving out the stamps. and/or

B. Create a specific instruction to all K1 holder's at the embassy instead of relying on only the I 9 instructions to clarify the authorization, which a majority of K1 holders will never see unless they enter into the field of HR.

Edited July 16, 2009 by lancer1655

[rebeccajo 14]

Ah now I see what you were saying. Yes I agree. I am arguing from two stand points here. On one hand I agree 100%, K1's are not authorized to work and it is illegal to do so until the EAD card has arrived. Yet I also recognize that if a K1 holder received that stamp, took it at face value and then became employed with it that individual did nothing wrong. The only individuals that did do something wrong were the Immigration Officer handing out the out of date stamp and the HR representative who accepted it. The holder is simply an innocent victim of all of this. Now I will clarify my position on this and say that I am speaking in principle terms for someone who committed such actions without knowing the back store to work authorization or the I 9 guidelines which, lets be fair, are not written with the intention of K1 holders to see.

I find posts in this thread that use terms such as illegal, criminal, and heartbreaking with regards to the would be employee inaccurate at best and equal to fear mongering at worst. Imagine that someone had logged on to this thread that had already gotten a job with the out of date temporary stamp. They were probably given no instructions on the stamps use and took it for face value. It is not their fault as they are not responsible for knowing the I 9 employer instructions. They are an employee. Now they'll be running around thinking they are in serious trouble and a criminal when in fact they are innocent in all of this.

USCIS needs to:

A. Educate the border officers IF they are still giving out the stamps. and/or

B. Create a specific instruction to all K1 holder's at the embassy instead of relying on only the I 9 instructions to clarify the authorization, which a majority of K1 holders will never see unless they enter into the field of HR.

Just a few points -

Every US citizen will see the instructions for the I9 in their lifetime. It's on the back of the form and you get one to fill out every time you are hired for a new job.

The stamp given by JFK is a clarification of the incident work status of a K1 beneficiary. It is not permission to work. Meaning that the visa in passport itself does not indicate that a K1 is eligible to work if they have proper documentation.

The back of the I9 is now crystal clear because it lists the acceptable USCIS issued documents by enumeration.

And finally - even if the stamped I94 were an acceptable document, what practical good is a document that allows a person to work for a period of 90 days? Would you hire a person for anything other than a seasonal position with such a document?

Long before the recent clarifications of work eligibility the practical advice given to K1 holders has been to come to the states with a financial plan that allows for a period of unemployment. One of the most crucial points of this plan is to file for adjustment of status as soon as possible in order to obtain form I765, the EAD. Persons who remain in the US outside the timeframe of their I94 are not only out of status, but they are stopping the clock being able to assimilate to life in the US by gaining legal employment.

Lancer and Salsa - this is not a gray area any longer. It is also not a case of two departments of USCIS not knowing what the other is doing. It is the law - plain and simple. The law has clarified which documents are acceptable for legal employment. It is not hard to understand.

[TracyTN 237]

So then why do they even bother with the stamps at JFK anymore?

[rebeccajo 14]

So then why do they even bother with the stamps at JFK anymore?

I can only conjecture on that one based upon readings that clarify the stamp was NEVER sufficient.

The stamp was issued (IMO) to clarify that a K1 is work authorized. But it wasn't the 'proof' document. I765 or I551 was/is the document. I9 simply was not clear before.

So the stamped I94 isn't 'wrong' even now. The stamp is a physical proof that the entrant is eligible to apply for a SS number and it's a physical confirmation to the entrant they are eligible to apply with the Service for an EAD.

Some of this goes back to the 'good old days' when K1's could actually walk into their local office and file for a I765 in person.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Kathyrn, my point is this. If someone is given that stamp at entry that says they are work authorized then there is nothing illegal about them seeking work. It is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to determine if they should or should not have received it.

Simply put if they are caught working with it is both the fault of the employer and USCIS itself for giving it in the first place. USCIS SHOULD NOT BE GIVING THESE STAMPS OUT ANY LONGER and it IS THEIR mistake not the K1 holder - the K1 holder has done NOTHING illegal.

See, that is the issue. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... If your standing before the IJ and try to plead that defense, good luck with that!

USCIS doesn't give out these stamps. CBP does and it appears only at JFK. (unknown if they still do so)

[TracyTN 237]

So then why do they even bother with the stamps at JFK anymore?

I can only conjecture on that one based upon readings that clarify the stamp was NEVER sufficient.

The stamp was issued (IMO) to clarify that a K1 is work authorized. But it wasn't the 'proof' document. I765 or I551 was/is the document. I9 simply was not clear before.

So the stamped I94 isn't 'wrong' even now. The stamp is a physical proof that the entrant is eligible to apply for a SS number and it's a physical confirmation to the entrant they are eligible to apply with the Service for an EAD.

Some of this goes back to the 'good old days' when K1's could actually walk into their local office and file for a I765 in person.

So basically there IS no benefit in getting it. If all it is now is proof that K1s are work authorized for SSA purposes - something you can prove by printing off the SSA's own rules (in my sig).

If it harkens back to the good old days, but the system has radically changed now, why even offer it at all? Seems CBP and USCIS do not communicate very well (quelle surprise)...!

[Nik+Heather 121]

I find posts in this thread that use terms such as illegal, criminal, and heartbreaking with regards to the would be employee inaccurate at best and equal to fear mongering at worst.

Well, in reality, I would feel pretty fearful working without knowing I was absolutely authorized around where I live....Ever heard of Sheriff Joe?? I'd tell you about him, but that would be "fear mongering". Google for yourself, how workplace raids don't only affect the employer.

Is the couple hundred dollars you could make while waiting for the EAD to come through really worth all that?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I find posts in this thread that use terms such as illegal, criminal, and heartbreaking with regards to the would be employee inaccurate at best and equal to fear mongering at worst.

Well, in reality, I would feel pretty fearful working without knowing I was absolutely authorized around where I live....Ever heard of Sheriff Joe?? I'd tell you about him, but that would be "fear mongering". Google for yourself, how workplace raids don't only affect the employer.

Is the couple hundred dollars you could make while waiting for the EAD to come through really worth all that?

Sister Heather is wise.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'll admit my view of EAD is somewhat different then most peoples here after spending much time talking about it with my congressman's rep and my old attorney. You'll find that USCIS takes this issue far less seriously for k1 holder's then the posters of this forum.

I stand by my statement that a K1 holder entering the country and using the stamp without knowing that it isn't really authorized is not at risk of losing their status. This should be a mute point anyway as the stamps should no longer be given out. At any rate find me a case of a K1 holder with the stamp getting a fine, entry ban, or loss of residency and I will of course change my tune.