EAD

[rebeccajo 14]

Title 8: Aliens and Nationality

PART 274a—CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

Subpart B—Employment Authorization

§ 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

(6) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant fiancé or fiancée pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, or an alien admitted as a child of such alien, for the period of admission in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

[geo1234 0]

Oh we've had the discussion on here before about traffic violations and it raised some hackles!! I don't think any of us want to be alarmists.

I just looked up your previous posts on the subject of traffic violations. In those posts you incorrectly stated that alleged traffic violations were and are a deportable offense (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49379&st=15), but they very clearly are not. The reason that it is quite clear is because deportable offenses have previously been codified as those that involve felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude.

[LaL 418]

Oh we've had the discussion on here before about traffic violations and it raised some hackles!! I don't think any of us want to be alarmists.

I just looked up your previous posts on the subject of traffic violations. In those posts you incorrectly stated that alleged traffic violations were and are a deportable offense (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49379&st=15), but they very clearly are not. The reason that it is quite clear is because deportable offenses have previously been codified as those that involve felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude.

there are articles outlining the use of state troopers who have been trained with the most basic immigration knowledge who rather than pursue the simple traffic violations, slap them with an immigration violations, thus *taking on the problem* one by one. Well, I don't know how easy that makes others feel, but this makes me feel pretty uncomfortable seeing as though our so-called status is PENDING which is essentially out of status accruing overstay. but as mentioned before, no one wants to be an alarmist, but i wanted to point out what i believe rebecca was citing and why it may be so worrysome.

quick search example.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRiY...NjQ3NjRmY2RlZGY=

Edited February 14, 2007 by lal_brandow

[geo1234 0]

Ps. there is a big distinction between a traffic violation and a misdemeanor. Driving is a privilege and if you are going through the immigration process, don't break the law. This is the same for anyone who holds a Government Clearance, if they are caught violating the law they could lose their clearance and in turn their job. Immigrants are not being singled out, there are lots of people who need to maintain the same standard.

In quite a few states, traffic violations ARE misdemeanors. At this time a minor traffic violation clearly will not cause a problem at AOS or at the citizenship stage.

What I was trying to tell you above is that if you are concerned about the laws changing to cause problems for those who've previously worked without authorization but have since received Green Cards, you may very well be concerned about the change in the laws that will cause problems for all people who have ever violated ANY criminal statute, including traffic offenses. Once again, the fact that minor traffic offenses, even in those states that consider them misdemeanors, do not go on your criminal record, do not cause you to spend any time in jail and do not cause you immigration problems does not mean that the same treatment of those offenses will continue in the future.

The reason I am telling you all this is not to cause unncessary headaches. What I am telling you is that I do not see a very strong reason to be more concerned about unauthorized employment (in the context in which we are describing it here) than about traffic violations. Is there a reason that you see this differently?

[geo1234 0]

Oh we've had the discussion on here before about traffic violations and it raised some hackles!! I don't think any of us want to be alarmists.

I just looked up your previous posts on the subject of traffic violations. In those posts you incorrectly stated that alleged traffic violations were and are a deportable offense (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=49379&st=15), but they very clearly are not. The reason that it is quite clear is because deportable offenses have previously been codified as those that involve felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude.

there are articles outlining the use of state troopers who have been trained with the most basic immigration knowledge who rather than pursue the simple traffic violations, slap them with an immigration violations, thus *taking on the problem* one by one. Well, I don't know how easy that makes others feel, but this makes me feel pretty uncomfortable seeing as though our so-called status is PENDING which is essentially out of status accruing overstay. but as mentioned before, no one wants to be an alarmist, but i wanted to point out what i believe rebecca was citing and why it may be so worrysome.

quick search example.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRiY...NjQ3NjRmY2RlZGY=

This article talks about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT situation than the one that rebeccajo incorrectly described in the thread I linked above. In that thread she specifically said to a person worrying about minor alleged traffic violations: "but you broke a law. You can be deported." This is CLEARLY FALSE.

Once again, you CANNOT be deported for alleged minor traffic violations. The law is very clear on that.

The article you have linked talks about state troopers helping to enforce immigration laws. Yes, this certainly means that they can overstep their authority (just like any other poorly trained law enforcement officer) but it does not change the fact that minor traffic offense are not and have never been deportable offenses. So, it doesn't matter how much a state trooper might overstep his/her authority -- you simply would not be deported for a minor traffic offense.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Geo123

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

If your AOS is pending, you are not out of status or in violation of any immigration laws.

Edited February 14, 2007 by jane2005

[LaL 418]

If your AOS is pending, you are not out of status or in violation of any immigration laws.

maybe i need to clarify. i recognize pending status is just that - pending AOS. I also recognize however that really ISNT a status which could be confusing for a trooper.

back to the original post i was replying to ... traffic violations may not be a deportable offsense per se, however they are used as a means to an end by way of troopers given basic instructions. thats the only point i was trying to make.

[rebeccajo 14]

Ok Geo. You need to read the entire thread about the traffic violations. As I explained further down in it, the point of my statement about 'breaking a law' and 'being deported' was made to draw an analogy only.

That analogy being that until one has a greencard, you are not protected by the most basic rights our constitution guarantees. My statement was a VERY BROAD comment about that and that only. Sure, it was incorrect as regards a traffic violation. But it wasn't incorrect in the context of where I was trying to lead the conversation.

You are going to have to become more familiar with my style of 'teaching' and 'discussion' on here. Lots of my comments are designed to make the others in the thread think. They aren't meant as some edict from on high.

I can handle being called 'incorrect' if it caused somebody to open up their brain and think about the issues at hand.

Edited February 15, 2007 by rebeccajo

[John & Annie 0]

Ok Geo. You need to read the entire thread about the traffic violations. As I explained further down in it, the point of my statement about 'breaking a law' and 'being deported' was made to draw an analogy only.

That analogy being that until one has a greencard, you are not protected by the most basic rights our constitution guarantees. My statement was a VERY BROAD comment about that and that only. Sure, it was incorrect as regards a traffic violation. But it wasn't incorrect in the context of where I was trying to lead the conversation.

You are going to have to become more familiar with my style of 'teaching' and 'discussion' on here. Lots of my comments are designed to make the others in the thread think. They aren't meant as some edict from on high.

I can handle being called 'incorrect' if it caused somebody to open up their brain and think about the issues at hand.

Well said RJ, and thank you.

If I may add, correct me if I am wrong. But you still need to mind your P and Q's until you are a citizen. Although having the green card does afford you a little leeway, I would be cautious until the immigrant becomes a citizen.

This will probably raise some hackles, but hey i willing to take it.

Edited February 15, 2007 by John & Annie

[geo1234 0]

Ok Geo. You need to read the entire thread about the traffic violations. As I explained further down in it, the point of my statement about 'breaking a law' and 'being deported' was made to draw an analogy only.

That analogy being that until one has a greencard, you are not protected by the most basic rights our constitution guarantees. My statement was a VERY BROAD comment about that and that only. Sure, it was incorrect as regards a traffic violation. But it wasn't incorrect in the context of where I was trying to lead the conversation.

You are going to have to become more familiar with my style of 'teaching' and 'discussion' on here. Lots of my comments are designed to make the others in the thread think. They aren't meant as some edict from on high.

I can handle being called 'incorrect' if it caused somebody to open up their brain and think about the issues at hand.

This was never supposed to become a referendum on the quality of your posts but, since it continues to come up, here it goes. Before you take it upon yourself to "educate" others, especially in such a rude and disrespectful (you just told dr_lha in this thread "what the hell is your problem" when he had done nothing to provoke such a reaction) and pompous manner, you may want to first have some knowledge to share. None of us are infallible, so I do not see a problem with you, I or anybody else making honest mistakes. What is troubling, however, is just how many false, baseless and profoundly misleading posts you have made in this forum and then personally attacked posters who have tried to point out and correct your mistakes.

I did review the traffic violations thread. There is absolutely NO ANALOGY between the due process rights of aliens at traffic stops (they have FULL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS when it comes to those charges) and the somewhat limited due process rights that they have at immigration proceedings. Further, as an alien, you are generally entitled to FULL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS if you are charged with a criminal non-immigration violation. The reasons that some people do not always have their full due process rights in immigration proceedings are complicated and do not always have anything to do with the fact that you are an alien. Quite often, it is the nature of the proceedings rather than the citizenship status of the person that affects due process rights. For instance, even as a USC, you have very few if any due process rights to contest civil contempt charges and can stay in jail almost indefinitely. So, in the traffic violations thread, you've drawn profoundly false and misleading analogies, missed just about every issue and compounded all those problems by the pompous and condescending tone.

Now, in this thread, besides an uncalled for personal attack on dr_lha whose post was certainly logical and compelling (regardless of the fact that you may disagree with his conclusion), you somehow attempted to justify your attack by referring to "totality of circumstance." Let me tell you, "totality of the circumstances" is a specific test that, in this context, has absolutely NO BEARING and NO APPLICABILITY to this discussion. In other threads, you continue to use terms such as "reasonable man" that similarly have absolutely nothing to do with those discussions. Again, why even use terminology that has very specific and well defined legal meaning and applicability when you have no idea what it means and in what circumstances it is applied?

I sincerely apologies to all the readers of this post since this has very little if anything to do with questions asked by the OP. Rebeccajo seems like a very nice person and I genuinely hope that her husband's unacceptable wait in FBI's name check hell hole comes to an end soon. At the same time, her husband's plight is hardly an excuse for the pompous tone and for profoundly wrong and baseless statements she's made all over this board.

[rebeccajo 14]

Geo, I have addressed my comments with dr_lha. Both in this thread and in PM.

I've been here a long time. That doesn't make me correct all the time. Far from it.

I can't change the way I express myself to suit you. A lot of my posts are wonderings of mine. If they don't make sense to you - well then sorry.

"Totality of circumstance" as I use it is not legal jargon. It's a term from the adjudicator's field and as I have understood it, it allows them broad discretion. It used to be referenced frequently here on VJ by some of the more seasoned members when referring to how seemingly insignificant bits and pieces add up.

There is supposed to be due process for immigrants under UN charters. Our constitution is written for citizens. You can see the gray area if you look closely.

Most immigration journeys go smoothly and without issue. It's a small percentage that don't. I would hate to see anyone in this community become a part of a difficult journey. If there are small things such as applying for EAD that one can do to help insure a smooth journey I don't see the point in debating why it's 'ok' not to apply.

[John & Annie 0]

Ok Geo. You need to read the entire thread about the traffic violations. As I explained further down in it, the point of my statement about 'breaking a law' and 'being deported' was made to draw an analogy only.

That analogy being that until one has a greencard, you are not protected by the most basic rights our constitution guarantees. My statement was a VERY BROAD comment about that and that only. Sure, it was incorrect as regards a traffic violation. But it wasn't incorrect in the context of where I was trying to lead the conversation.

You are going to have to become more familiar with my style of 'teaching' and 'discussion' on here. Lots of my comments are designed to make the others in the thread think. They aren't meant as some edict from on high.

I can handle being called 'incorrect' if it caused somebody to open up their brain and think about the issues at hand.

This was never supposed to become a referendum on the quality of your posts but, since it continues to come up, here it goes. Before you take it upon yourself to "educate" others, especially in such a rude and disrespectful (you just told dr_lha in this thread "what the hell is your problem" when he had done nothing to provoke such a reaction) and pompous manner, you may want to first have some knowledge to share. None of us are infallible, so I do not see a problem with you, I or anybody else making honest mistakes. What is troubling, however, is just how many false, baseless and profoundly misleading posts you have made in this forum and then personally attacked posters who have tried to point out and correct your mistakes.

I did review the traffic violations thread. There is absolutely NO ANALOGY between the due process rights of aliens at traffic stops (they have FULL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS when it comes to those charges) and the somewhat limited due process rights that they have at immigration proceedings. Further, as an alien, you are generally entitled to FULL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS if you are charged with a criminal non-immigration violation. The reasons that some people do not always have their full due process rights in immigration proceedings are complicated and do not always have anything to do with the fact that you are an alien. Quite often, it is the nature of the proceedings rather than the citizenship status of the person that affects due process rights. For instance, even as a USC, you have very few if any due process rights to contest civil contempt charges and can stay in jail almost indefinitely. So, in the traffic violations thread, you've drawn profoundly false and misleading analogies, missed just about every issue and compounded all those problems by the pompous and condescending tone.

Now, in this thread, besides an uncalled for personal attack on dr_lha whose post was certainly logical and compelling (regardless of the fact that you may disagree with his conclusion), you somehow attempted to justify your attack by referring to "totality of circumstance." Let me tell you, "totality of the circumstances" is a specific test that, in this context, has absolutely NO BEARING and NO APPLICABILITY to this discussion. In other threads, you continue to use terms such as "reasonable man" that similarly have absolutely nothing to do with those discussions. Again, why even use terminology that has very specific and well defined legal meaning and applicability when you have no idea what it means and in what circumstances it is applied?

I sincerely apologies to all the readers of this post since this has very little if anything to do with questions asked by the OP. Rebeccajo seems like a very nice person and I genuinely hope that her husband's unacceptable wait in FBI's name check hell hole comes to an end soon. At the same time, her husband's plight is hardly an excuse for the pompous tone and for profoundly wrong and baseless statements she's made all over this board.

Geo,

While i am not here to defend RJ, nor have I read he post you two are referring to. I would like to make a suggestion, it really does not get you anywhere to attack or completely debase someone. It really only makes you look vindictive.

Secondly, why are you here? Where are you or your spouse in the process? I know this might seem out of place but we are all in frustrating process and rely upon each other. If would come across better if people knew you were in with us as opposed to be a lurker.

[nathmc31 0]

So I'm married, and about to submit my EAD application along with AOS. I never actually applied for the interim one, and nor was my I-94 stamped. However, I was issued an SSN on the basis of a a SocSec memo that stated that "K-1 visa holders are eligible to work on the basis of their visa, though there may or may not be a stamp to this effect".

I've been working.

Now, there's a four month wait at my local processing office (Seattle WA). And this has me a little worried. Technically I can't work because I am (correct me if I'm wrong) "no longer K-1, but I-485 pending"?

My employer might be a little upset at this.

And whilst I realize I could probably work through that period, I'd rather not.

What's my best option for minimizing / eliminating time where I'm not allowed to work pending receipt of EAD?

Or do they really expect that I'll be able to walk away from the job for four months???

Wow. That is some arrogance!

Many of us K1ers never worked after arriving in the US, because we didn't go thru JFK (the only POE that gives the temp EAD stamp) and/or BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL without the EAD stamp. Then we wait the months it takes for our AOS/EAD to come thru after marriage. So yes, my hubby hasn't worked for 4+ months. Shocking, yet true.

Geez. Stop working illegally & wait like the rest of us.

Its not illegal to work on a K1 without a stamp on the I-94. You will just have a hard time getting a good job because an employer must meet I9 form requirements to empoly someone. And K1 wont satisfy that, however it is legal to work on a K1 without the stamp.

[geo1234 0]

"Totality of circumstance" as I use it is not legal jargon. It's a term from the adjudicator's field and as I have understood it, it allows them broad discretion. It used to be referenced frequently here on VJ by some of the more seasoned members when referring to how seemingly insignificant bits and pieces add up.

The adjudicator's field manual is NOT a legal or a substantive document that stands on its own. It is simply a summary of all the statutory, case law, regulatory and administrative rulings on the issue. So, the terminology used in the AFM comes DIRECTLY from those rulings. Again, the AFM and those rulings outline specific circumstances when the "totality of the circumstances" test is applied to each situation, define the people authorized to apply it and provide various limitations on their ability to do so. The fact that the "totality of the circumstances" test is used in one well defined immigration situation does NOT mean that it is used in the entire immigration context. The way you attempted to use the term "totality of the circumstances" in this thread made absolutely NO sense, which further compounded the fact that you engaged in an unprovoked personal attack on a poster. The same goes for the concept of "reasonable man" that you like to throw around this board as well as many other terms.

For some reason, you fail to understand to fact that the terms that you are using are all terms of art with a well defined legal scope and applicability. So, you continue to misuse them and throw them around in situations where they have no bearing or applicability even though the same problems with your posts were thoroughly explained to you several months ago in another thread (I can't link it right now since VJ is having server issues).

There is supposed to be due process for immigrants under UN charters. Our constitution is written for citizens. You can see the gray area if you look closely.

Please stop obfuscating the issues with all these "gray areas" talk. There are NO gray areas in the context of traffic violations and the aliens' ability to take advantage of their full due process rights to contest those charges. The courts have previously examined these issues and have ruled on them pretty unequivocally.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Its not illegal to work on a K1 without a stamp on the I-94. You will just have a hard time getting a good job because an employer must meet I9 form requirements to empoly someone. And K1 wont satisfy that, however it is legal to work on a K1 without the stamp.

I'm actually kind of curious if its actually illegal to work in this country if you are legally present on any visa? From what I can see, Employment authorization makes it legal to employ someone. If you employ someone without EAD then you, the employer, are breaking the law. Most cases where ICE bust places where illegals are working, they are actually illegal aliens, i.e. people who EWI, rather than people legally present in the USA. When ICE busts them they usually bust them for being illegal aliens, not for not having a work permit.

We know that USCIS cannot currently punish Green Card applying spouses of USCs for working illegally, but what I'm not clear on is: Is someone who is working without an EAD actually breaking any law themselves?