Work under K1-visa

[payxibka 10,047]

I was just reading the I-9 but can you please clarify what exactly changed? Maybe I didn't read it thoroughly enough.

Under list "A" or "B"&"C"... What identity and EA document do you possess?

Many people use to rely on List "A" #5 but the updated I-9 now indicates that a nonimmigrant alien authorized to work for a SPECIFIC employer incident to status

Edited January 22, 2010 by payxibka

[Stefanie 1]

Under list "A" or "B"&"C"... What identity and EA document do you possess?

Many people use to rely on List "A" #5 but the updated I-9 now indicates that a nonimmigrant alien authorized to work for a SPECIFIC employer incident to status

Thanks!

So I guess: Just volunteer until you get your EAD!

[HeatDeath 430]

I recall reading that you should not volunteer in a position related directly to your profession, for a company you are likely to work for later, or do any volunteer work for which you might expect later compensation. Those are the things that they aren't fond of at the AOS interview.

[Stefanie 1]

I recall reading that you should not volunteer in a position related directly to your profession, for a company you are likely to work for later, or do any volunteer work for which you might expect later compensation. Those are the things that they aren't fond of at the AOS interview.

May I ask why? Can you give an example of anyone who got "in trouble" for doing volunteer work that is directly related to his/her profession.

This would mean that I can't volunteer at an elementary school while waiting for my EAD card because getting an opportunity to start working there later on as a teacher would be considered wrong? This doesn't make sense to me.

Just don't get compensated for the work you did prior to receiving the EAD card.

[SunDrop 59]

I recall reading that you should not volunteer in a position related directly to your profession, for a company you are likely to work for later, or do any volunteer work for which you might expect later compensation. Those are the things that they aren't fond of at the AOS interview.

Same here.

If I recall, it was specifically in relation to a complicated thread about 'volunteering' for a business owned by you and/or your sponsoring immediate relative before your EAD arrives.

[SunDrop 59]

May I ask why? Can you give an example of anyone who got "in trouble" for doing volunteer work that is directly related to his/her profession.

This would mean that I can't volunteer at an elementary school while waiting for my EAD card because getting an opportunity to start working there later on as a teacher would be considered wrong? This doesn't make sense to me.

Just don't get compensated for the work you did prior to receiving the EAD card.

Possibly because of the potential abuse. You could negotiate to 'volunteer' initially and then be back-paid once your EAD is through. e.g. if you would usually work 30 hours a week, and you volunteer for a week you get paid 40 hours for the first 3 weeks that you become 'renumerated' for your employment after receiving your EAD. It also opens you up to 'cash in hand' type situations.

My thinking about all of this is that my relationship and ability to legally reside in the country for as long as I want depends on my complying with a set of extraordinarily complicated laws and regulations. There is way too much that is open to interpretation and the cost of a lawyer to resolve the situation if the USCIS doesn't like something I've done is going to be much higher than what I would have earnt in the 2-3 months that I would have been working for. Ergo, does the risk outweigh the benefit? Nope. I'm not going to open myself up to being the test case!

Volunteering is something that I will do, absolutely, but not within my industry. I will get to meet people and at least make acquaintances; at best get some good networking in so that when i am able to work, I will have people who know someone who knows someone who's hiring...

[HeatDeath 430]

USCIS's operational definition of "work" is, it seems, not merely "get compensated for doing stuff". Interning, for example, is right out as well. And so, therefore, is anything that looks sorta like being an unpaid intern. Which pretty much encompasses what I wrote.

[sachinky 465]

I was told not to "volunteer" either when I was on my F-1 OPT EAD.

[Lorenzoid 12]

. . .

Is it because the USCIS specifically prohibits K1s without EADs from working but the umbrella DHS doesn't?

I'd be curious to know if you argued with the SSA by arming yourself with their online manual and succeeded in getting an unstamped SSN card, could you then work or would you be considered as breaking immigration regulations by the USCIS if you did before your EAD arrived?

"Arming yourself" with an excerpt from SSA's manual/rules and/or a copy of that SSA notice (an internal SSA memorandum dated 2000 apparently) is exactly what has been recommended by some on VJ in other threads.

So, is SunDrop's theory correct? My reading of the SSA's internal rules (see links that have been posted here and language quoted from SSA internal web site) is that SSA personnel are instructed to issue K-1 aliens a regular SS card, that is, without any restrictions such as "work permitted only with DHS authorization," that's valid for the duration of their I-94. But is SunDrop onto something here with the theory that the problem is not DHS (since the SSA rules specifically state that a K-1 alien is eligible to work without DHS authorization) but rather the USCIS? In other words, you could conceivably receive a SS card that has no restrictions stamped on it, yet not technically be authorized to work because USCIS rules (not DHS, not SSA) prohibit work before they grant the EAD?

Someone else posted above about the difference between what the SSA rules state and what happens "in the real world," but it isn't clear to me what was meant. Did the comment refer to this sort of scenario, where USCIS and DHS/SSA rules conflict with each other (or at least don't take each other into account)? You mean you can get a "work-authorized" SS card and still not technically be authorized to work due to a conflicting USCIS rule?

[HeatDeath 430]

"Arming yourself" with an excerpt from SSA's manual/rules and/or a copy of that SSA notice (an internal SSA memorandum dated 2000 apparently) is exactly what has been recommended by some on VJ in other threads.

So, is SunDrop's theory correct? My reading of the SSA's internal rules (see links that have been posted here and language quoted from SSA internal web site) is that SSA personnel are instructed to issue K-1 aliens a regular SS card, that is, without any restrictions such as "work permitted only with DHS authorization," that's valid for the duration of their I-94. But is SunDrop onto something here with the theory that the problem is not DHS (since the SSA rules specifically state that a K-1 alien is eligible to work without DHS authorization) but rather the USCIS? In other words, you could conceivably receive a SS card that has no restrictions stamped on it, yet not technically be authorized to work because USCIS rules (not DHS, not SSA) prohibit work before they grant the EAD?

Someone else posted above about the difference between what the SSA rules state and what happens "in the real world," but it isn't clear to me what was meant. Did the comment refer to this sort of scenario, where USCIS and DHS/SSA rules conflict with each other (or at least don't take each other into account)? You mean you can get a "work-authorized" SS card and still not technically be authorized to work due to a conflicting USCIS rule?

Yes. SSA rules refer to K-1 visa holders as work authorized. That regulation document we are recommended to print out and bring in the event of a fight is worded completely unambiguously. K-1 visas are included in a list of visa categories that are "Work authorized without specific DHS authorization." [but no, I don't know why, if this is the case, K-1 visa holder SSCs are marked so as to require specific DHS authorization. That's probably another bizarre legal inconsistency altogether.]

USCIS, on the other hand, will give you quite a hard time at the AOS interview if they find out you've been working without authorization. Case law and precedent seem to say that, barring any other major adverse factors, unauthorized work and visa overstay are not sufficient causes, in and by themselves, to deny the AOS of an immediate relative of a US citizen. But that doesn't stop these behaviors from being both illegal and highly unadvisable.

USCIS regulations seem to define "work" as "performing services or tasks that an American citizen could be paid for." Which is why interning isn't allowed. Their regulations are unambiguous about this. You cannot "work" without employment authorization. Those are the two rules that conflict. I discussed above why this conflict exists: it was an ugly but highly pragmatic legal "hack" to ensure that K-1 visa holders could marry in all 50 states without having to rewrite any specific state's marriage licensing laws. As a computer programmer by training I'm very familiar with the idea of making one module in a system look ugly and inconsistent, if it allows that module to interoperate with 50 others without having to rewrite any of the 50 others. That's what they did with the SS regulations. And as long as any state continues to interpret the federal requirement of a SSN for receiving a state "license" as applying to marriage licenses, that hack will continue to be required to ensure that K-1 visa holders can get a SSN, and therefore a marriage license in that state.

[SunDrop 59]

USCIS regulations seem to define "work" as "performing services or tasks that an American citizen could be paid for." Which is why interning isn't allowed. Their regulations are unambiguous about this. You cannot "work" without employment authorization. Those are the two rules that conflict. I discussed above why this conflict exists: it was an ugly but highly pragmatic legal "hack" to ensure that K-1 visa holders could marry in all 50 states without having to rewrite any specific state's marriage licensing laws. As a computer programmer by training I'm very familiar with the idea of making one module in a system look ugly and inconsistent, if it allows that module to interoperate with 50 others without having to rewrite any of the 50 others. That's what they did with the SS regulations. And as long as any state continues to interpret the federal requirement of a SSN for receiving a state "license" as applying to marriage licenses, that hack will continue to be required to ensure that K-1 visa holders can get a SSN, and therefore a marriage license in that state.

Good grief, it's so preposterous it makes me want to take on the system and shake it up. lol...

I'll just sit back til I have my own congressman to lobby *grin*

[HeatDeath 430]

Interestingly enough, they seem to have managed to contain all of the inconsistent weirdness within the SSA regulatory structure. USCIS's regs are consistent enough. So are DoS's and CBP's. It's just the SSA regs that have this weird inconsistency with the others, and even that inconsistency seems to be inconsistently implemented even within the SSA (the aforementioned bizarre inconsistency of SSCs being marked as requiring DHS authorization despite the SS regs clearly saying K1s don't need DHS authorization.)

Of course, given the tenuous legal, constitutional, and financial footing of the entire SS infrastructure, the place probably needs a dozen bizarre and inconsistent legal hacks (not just limited to work authorization but especially including financial accounting. Oy vey!) every day just to avoid vanishing in a puff of logic!

[Nik+Heather 121]

You know what would really settle this debate? Is if a K-1 holder came back and said that E-Verify confirmed that they were eligible to work.

Find a K-1 holder who does NOT have an EAD who passes E-Verify. This is the new gold standard (supposedly), and it really should put the whole thing to bed.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

"Volunteering" for a job that you will later get is NOT volunteering at all according to EAD guides. You are still working, because you receive a benefit from the "volunteer work". In the case, your "benefit" is a future job. Therefore you will still be working for a US employer without authorization which is illegal.

[Octopuss 0]

There is just something paradoxal to me: you have to prove that you have financial support from your fiancé(e) and show that you won't be a "weight" for the US government but if you want to work and support yourself financially, you are not allowed to