Digital nomad while waiting for EAD card (split)

[mongo 2]

25 minutes ago, mongo said:

False statement. That is not true.

To put my OP to bed,  I've been a CBP Officer for 17 years and still am. I've processed countless IV and NIV's on secondary and primary on both land and air environments. This forum is here to educate people on the journey. But to post false information that you are not educated on or do not have any experience in immigration other than this website (and google) need to be called out. I've used this website to follow other couples in the same journey, post an experience, and follow some timelines which has been a good resource. Using this website for immigration advice is highly not recommended. IMO......  i'll be sure to update my progress through my journey. 

 

 

[mongo 2]

On 1/5/2021 at 4:10 PM, JonSeattle said:

Even if you are not prosecuted for that, it is also a reason for denial of a GC, and who needs that stress?

false statement. not true. 

[mongo 2]

On 1/5/2021 at 4:06 PM, Lucky Cat said:

Only if you want to obey the law.   Working INSIDE the US without proper authorization is illegal.

false statement. not true

[mongo 2]

On 1/5/2021 at 4:12 PM, Orangesapples said:

Illegal work is not a reason to deny AOS for spouses of US citizens 

even though her situation is not "technically" illegal, thank you for stating the truth.

[Crazy Cat 42,648]

3 minutes ago, mongo said:

false statement. not true

It is a true statement.  What do you think the purpose of an EAD is??

Edited January 13, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[mongo 2]

Just now, Lucky Cat said:

It is true.

Again. She is not employed by a foreign company. does not earn US currency, and has her korean bank account. I beg you, please show, show me the law

[mongo 2]

1 hour ago, Lucky Cat said:

It is a true statement.  What do you think the purpose of an EAD is??

Not required under Section 274a.1(f) 

 

 

 

 

[AstoriaAOS 33]

How do you mean that 274a.1(f) doesn’t require it?

 

Because they count as an independent contractor?

Edited January 13, 2021 by AstoriaAOS

[mongo 2]

3 minutes ago, AstoriaAOS said:

How do you mean that 274a.1(f) doesn’t require it?

she's not employed by a foreign company, and not an independent contractor. There again.Section 274a.1(f) is closest.

No US Immigration Law can address it. The "grey" is everywhere.

 

[mongo 2]

2 minutes ago, mongo said:

she's not employed by a foreign company, and not an independent contractor. Section 274a.1(f) is closest.

No US Immigration Law can address it otherwise. The "grey" is everywhere.

 

 

[mongo 2]

10 minutes ago, mongo said:

 

without giving up too much information. my fiancé has built a successful business pre COVID and teaches private English grammar lessons to kids of very wealthy Korean parents. COVID (sad as it is) has expanded her clientele exponentially. There is absolutely NO!! US law that states she cannot continue doing what she is doing on a non immigrant visa (K-1) in US online via Zoom. Korean currency, korean bank account. I rest my case.........

[AstoriaAOS 33]

36 minutes ago, mongo said:

she's not employed by a foreign company, and not an independent contractor. There again.Section 274a.1(f) is closest.

No US Immigration Law can address it. The "grey" is everywhere.

 

I don't see why the company matters, but sure.

 

So if your fiancée isn't an independent contractor as defined in Section 274a.1(j) or a casual domestic worker as defined in Section 274a.1(h), then she would be categorized as an employee by Section 274a.1(f). As stated there, only the two categories above are exempt from being considered an employee, and since she's not in either of the exempt categories... I would consider her an employee.

 

Unfortunately @mongo I don't think your case holds water.

Edited January 13, 2021 by AstoriaAOS

[AstoriaAOS 33]

@mongo, how do you and your fiancée plan to answer Part 8 Question 16 on the form I-485 regarding unauthorized employment?

 

(1) You say "No" + USCIS thinks it was unauthorized employment = Misrepresentation

(2) You say "No" + USCIS thinks it was not technically employment = Everyone's happy

(3) You say "Yes" + USCIS thinks it was unauthorized employment = No bar from adjustment

(4) You say "Yes" + USCIS thinks it was not technically employment = Doesn't really matter because still not barred from adjustment

 

Is putting all those eggs into basket (2) really worth the risk of basket (1)?

Edited January 13, 2021 by AstoriaAOS

[mongo 2]

4 minutes ago, AstoriaAOS said:

@mongo, how do you and your fiancée plan to answer Part 8 Question 16 on the form I-485 regarding unauthorized employment?

 

(1) You say "No" + USCIS thinks it was unauthorized employment = Misrepresentation

(2) You say "No" + USCIS thinks it was not technically employment = Everyone's happy

(3) You say "Yes" + USCIS thinks it was unauthorized employment = No bar from adjustment

(4) You say "Yes" + USCIS thinks it was not technically employment = Doesn't really matter because still not barred from adjustment

 

Is putting all those eggs into basket (2) really worth the risk of basket (1)?

You're way ahead of our process. I never said my Fiancé would be running her business during the I-485 application. If you look at my OP, I'm talking about digital nomad on a k-1 application without EAD

[mongo 2]

12 minutes ago, mongo said:

You're way ahead of our process. I never said my Fiancé would be running her business during the I-485 application. I get what your saying. However, there is no risk because there is no law thats says different.