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

[Cuchita 1]

So then its up to each person, if you get prosecuted then it won't be hard to get out of it, anyways you say the CBP is under DHS, and the SS card says you can work with DHS authorization, then any officer who gives a stamp authorizing it should be valid. Who cares what the I-9 says, thats USCIS not DHS.

Tracy, YES!!! That is my whole point! Why don't they? and until they do I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted!.

By the way, i'm only arguing this from a k1 holder who is in the dark, which should be no one here. Bobby mentioned ignorance of the law is no excuse which I agree with. However the main way a k1 holder would get hung up for working is during the AOS interview. In that situation it has more to do with knowingly working without authorization versus working without authorization but not realizing it.

And to Bobby's comment if that were to ever happen (again show me the money on this one) with decent representation you would easily get out of it.

[rebeccajo 14]

So then its up to each person, if you get prosecuted then it won't be hard to get out of it, anyways you say the CBP is under DHS, and the SS card says you can work with DHS authorization, then any officer who gives a stamp authorizing it should be valid. Who cares what the I-9 says, thats USCIS not DHS.

Tracy, YES!!! That is my whole point! Why don't they? and until they do I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted!.

By the way, i'm only arguing this from a k1 holder who is in the dark, which should be no one here. Bobby mentioned ignorance of the law is no excuse which I agree with. However the main way a k1 holder would get hung up for working is during the AOS interview. In that situation it has more to do with knowingly working without authorization versus working without authorization but not realizing it.

And to Bobby's comment if that were to ever happen (again show me the money on this one) with decent representation you would easily get out of it.

Ummmmmm..........no.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So then its up to each person, if you get prosecuted then it won't be hard to get out of it, anyways you say the CBP is under DHS, and the SS card says you can work with DHS authorization, then any officer who gives a stamp authorizing it should be valid. Who cares what the I-9 says, thats USCIS not DHS.

Tracy, YES!!! That is my whole point! Why don't they? and until they do I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted!.

By the way, i'm only arguing this from a k1 holder who is in the dark, which should be no one here. Bobby mentioned ignorance of the law is no excuse which I agree with. However the main way a k1 holder would get hung up for working is during the AOS interview. In that situation it has more to do with knowingly working without authorization versus working without authorization but not realizing it.

And to Bobby's comment if that were to ever happen (again show me the money on this one) with decent representation you would easily get out of it.

Your near my point but not quite there. First USCIS IS DHS. Second the stamp is invalid and the I 9 is supposed to catch that its invalid. I'll try another analogy that might help people understand this better.

The DMV changes how it issues licenses. They decide to break the standard license into two classes. Lets call them C1 and C2. C1 is for under 3000lbs C2 above. Now on April 2010 they are to never issue a C license but instead based on age they must issue a C1 or a C2.

Now you go to the office in May 2010 to get your license and are issued a regular C license. Now this license is no longer valid but the DMV made a mistake and you go on your merry way. Now you get pulled over and the officer sees you have C license not a c1 or a c2. Either he will warn you that it is not valid and to get a new one or you may go to court, but in the end you would get off because its not your responsibility to determine the validity of a government issued document. This is very different from being ignorant of a law.

[rebeccajo 14]

So then its up to each person, if you get prosecuted then it won't be hard to get out of it, anyways you say the CBP is under DHS, and the SS card says you can work with DHS authorization, then any officer who gives a stamp authorizing it should be valid. Who cares what the I-9 says, thats USCIS not DHS.

Tracy, YES!!! That is my whole point! Why don't they? and until they do I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted!.

By the way, i'm only arguing this from a k1 holder who is in the dark, which should be no one here. Bobby mentioned ignorance of the law is no excuse which I agree with. However the main way a k1 holder would get hung up for working is during the AOS interview. In that situation it has more to do with knowingly working without authorization versus working without authorization but not realizing it.

And to Bobby's comment if that were to ever happen (again show me the money on this one) with decent representation you would easily get out of it.

Your near my point but not quite there. First USCIS IS DHS. Second the stamp is invalid and the I 9 is supposed to catch that its invalid. I'll try another analogy that might help people understand this better.

The DMV changes how it issues licenses. They decide to break the standard license into two classes. Lets call them C1 and C2. C1 is for under 3000lbs C2 above. Now on April 2010 they are to never issue a C license but instead based on age they must issue a C1 or a C2.

Now you go to the office in May 2010 to get your license and are issued a regular C license. Now this license is no longer valid but the DMV made a mistake and you go on your merry way. Now you get pulled over and the officer sees you have C license not a c1 or a c2. Either he will warn you that it is not valid and to get a new one or you may go to court, but in the end you would get off because its not your responsibility to determine the validity of a government issued document. This is very different from being ignorant of a law.

lancer -

Please don't do this.

We can't assume a 'slap on the wrist' with these situations. Really we can't.

Do you know what an ICE raid is like? There used to be a member here whose fiance was involved in one. And the raid happened in my hometown - it was in the papers and everybody knew about it. It is literally like what you see in the movies - guns drawn and the employees on the ground with weapons to their temples, handcuffed and then taken away to a holding facility.

[Surf2Salsa 0]

This has become an interesting thread, and heated at times. My blackberry got tied up receiving emails with updates from this thread today.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You miss my point...and do enlighten me regarding ICE raid with specifics please. Links would be nice as well from original sources

[Chica Yeyé 41]

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Moreover you have made an assertion that an employer will be raided by incorrectly filling out an I9. I have yet to see an ICE raid follow a company who follows the I9 instructions but makes a mistake with one or two individuals. Every ICE raid I have seen involves people illegally in the country with no right to work.

If an I9 is filled out incorrectly the first step is not raid but a letter or phone call.

Simply put unless you show me a raid on an individual holding a temp stamp where they were prosecuted then I will change my opinion that k1 holders who unknowingly use their JFK stamps will be not be prosecuted. Otherwise I will assume you are using fear mongering simply to further your point.

Edited July 16, 2009 by lancer1655

[Surf2Salsa 0]

The I-9 remains on file in the employer archives. It can even be scanned and the image stored digitally. The I-9 is never mailed or submitted to the Internal Revenue Service, USCIS or a labor department. Typically they are kept in the employee file with the W-4, employee application, copies of identification, etc., upon an inspection or request the employer is required to present the completed form for review.

ICE raids are a whole different matter.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Just to summarize what I've said earlier in this thread.

I am not giving any advise in this thread to the OP or to anyone else that they should try to use the stamp to get employment. As I mentioned before I 100% agree the stamp is not valid and K1 holders should not use it. However, I am having a technical discussion regarding where the responsibility of the stamp lies.

I've noticed some posters have said things like "don't do this" or stop discussing that. I think we can have an open discussion about the theoretical application without users asking for the discussion to end so long as no one gives incorrect advise within the thread.

[rebeccajo 14]

Just to summarize what I've said earlier in this thread.

I am not giving any advise in this thread to the OP or to anyone else that they should try to use the stamp to get employment. As I mentioned before I 100% agree the stamp is not valid and K1 holders should not use it. However, I am having a technical discussion regarding where the responsibility of the stamp lies.

I've noticed some posters have said things like "don't do this" or stop discussing that. I think we can have an open discussion about the theoretical application without users asking for the discussion to end so long as no one gives incorrect advise within the thread.

lancer -

I would draw your attention to the posts in this thread by the member Cuchita. The dialougue in and around her is telling. Your discussion is misleading and causes confusion on the part of members looking for a correct answer.

I concur there won't be an ICE raid because of one misfiled I9. I also promise you that I won't give you a 'link' for what I do know of these raids. There are times you just have to take the word of people who have studied the system for years. Hopefully that won't be an issue for you in the future.

You are doing readers a disservice by implying that a K1 holder could plead ignorance - if caught. If you don't get that, then I don't know what to say to you. There are times when it does no one any good to belabor a point.

The guidance is clear. A stamped I94 is not proof of USCIS authorization to work. Even if stamped by a TSA employee who is employed at the pleasure of the Department of Homeland Security.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I must disagree with you.

Everyone in this forum is an adult and must make their own decisions. To say that my debate will lead a user down a wrong path belittles that user's intelligence. As I have mentioned earlier I have consistently advised users without EAD to not work in this thread. To say that I am supporting K1 holders to plead ignorance goes further then what I have said. I am speaking in theoretical terms about someone who is truly ignorant of the I9 rules and who's employer makes a mistake. As I have said everyone in this thread in this forum is not ignorant of such rules and so therefore the argument does not apply to them.

Moreover to say that a discussion can not take place because you assume surrounding members cannot think for themselves is foolish.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

The discussion is now going in circles without resolution. The differences of opinion about what should or shouldn't be do not change the fact that K-1s require specifically identified Employment Authorization in order to work legally.

It seems unlikely that anything more will come out of this thread other than further disagreements, so I am closing this thread.