You CAN legally obtain a job prior to your EAD!!!

[Dr_LHA 3]

PachucoBro is correct on this point. His wife is doing nothing illegal, at least not yet, she is employment authorized. It's the employer who is doing something illegal by hiring her without doing the required verification and record keeping.

So you agree with the OP that all K-1's are employment authorised for the period of their I-94 then, regardless of if they have an EAD stamp?

If the crime being committed is by the employers, then a crime is still being committed. As USCIS forgives illegal work, it really doesn't matter that the OP's wife works as far as USCIS are concerned, but that's far from it being "legal".

Edited December 21, 2006 by dr_lha

[Yodrak 7]

edsperfect,

This aspect is about to become even trickier. Just this week a law has been passed and signed granting 'whistle blowers' 30% of the recovery for reporting instances of income tax evasion. Once this thing gets rolling it's not hard to imagine that even small 'fish' like a restaurant that hires workers under the table could find itself getting reported. IRS itself reserves it's limited resources to go after the cases where the big money is, but now that the public can get a nice reward for bringing the information to them it will be much more cost effective to go after smaller cases as well.

Yodrak

Working "under the table is tricvky for an alien. If NO income tax isreported then it is a Federal Misdemenor and not deportable. If thy get marrid and file a joint return then it is a Federal felony subject to 5 years in prison and is a deportable offense. ....

[kitkat1 5]

PachucoBro is correct on this point. His wife is doing nothing illegal, at least not yet, she is employment authorized. It's the employer who is doing something illegal by hiring her without doing the required verification and record keeping.

This is the crux of the issue - Yodrak perhaps you can help clarify? For example:

• K1s are employment authorized for 90 days (nothing new there) although the majority of employers require a valid SSN card, indicating work authorization, to conform with the I-9 requirements.
  
• After 90 days, K1s are no longer authorized to work. Authorization begins again when the applied for EAD is approved and received.
  
• Continuing to working after 90 days is not legal. Companies can get in deep trouble
  
• K1 applicants normally won't face any problems at AOS for working without authorization but could certainly face issues with the IRS, especially if it is reported or if taxes have not been paid.
  

Have I missed anything very important?

[Yodrak 7]

dr_lha,

Yes I agree that K1s are employment authorized for the period of their I-94, whether or not they have an employment authorization document to show the employer.

I agree also that the USCIS 'forgives' illegal work by the alien spouse of a USC for adjustment purposes, but that's not an issue in her present situation.

Yodrak

PachucoBro is correct on this point. His wife is doing nothing illegal, at least not yet, she is employment authorized. It's the employer who is doing something illegal by hiring her without doing the required verification and record keeping.

So you agree with the OP that all K-1's are employment authorised for the period of their I-94 then, regardless of if they have an EAD stamp?

If the crime being committed is by the employers, then a crime is still being committed. As USCIS forgives illegal work, it really doesn't matter that the OP's wife works as far as USCIS are concerned, but that's far from it being "legal".

[Dr_LHA 3]

dr_lha,

Yes I agree that K1s are employment authorized for the period of their I-94, whether or not they have an employment authorization document to show the employer.

OK, so the issue is that although they are employment authorised, you don't have the correct documentation to show the employer to fulfill the requirement of the I-9. Hence if your employer is doing his job correctly, you shouldn't be able to get a job without the EAD. Correct?

[kitkat1 5]

dr_lha,

Yes I agree that K1s are employment authorized for the period of their I-94, whether or not they have an employment authorization document to show the employer.

OK, so the issue is that although they are employment authorised, you don't have the correct documentation to show the employer to fulfill the requirement of the I-9. Hence if your employer is doing his job correctly, you shouldn't be able to get a job without the EAD. Correct?

and, that the authorization is for a limited time -- that's why people who receive the EAD stamp at JFK end up having to quit their jobs and wait for the EAD in order to return to work (and hope/pray that the company can keep their job open in the meantime).

[payxibka 10,045]

dr_lha,

Yes I agree that K1s are employment authorized for the period of their I-94, whether or not they have an employment authorization document to show the employer.

OK, so the issue is that although they are employment authorised, you don't have the correct documentation to show the employer to fulfill the requirement of the I-9. Hence if your employer is doing his job correctly, you shouldn't be able to get a job without the EAD. Correct?

[KarenCee 3]

dr_lha,

Yes I agree that K1s are employment authorized for the period of their I-94, whether or not they have an employment authorization document to show the employer.

OK, so the issue is that although they are employment authorised, you don't have the correct documentation to show the employer to fulfill the requirement of the I-9. Hence if your employer is doing his job correctly, you shouldn't be able to get a job without the EAD. Correct?

Maybe that dude will come back and read this...I'm sure he'll have some irrefutable evidence to contradict this one too. this is what I've understood the whole time...even way back when Joel and I started this cotton-pickin' process!

Edited December 21, 2006 by KarenCee

[rebeccajo 14]

Working under the table

equals

No W-2

equals

Earnings not reported by taxpayer

equals

Tax evasion.

Hence the OP has an unavoidable problem.

[Yodrak 7]

kitkat,

My thoughts, in order,

• Not quite. All employers must see an application for an SS card within 3 days of beginning employment and the card itself within 90 days.
  
• Again not quite. Employment authorization begins when the application for employment authorization is approved. The card will not be received by the person until some time later, since it will not be manufactured and mailed out until the application has ben approved.
  
• Yes, working when one is not emplyment authorized is a violation of the law. And an employer does face fines for not properly verifying and keeping records of its' employee's employment authorization status, which is also a violation of the law.
  
• Immigration law permits adjustment of an adjustment applicant who is adjusting on the basis of marriage to a US citizen despite their having worked without employment authorization. Tax law requires that all income, including illegally gained income, be reported to the IRS. IRS is concerned that all income be reported, they are not concerned with the source of the income except to the extent that it affects how the income is to be taxed. (Don't know if IRS reports the illegal activity that generated the income to the appropriate authorities or not - they probably do in some cases but not necessarily in all cases.)
  

Yodrak

This is the crux of the issue - Yodrak perhaps you can help clarify? For example:

• K1s are employment authorized for 90 days (nothing new there) although the majority of employers require a valid SSN card, indicating work authorization, to conform with the I-9 requirements.
  
• After 90 days, K1s are no longer authorized to work. Authorization begins again when the applied for EAD is approved and received.
  
• Continuing to working after 90 days is not legal. Companies can get in deep trouble
  
• K1 applicants normally won't face any problems at AOS for working without authorization but could certainly face issues with the IRS, especially if it is reported or if taxes have not been paid.
  

Have I missed anything very important?

[KarenCee 3]

Working under the table

equals

No W-2

equals

Earnings not reported by taxpayer

equals

Tax evasion.

Hence the OP has an unavoidable problem.

He won't listen or believe anything like that Becca...he is omniscient (sp). He appears to know more than anyone else on this board.

[payxibka 10,045]

Working under the table

equals

No W-2

equals

Earnings not reported by taxpayer

equals

Tax evasion.

Hence the OP has an unavoidable problem.

Earnings potentially or almost most definitely not reported by taxpayer

[Yodrak 7]

Becca,

Not necessarily. A taxpayer can report earnings not reported on a W-2. A common example might be a person who earns their money partly, or wholly, in the form of tips. In some cases the employer may include an assumed amount of tip earnings on the W-2, but there's nothing to stop the employee from declaring tip earnings that are in excess of the assumed amount.

Likewise there's nothing to stop an employee who is working under the table from reporting their earnings. Indeed, the law requires them to.

They probably do not in many cases, in which case you are correct, but it's not necessarily so.

Yodrak

.....

No W-2

equals

Earnings not reported by taxpayer

.....

Edited December 21, 2006 by Yodrak

[motu 6]

Just last week ICE arrested between 200 to 300 people in Denver at a meat packing plant - though most were illegals - they also were after people using other people's SSNs. I wonder if a K1 not authorized to work got caught in that or not? As of now several people are in jail waiting for their hearings and several have been deported. They were quite ruthless in their raid and even arrested the wife of a citizen who didn't have her greencard on her (she was later realeased.) By the way the raids were done in 5 states at the same time. So Pachucobro one can indeed do what your wife is doing and probably won't get into trouble but what if she got caught in one of these raids? I think she could be deported. Good Luck

[rebeccajo 14]

Yodrak,

Agreed. I've seen it done. My sister once worked for a salon that failed to issue her a W2 after they closed. She filed with copies of her paystubs and a letter of explanation. That was many many years ago and we can assume a successfully filed tax return as their was never an audit.

I think in the scenario presented by the OP any disclosure to the IRS of wages paid or earned is unlikely.

Becca

Becca,

Not necessarily. A taxpayer can report earnings not reported on a W-2. A common example might be a person who earns their money partly, or wholly, in the form of tips. In some cases the employer may include an assumed amount of tip earnings on the W-2, but there's nothing to stop the employee from declaring tip earnings that are in excess of the assumed amount.

Likewise there's nothing to stop an employee who is working under the table from reporting their earnings. Indeed, the law requires them to.

They probably do not in many cases, in which case you are correct, but it's not necessarily so.

Yodrak

.....

No W-2

equals

Earnings not reported by taxpayer

.....

Edited December 21, 2006 by rebeccajo