Working remotely

[jan22 3,056]

One point not mentioned (unless I missed it) -- does he already have a tourist visa?  If not, as a Venezuelan refugee in Mexico with a US fiancee, odds are that a tourist visa application would be denied now.   He cannot show strong ties to any country outside the US, from a consular officer perspective.  Of course, even If he has a current tourist visa, immigration could deny him admittance at the Port of Entry for the same reason.

[MKJ119 43]

16 minutes ago, jan22 said:

One point not mentioned (unless I missed it) -- does he already have a tourist visa?  If not, as a Venezuelan refugee in Mexico with a US fiancee, odds are that a tourist visa application would be denied now.   He cannot show strong ties to any country outside the US, from a consular officer perspective.  Of course, even If he has a current tourist visa, immigration could deny him admittance at the Port of Entry for the same reason.

He does, but it's looking like this may not be a good option. He would not be able to leave and return to his full-time job for any length of time (although he has two other part-time income sources he could leave for a month or so and return without issue). He has been here to visit me on his tourist visa three times now since submitting the K1 petition, but if he quit his full-time job, I think that could become a problem

[jan22 3,056]

Just now, MKJ119 said:

He does, but it's looking like this may not be a good option. He would not be able to leave and return to his full-time job for any length of time (although he has two other part-time income sources he could leave for a month or so and return without issue). He has been here to visit me on his tourist visa three times now since submitting the K1 petition, but if he quit his full-time job, I think that could become a problem

I think you're right.  Without even full-time employment to return to, it would be difficult to show any ties outside the US in response to any questions from the immigration offficer.  Hopefully, it won't be too much longer before  your petition is approved.  

[SalishSea 17,836]

2 hours ago, MKJ119 said:

Technically every decision made with regards to future plans is made “speculatively.” Maybe you can elaborate on your intention with this comment?

Speculative, meaning filed for when the intention to marry is not yet solid, which is actually in violation of the visa terms.  Lots of people misunderstand the purpose of the 90 days in that context....

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, MKJ119 said:

Oh, thank you. That’s interesting. Are you able to point me to any resources that address this, by any chance? It sounds like the best option is just going to be for him to wait until the K1 is approved before he comes out here for any length of time. He will need time to wrap up his freelance work anyway, if he’s not able to continue with it once he is in the US.

It’s unfortunate that this whole process is so complicated and there are so many ways you can misstep along the way. I’m so grateful for this resource and everyone on here who takes the time to help others through this!

I can point to the INA and USCIS policy manual sections regarding either violation of status or work authorization. I can't point to an official document that says "child care is prohibited", just as I can't point to one that says "construction work is prohibited", "landscaping work is prohibited", or similar. They do not get that specific on purpose - it is meant to be broad.

That said, essentially any activity that displaces - or reasonably may displace - a US worker would be prohibited. This means paid or compensated work, unpaid work, internships, etc.

 

With regard to child care, normally a US worker would perform that function. Namely, a babysitter.

What exactly crosses the line is a judgement call. Looking after a kid while somebody goes to the store or for an emergency likely wouldn't be an issue. Looking after a kid so the parent can go to work likely crosses the line.

I'm not doubting many people do it...especially grandparents, just that there cases where CBP has denied entry because they believed it crossed the line into work.

 

If he wants to visit, visit. Just don't work (like any tourist). Time spent together is good for the relationship and is beneficial when it comes time to interview for the visa.

[MKJ119 43]

2 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Speculative, meaning filed for when the intention to marry is not yet solid, which is actually in violation of the visa terms.  Lots of people misunderstand the purpose of the 90 days in that context....

Oh, that makes sense. I definitely didn't file the petition with the idea that I would decide at a later point. I said yes when he proposed to me and I meant it. I filed the petition with the clear intention of getting married, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's irresponsible to marry someone after 9 months when you have a child to consider. My intention to marry him by the time all the paperwork was done was a solid intention. Most engagements last about a year and he would never have a reason to move to the US if it weren't to marry me. He is leaving a thriving career and some very close friends to build a life with me.

[SalishSea 17,836]

I get it.  For the record, I have seen petitions denied because the USCIS did not believe that both parties intended to marry each other within 90 days.

[MKJ119 43]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

I can point to the INA and USCIS policy manual sections regarding either violation of status or work authorization. I can't point to an official document that says "child care is prohibited", just as I can't point to one that says "construction work is prohibited", "landscaping work is prohibited", or similar. They do not get that specific on purpose - it is meant to be broad.

That said, essentially any activity that displaces - or reasonably may displace - a US worker would be prohibited. This means paid or compensated work, unpaid work, internships, etc.

 

With regard to child care, normally a US worker would perform that function. Namely, a babysitter.

What exactly crosses the line is a judgement call. Looking after a kid while somebody goes to the store or for an emergency likely wouldn't be an issue. Looking after a kid so the parent can go to work likely crosses the line.

I'm not doubting many people do it...especially grandparents, just that there cases where CBP has denied entry because they believed it crossed the line into work.

 

If he wants to visit, visit. Just don't work (like any tourist). Time spent together is good for the relationship and is beneficial when it comes time to interview for the visa.

Thanks. That gives me a better idea. I don't currently pay anyone for childcare, so he wouldn't actually be displacing anyone, but it sounds like that's open to interpretation. It's more the idea that I would have someone there to see him off to school if I wanted to go into work early and get a few extra hours in the mornings or be able to pick him up from school, etc. I'm glad this has been brought to my attention. I need to look further into it if it's something that could cause problems at some point. I was also thinking that I could have him list some things for sale that I haven't had the time to do as a way to help contribute to the household, but it sounds like even something like that might be risky?

[Suze1 366]

You have already gotten responses from some VJ members who have seen/read a lot of posts, helped a lot of people,  and know a lot about this kind of thing.

 

Basically it boils down to - Unless and until you are authorized to do it, you are not authorized to do it. haa haa haa

 

So, for example, if you have a Tourist Visa, you are allowed and expected to do things that a tourist would do on vacation, if, say, they visited some foreign country (which this would be to a foreigner). Touristy things.

(Although B1/B2 does allow some work-related activities- some meetings, some training, etc...so this does not cover all that one can do, for sure., but can be a helpful place to start.)

 

No one would go touring in France, or Egypt, or Japan for a week, check into a hotel, and then take kids to school, babysit, make business phone calls for someone, etc. ON THEIR VACATION, broadly speaking.

The more "HELPFUL" the person is the more "WORK" them must be doing, and hence the closer they are getting to a concept/interpretation of "WORKING", which means they are closer to the line.

People are generally not HELPFUL to others when they are ON VACATION, generally speaking.

 

And as already mentioned, remote/online work is still work no matter for whom or where the beneficiary of that work is or resides. And that is not allowed UNTIL it is allowed, by the visa or some other authorizing document (EAD, Greencard, etc.).

 

And if they are not authorized to work - based on their visa - then they are approaching and maybe crossing the line.

That is a very, very rough way of thinking about it.

 

Now, this is not strictly true, and the more strict expressions have been shared above by others.

 

So, look at the official USCIS guides and see what it says. Do that. 

And also ask yourself - Would I feel 100% comfortable telling the Border Patrol Officer exactly what you are thinking, and exactly what you think you are allowed to do, and feel confident that they will say - "Oh, sure, you are authorized to do that!"  If you don't have that feeling (and even if you wrongly do), then you know you might need to check that particular activity out before you head towards the airport. smile

 

This is kind of a 30,000 ft version, just for basic orientation.

 

Hope it helps. If not, no worries. smile

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Suze1