Authorization for working prior to receiving EAD and AOS

[visacheck 3]

As long as the business is a separate taxable idenity then technically no it doesn't affect the owner.

I interned for a woman who's business was a hobby and never turned a profit. As far as I know she didn't even gave herself a salary.

Was the owner a K1 non immigrant visa holder? If she is a PR or USC, then ofcourse it doesnt really matter whether she gets paid or not.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think you missed my point.

[visacheck 3]

I think you missed my point.

You also missed my point.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You had a point?

[visacheck 3]

You had a point?

Assuming the OP wanted to start a business... I wanted to know how gary's suggestion (OP can create a business) would be doable (as per Otto und Karin) knowing that the OP (K1 holder) is not allowed to generate any income because she does not have her EAD yet.

You mentioned you interned for a woman who's business was a hobby, never turned profit and never gave herself salary. Were you trying to say that the OP (K1 visa holder) can start a business, not work for the company and get no income whatsoever. Am I correct? In that case, then I guess yes it is doable. Now I get your point.

All I need to know now is... can a K1 visa holder apply for a business license or be a business partner with a USC? If yes, I will be convinced that it is certainly doable. I will start a new thread so I wont be accused of hijacking this thread.

[rebeccajo 14]

There is one other way. Create a business (which you CAN do) even a partnership with your husband, Payments are made to the the business NOT to you. Your husband can withdraw or transfer funds from the business. You can VOLUNTEER to work for the business.

Oooh, I had wondered about this. Do you have any reference material online you can point me towards to prove this? As we well know, what is fact and what is understood by involved agencies are often 2 separate cases!

I'd also like to see 'reference material' that proves this fact and others regarding employment as stated by Gary's new best friend, the VSC director.

[rebeccajo 14]

With a Director saying its okay maybe it will stop.

Why?

The guy is head of VSC. He's not an expert in all areas of immigration. He's a good source of information, but unless he's worked in every branch of Homeland Security, he can't be all-knowing. The entire system is constructed that way ON PURPOSE.

Besides, it's already been documented that he has informed Gary erroneously on at least one matter.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

True, though we know by now that there isn't any material out there regarding the matter. All we've been able to go off of is attorney's advice, immigration officers @ interviews, infopass appointments and now the director of VSC.

What I would really like to know is if this is merely a loophole or if the whole work authorization system is only meant to protect US jobs hence the above two options are outside that scope.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sousuke

[Jeffyscookie 0]

Thank you for all your comments.

I don't think that the idea of starting my business is real and I don't consider it. Thank you though.

I am still trying to decide whether it is legal for me to work as a freelance translator (not an employee) for the agencies outside of the US, to discuss the rates and the deadlines and such by phone, through e-mails etc., but not to receive my payments until I get my EAD. I am still a Russian citizen, I can theoretically pay my income tax in Russia as an individual person (not a legal entity, not an employee, not an individual entrepreneur). It is not easy to do it practically but still possible.

If I understand correctly the USCIS is interested not in the fact how I spend my days (do I translate or crochet) but whether I get some income in America or not.

???

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

As far as I can tell what USCIS is interested in is protecting US Jobs. EAD enforcement is set up along those lines and government guidelines for non-work permit visas also point in that direction. In a way a person who has a foreign employer or clients actually benefits the US. Its not taking away a US job, instead its bringing foreign money into the US economy and even has the potential to create extra tax income.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sousuke

[rebeccajo 14]

As far as I can tell what USCIS is interested in is protecting US Jobs. EAD enforcement is set up along those lines and government guidelines for non-work permit visas also point in that direction. In a way a person who has a foreign employer or clients actually benefits the US. Its not taking away a US job, instead its bringing foreign money into the US economy and even has the potential to create extra tax income.

Sousuke - That's really just conjecture on your part, you know - that bit about protecting US jobs.

The CFR says

§ Sec. 214.2(k) Spouses, Fiancees, and Fiances of United States Citizens.

(9) Employment authorization . An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act shall be authorized to work incident to status for the period of authorized stay. K-1/K-2 aliens seeking work authorization must apply, with fee, to the Service for work authorization pursuant to § 274a.12(a)(6) of this chapter. K-3/K-4 aliens must apply to the Service for a document evidencing employment authorization pursuant to § 274a.12(a)(9) of this chapter. Employment authorization documents issued to K-3/K-4 aliens may be renewed only upon a showing that the applicant has an application or petition awaiting approval, equivalent to the showing required for an extension of stay pursuant to § 214.2(k)(10) .

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Its based upon advice given by the above in 23 as well as what I have read regarding other non work related visas.

Also think about. Who needs work authorization? Thats right, someone seeking work with a US employer.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

RJ what is your view on foreign employment and what is it based on?

[rebeccajo 14]

RJ what is your view on foreign employment and what is it based on?

I think a K1 isn't authorized to work for anybody without a fee document issued by the Service .

And it's based on the code I quoted above.

Edited November 9, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yet that document isn't wide enough in its scope to address Foreign Employment?