K-1 AOS phase work query

[Boiler 45,501]

5 minutes ago, Tonez said:

Ah indeed you are correct. In which case I would suggest a blog post isn't a reasonable legal source and thus should be discounted completely from conversation.

 

So again, I ask, is there any source giving the legalities of working remotely whilst on a tourist visa or the VWP, for a company in the home country and getting paid in to a bank account (and thus paying taxes) in the home country?

Depends, certain limited work is allowed on a B1. and the VWP equivalent.

[HRQX 4,145]

12 minutes ago, Tonez said:

So again, I ask, is there any source giving the legalities of working remotely whilst on a tourist visa or the VWP, for a company in the home country and getting paid in to a bank account (and thus paying taxes) in the home country?

At entry, try to get WB (VWP business visitor) instead of WT (VWP tourist visitor). Even then, examples of permitted activities as WB visitor include:

• Consult with and attend meetings with business associates

• Travel for a scientific, educational, professional or business convention, or a conference on specific dates

• Participate in litigation

• Undertake independent research

• Attend board meetings and perform other board related functions as a board director of a U.S. corporation

• Seek investments in the U.S. but may not perform productive labor or actively participate in the management of the business

• Establish a new branch, subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign employer if the applicant will be eligible for L-1 status upon obtaining necessary proof of acquisition of physical premises

• Install, service, or repair commercial or industrial equipment or machinery or software products purchased from a company outside the U.S. under certain circumstances

• Settle an estate

• Negotiate a contract

• Negotiate a lease

• Participate in a short-term training in certain circumstances

[geowrian 22,337]

5 hours ago, Tonez said:

You obviously don't understand law.
 

Laws are written to tell people what they are not allowed to do. It is therefore is legally assumed that anything not written in laws is legal. That is a source.

You obviously don't understand what a source is. Or at the very least, you misunderstood what was meant by requesting the source of your claim.

A source (in this context) is not "I read the law(s) and regulations and concluded x". It would be more along the lines of "read [whatever] that states or implies x". It may or may not be a good source...official sources are preferred...but that is what was being requested.

 

Note that I never said your conclusion was wrong. But it was stated as a fact and I have never seen anything official that would imply any such clear result to designate it as a fact. It is an opinion based on one's understanding of the law.

The obvious challenge here is that there is no way to "prove" that is is legal. A court has not interpreted the laws in such a way to draw a definitive conclusion, and the law makes no explicit mention of such a case. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (aka you can't prove a negative). You have not seen anything that says that set of circumstances is prohibited, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing that effectively makes it prohibited. As noted in the prior link, there is a valid legal argument (not saying it is correct...just that the argument itself has merit) that tax and immigration law intersect when it comes to this.

 

My personal opinion is that the laws were not updated to cover today's world, and there is not a clear "it is legal" or "it is not legal" conclusion at this point in time. But I would never go as far to state it one way or the other declaratively, implying the matter is settled. It's not. You can likely find hundreds of threads on VJ alone covering the topic and without a clear conclusion.

 

Quote

The link you have provided is talking about people LIVING in the USA, that is not what this conversation between you and me is about. You asked for me to provide a source saying someone can work on a tourist visa, I asked you for one saying they can't. By definition, if they are a tourist in the USA then the USA is not their home, and therefore this article is irrelvant.

Your understanding of what was stated is inaccurate. They were discussing any NIV without employment authorization. The word "living" was used but "visiting" equally applied to all arguments made.

 

Quote

EDIT: upon reading the article, it actually appears to disagree with what you are saying and say yes they can, as long as 3 conditions are met:

 

Thank you for the source, it is good to know that someone can work in the USA remotely as long as these 3 conditions are met.

What did it disagree with exactly? I never stated (prior to the above) my opinion of the legality of it. You can even check my past threads (as implied above, the question appears pretty regularly).

 

1 hour ago, Tonez said:

Ah indeed you are correct. In which case I would suggest a blog post isn't a reasonable legal source and thus should be discounted completely from conversation.

You requested a "legal mind showing that they argued someone working remotely for a company outside the USA, getting paid in to a non USA bank account". I provided such a case.

The arguments are valid (whether one believes they are correct or not). It would be a disservice to exclude them for any such discussion on the sole ground that it is not a "legal source". They are credentialed immigration attorneys discussing an issue.

Edited August 23, 2020 by geowrian