Are point of Entry work permits history?

[vernouil 0]

stamp or not you are authorized to work: "some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

should ring a bell hein

vedi vixit

OK, last time.

Yes, K1s are authorized to work BUT without a specified EAD an employer cannot (legally) hire.

An employer needs to see an I-94 that is specifically marked 'employment authorized' in order to hire.

If your I-94 was not stamped with employment authorization, you must wait until you receive the EAD after adjusting status.

ok you know what you do whatever you want and ok last time pleasze read what was in the link

show that to your emplyer and to the INS and let me know or do just like me call a good lawyer to backtest ur assumption.

sorry for helping. I kind of understand skemper now.

Afterwards I understand skemper. Btw u ll find also in a circular that CBP is not allowed to issue EAD so dont event bother with a stamp.

anyway I think with differents circular including one pointing out the stupidity of the situation you should be fine to work your way through... In any case I think any employer as any gov agent with a brain plus a lawyer would be comfortable wit h all of this. ur call.

[vernouil 0]

stamp or not you are authorized to work: "some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

should ring a bell hein

vedi vixit

OK, last time.

Yes, K1s are authorized to work BUT without a specified EAD an employer cannot (legally) hire.

An employer needs to see an I-94 that is specifically marked 'employment authorized' in order to hire.

If your I-94 was not stamped with employment authorization, you must wait until you receive the EAD after adjusting status.

ok you know what you do whatever you want and ok last time pleasze read what was in the link

show that to your emplyer and to the INS and let me know or do just like me call a good lawyer to backtest ur assumption.

sorry for helping. I kind of understand skemper now.

Afterwards I understand skemper. Btw u ll find also in a circular that CBP is not allowed to issue EAD so dont event bother with a stamp.

anyway I think with differents circular including one pointing out the stupidity of the situation you should be fine to work your way through... In any case I think any employer as any gov agent with a brain plus a lawyer would be comfortable wit h all of this. ur call.

and btw nowhere is written the word stamp on the I9. It says unexpired work authorization which an unexpired I94 linked linked to a K1 is.

[kitkat1 5]

Unexpired work authorization comes from two potential places:

1) A work authorization stamp received at the point of entry that is not expired

2) Employment Authorization Document issues by the USCIS that is not expired.

Unexpired work authorization does NOT equal "an unexpired 194 linked to a K1"

This issue has been debated again and again. If K1s COULD work without an employment authorization document an/or stamp, this would be common knowledge all over the site as well as others. There have many several reports like Skemper's of employers who did not understand the rules or perhaps chose to take the chance of hiring someone who did not have a work authorization document.

Go ahead and give it a try without a valid work authorization stamp or document and be sure to report back here how that goes for you.

[ninamyers 0]

It really depends on the employer - I've registered with many agencies and some have asked for proof of my work authorisation and some haven't (this is mainly because some don't even look at my social security card, and take the fact that I have a number as meaning I'm allowed to work).

This debate comes up so often - the fact is, if you don't have the temp EAD the employer should not employ you, but many do. This is not really working illegally, as it is the employer that can get into trouble, not the employee.

Glad I had the stamp so I didn't have to debate with myself whether I should get a job or not!

[meauxna 15]

stamp or not you are authorized to work: "some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

Wrong.

- the fact is, if you don't have the temp EAD the employer should not employ you, but many do. This is not really working illegally, as it is the employer that can get into trouble, not the employee.

Right.

[vernouil 0]

stamp or not you are authorized to work: "some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

Wrong.

- the fact is, if you don't have the temp EAD the employer should not employ you, but many do. This is not really working illegally, as it is the employer that can get into trouble, not the employee.

Right.

I guess that because employers are either stupid or too kind by accepting to take a risk for you then?

With all due repect I will better rely on an official circular & lawyer and let you sepculate about the validity of offical agencies amendments that I was quoting word for word above. Anyway no wonder why even people from the INS still refuse sometimes some SS# to K1s.

[kitkat1 5]

I guess that because employers are either stupid or too kind by accepting to take a risk for you then?

Yes. Some employers don't understand the rules (just like you I think) or don't care since I-9 auditing appears to be a rare situation and they are willing to take the risk.

With all due repect I will better rely on an official circular & lawyer and let you sepculate about the validity of offical agencies amendments that I was quoting word for word above. Anyway no wonder why even people from the INS still refuse sometimes some SS# to K1s.

You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding the "official circular".

Again, if K1s could work without an official stamp or document indicating authorization, everyone would be doing it and there would be no debate here.

[vernouil 0]

I guess that because employers are either stupid or too kind by accepting to take a risk for you then?

Yes. Some employers don't understand the rules (just like you I think) or don't care since I-9 auditing appears to be a rare situation and they are willing to take the risk.

With all due repect I will better rely on an official circular & lawyer and let you sepculate about the validity of offical agencies amendments that I was quoting word for word above. Anyway no wonder why even people from the INS still refuse sometimes some SS# to K1s.

You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding the "official circular".

Again, if K1s could work without an official stamp or document indicating authorization, everyone would be doing it and there would be no debate here.

probably you didn't read the memo completing the official circular. that helps too... to read...

the quote is exactly

"some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

now I know I must be stupid....

everybody should not smoke as well but some do. please you can prove me I am wring but not telling me the other do that so everubody should do the same...

u've got the docs I found you use it as you want. I you think it's useless then don't even bother to try working the first 3 months if you don't stop by JFK

[meauxna 15]

probably you didn't read the memo completing the official circular. that helps too... to read...

the quote is exactly

"some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK

Whose circular? SSA's?

Yes, that ruling applies for SSA purposes, not employers.

[kitkat1 5]

Once again:

1) The circular is about the SSA - not about the documents an employer needs to see.

2) Yes, K1s are authorized to work. K1s can work WITH A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

3) An I-94 is NOT A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

I think you do not understand the difference between being allowed to work vs. having an employment authorization document or stamp. It is all clearly written here in this thread courtesy of Mo and Yodrak. There is nothing more anyone can do to try to make it clear.

As I said, go ahead and try to work without one of these documents. You may find any employer willing to look the other way or one who does not understand the rules.

[vernouil 0]

Once again:

1) The circular is about the SSA - not about the documents an employer needs to see.

2) Yes, K1s are authorized to work. K1s can work WITH A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

3) An I-94 is NOT A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

I think you do not understand the difference between being allowed to work vs. having an employment authorization document or stamp. It is all clearly written here in this thread courtesy of Mo and Yodrak. There is nothing more anyone can do to try to make it clear.

As I said, go ahead and try to work without one of these documents. You may find any employer willing to look the other way or one who does not understand the rules.

1/ the employer needs to see what the administration ask him to see right? what does say the administration

2/SSA says in the official circular: K1 are work authorized ... will not receve a stamp (for me and the memo and my lawyer because you don't need any since you are alrady authorized cfqfd)... will not receive an EAD (by definition it is a 1 year doc > 90 days)

3/ try to find me an official circular saying what you are saying.

Now and again I will not waste my time anymore with you. Just try not to bullshit everyone by things you read in randoms forums and that you take for granted. There are some laws and amendments to them. officials texts are the only things you ll be able to uses, not some bad past experiences.

PS: you ll note that everybody who showed the right circular or memo ended (by insisting a bit or not) to get what they want. the other one just gave up like you.

think about who is gonna take the employer to the court...

[vernouil 0]

Once again:

1) The circular is about the SSA - not about the documents an employer needs to see.

2) Yes, K1s are authorized to work. K1s can work WITH A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

3) An I-94 is NOT A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

I think you do not understand the difference between being allowed to work vs. having an employment authorization document or stamp. It is all clearly written here in this thread courtesy of Mo and Yodrak. There is nothing more anyone can do to try to make it clear.

As I said, go ahead and try to work without one of these documents. You may find any employer willing to look the other way or one who does not understand the rules.

1/ the employer needs to see what the administration ask him to see right? what does say the administration

2/SSA says in the official circular: K1 are work authorized ... will not receve a stamp (for me and the memo and my lawyer because you don't need any since you are alrady authorized cfqfd)... will not receive an EAD (by definition it is a 1 year doc > 90 days)

3/ try to find me an official circular saying what you are saying.

Now and again I will not waste my time anymore with you. Just try not to bullshit everyone by things you read in randoms forums and that you take for granted. There are some laws and amendments to them. officials texts are the only things you ll be able to uses, not some bad past experiences.

PS: you ll note that everybody who showed the right circular or memo ended (by insisting a bit or not) to get what they want. the other one just gave up like you.

think about who is gonna take the employer to the court...

btw just gave a look at your profile/post... undertsand better now and will not waste my time anymore ...

[meauxna 15]

1/ the employer needs to see what the administration ask him to see right? what does say the administration

2/SSA says in the official circular: K1 are work authorized ... will not receve a stamp (for me and the memo and my lawyer because you don't need any since you are alrady authorized cfqfd)... will not receive an EAD (by definition it is a 1 year doc > 90 days)

3/ try to find me an official circular saying what you are saying.

Now and again I will not waste my time anymore with you. Just try not to bullshit everyone by things you read in randoms forums and that you take for granted. There are some laws and amendments to them. officials texts are the only things you ll be able to uses, not some bad past experiences.

PS: you ll note that everybody who showed the right circular or memo ended (by insisting a bit or not) to get what they want. the other one just gave up like you.

think about who is gonna take the employer to the court...

You are flat out rude, and you are not appreciating the difference between what the Social Security Administration's internal paperwork says, and what and employer is required to do in order to hire someone. As a US employer, I am familiar with what is acceptable for form I-9. If YOU want to back up your point, YOU go find all this documentation that "proves" your point.

Talk about a waste of time (and further speaking of bullshit...)--hopefully someone else will benefit from the many ways the correct info HAS been stated in here.

[vernouil 0]

1/ the employer needs to see what the administration ask him to see right? what does say the administration

2/SSA says in the official circular: K1 are work authorized ... will not receve a stamp (for me and the memo and my lawyer because you don't need any since you are alrady authorized cfqfd)... will not receive an EAD (by definition it is a 1 year doc > 90 days)

3/ try to find me an official circular saying what you are saying.

Now and again I will not waste my time anymore with you. Just try not to bullshit everyone by things you read in randoms forums and that you take for granted. There are some laws and amendments to them. officials texts are the only things you ll be able to uses, not some bad past experiences.

PS: you ll note that everybody who showed the right circular or memo ended (by insisting a bit or not) to get what they want. the other one just gave up like you.

think about who is gonna take the employer to the court...

You are flat out rude, and you are not appreciating the difference between what the Social Security Administration's internal paperwork says, and what and employer is required to do in order to hire someone. As a US employer, I am familiar with what is acceptable for form I-9. If YOU want to back up your point, YOU go find all this documentation that "proves" your point.

Talk about a waste of time (and further speaking of bullshit...)--hopefully someone else will benefit from the many ways the correct info HAS been stated in here.

1/ think my point is clearly proofed regarding the memo

2/ apparently employers like firms I m working for got some lawyers confirming what i m saying... just rying to help

3/ you didn't answer me swho s gonna take you to the court.

4/ you are an employer... wonderful ask some serious lawyers to help rather than flowding of ####### people trying to find true info, maybe there ll have more case like skemper'shusband who, btw, was working for a serious firm too it seems.

seriously even if you re makin me laugh now

[kitkat1 5]

btw just gave a look at your profile/post... undertsand better now and will not waste my time anymore ...

Like most of what you are posting, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean and I couldn't care less.

You do not seem to be capable of reading the very clear words being posted here: The "circular" you are reading does not apply to the question at hand.

No one is disputing that K1s are employment authorized and can get a SSN.

You would be well advised to pay attention to the assistance of people who who have already been through this process and are well versed and experienced in immigration. That is, after all, the point of this forum.

I'm not at all interested in continuing to debate this with you as you clearly are not capable of understanding.