Digital nomad while waiting for EAD card (split)

[mongo 2]

1 minute ago, mongo said:

 

I still rest my case. No one has been able to show me the law. I'm a CBP Officer, and if a packet was presented to me with our scenario? There is no way I could deny entry. I'd get laughed at by my Supervisor. No law to prove otherwise. Down The Road ( DTR) as we say.

[AstoriaAOS 33]

6 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. If you look at my OP, I'm talking about digital nomad on a k-1 application without EAD

My inquiry still stands, since the question in the I-485 on unauthorized employment doesn't specify unauthorized employment "during the I-485 application".

 

So let's change it to a hypothetical: if your fiancée were to marry and adjust status, how would she (hypothetically) answer Party 8 Question 16 (again hypothetically).

 

And if, hypothetically, she does not plan to adjust status, one must ask why she's bothering to enter on a K-1 when it's just as viable to enter on a B-2 to marry and return to her home country... Food for thought I guess.

[mongo 2]

17 minutes ago, AstoriaAOS said:

My inquiry still stands, since the question in the I-485 on unauthorized employment doesn't specify unauthorized employment "during the I-485 application".

 

So let's change it to a hypothetical: if your fiancée were to marry and adjust status, how would she (hypothetically) answer Party 8 Question 16 (again hypothetically).

 

And if, hypothetically, she does not plan to adjust status, one must ask why she's bothering to enter on a K-1 when it's just as viable to enter on a B-2 to marry and return to her home country... Food for thought I guess.

I respect your comments and information. But everyones situation is different. So here goes:

 

I just returned from Korea after 6 years in a Diplomatic Status. I personally know Ambassador Harris and DCM Rasport. We had the opportunity to go through USCIS office at the Embassy Seoul before it closed in 2019. It could have been over and done with in a couple of months. I wasn't ready to commit. Her father is dying and she wanted to stay behind to support. When I was about to PCS the COVID happened and we (I) needed to regroup. B-2 was not an option because my PCS was going to take along time, living in a hotel on the government dime for months and finding a place to live. I could have married in Korea and gone the IR/CR but that is not what either of us wanted. We're eloping on a beach or somewhere we choose. K-1 for us IS the best option for us.

 

Everyone on the journey has a different situation. This is ours.....

[EM_Vandaveer 2,417]

5 hours ago, mongo said:

False statement. That is not true.

It is true. But like I said, almost everyone gets away with it. Very unlikely to get caught. But no, you are not supposed to work while on US soil on a tourist visa or any other non-immigrant visa unless you have an EAD. It is immaterial who you work for.  One exception is a domestic worker accompanying their foreign citizen employer, when they are all on tourist visas. This does not apply to your fiancee.

For business purposes, you can have business meetings and such but can't do regular work.

Edited January 13, 2021 by EM_Vandaveer

[EM_Vandaveer 2,417]

2 hours 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. If you look at my OP, I'm talking about digital nomad on a k-1 application without EAD

It does not matter what status she is in. The point is we are talking about the time ehen she is in the US already, prior to receiving an EAD or a Green Card... 

[mongo 2]

1 minute ago, EM_Vandaveer said:

It is true. But likevI said, almost everyone gets away with it. Very unlikely to get caught. But no, you are not supposed to work while on US soil on a tourist visa. It is immaterial who you work for. For business purposes, you can have business meetings and such but can't do regular work.

I'm still awake for some reason:; but i will continue to ask anyone who states this to show me the law.. US Immigration law that says you cannot open a laptop, work online, collect foreign currency, and deposit into a foreign bank account. 

 

Please show me your source.

[EM_Vandaveer 2,417]

On 1/13/2021 at 8:56 AM, mongo said:

I'm still awake for some reason:; but i will continue to ask anyone who states this to show me the law.. US Immigration law that says you cannot open a laptop, work online, collect foreign currency, and deposit into a foreign bank account. 

 

Please show me your source.

Like it or not, it is NOT spelled out like that. What you are describing is a specific scenario. Laws are general.

The point is as an alien that unless you are on appropriate visa or have an EAD or Green Card, you are not supposed to do any activity that causes you to receive monetary compensation while on US soil. Regardless if you are working remotely or not, for an employer or yourself, in the US or for a foreign company and if you are paid in USD or another currency, in a foreign bank account or a US bank account.

From the law's point of view, it makes absolutely no difference.

In whether you are likely to get caught, it makes a huge difference.

I watched a documentary once about CBP. They were denying entry to a couple of Canadians who were trying to go to a convention where they were going to receive free entrance in lieu of volunteering.

They were told this counted as compensation, ergo work and they were refused entry....

Edited January 16, 2021 by EM_Vandaveer

[Villanelle 4,122]

On 1/13/2021 at 1:56 AM, mongo said:

I'm still awake for some reason:; but i will continue to ask anyone who states this to show me the law.. US Immigration law that says you cannot open a laptop, work online, collect foreign currency, and deposit into a foreign bank account. 

 

Please show me your source.

Im going to echo what @millefleur said back on page 1. This discussion/argument comes up every so often on VJ.  I will admit my first go around with it I argued for one side passionately. Then after much research and debate I stepped back from my position. You seem to be as passionate and stubborn as I was in seeking a clear answer which spoiler alert- is a fruitless endeavor. 

 

The issue is 'Congress has never bothered to define "employment" under the immigration laws, and the definitions of the term in immigration regulations, case law and non-binding policy guidance are incomplete or imprecise'. As a result there's no law/policy specifically allowing such (digital nomad) and no law prohibiting it specifically.  The above  quote is from- https://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0625-Paparelli.shtm Its a rather short read of 2 attnys taking opposing stances on the issue. 

 

I believe the only appropriate advice we can give someone about this topic is explaining about the incomplete policy and reassurances that working w/o auth is not a bar to adjustment as an immediate relative. Beyond that it becomes a moral issue. If a law doesn't exist does that make it legal>?  Technically yes I suppose but does that make it 'right'?  (In the United States and Common Law Britain “what is not prohibited is allowed” where In Napoleonic Law Countries (most of Europe and Africa) “that which is not (explicitly) allowed is prohibited") 

[mongo 2]

6 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Im going to echo what @millefleur said back on page 1. This discussion/argument comes up every so often on VJ.  I will admit my first go around with it I argued for one side passionately. Then after much research and debate I stepped back from my position. You seem to be as passionate and stubborn as I was in seeking a clear answer which spoiler alert- is a fruitless endeavor. 

 

The issue is 'Congress has never bothered to define "employment" under the immigration laws, and the definitions of the term in immigration regulations, case law and non-binding policy guidance are incomplete or imprecise'. As a result there's no law/policy specifically allowing such (digital nomad) and no law prohibiting it specifically.  The above  quote is from- https://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0625-Paparelli.shtm Its a rather short read of 2 attnys taking opposing stances on the issue. 

 

I believe the only appropriate advice we can give someone about this topic is explaining about the incomplete policy and reassurances that working w/o auth is not a bar to adjustment as an immediate relative. Beyond that it becomes a moral issue. If a law doesn't exist does that make it legal>?  Technically yes I suppose but does that make it 'right'?  (In the United States and Common Law Britain “what is not prohibited is allowed” where In Napoleonic Law Countries (most of Europe and Africa) “that which is not (explicitly) allowed is prohibited") 

Haha! Yes you are correct, I'm sometimes stubborn;) I'm hoping your post will stop members from commenting on my OP. This website should be used to follow journey's, not as a source for immigration law advice. Good luck to everyone still enduring the process.

[mongo 2]

8 hours ago, EM_Vandaveer said:

Like it or not, it is NOT spelled out like that. What you are describing is a specific scenario. Laws are general.

The point is as an alien that unless you are on appropriate visa or have an EAD or Green Card, you are not supposed to do any activity that causes you to receive monetary compensation while on US soil. Regardless if you are working remotely or not, for an employer or yourself, in the US or for a foreign company and if you are paid in USD or another currency, in a foreign bank account or a US bank account.

From the law's point of view, it makes absolutely no difference.

In whether you are likely to get caught, it makes a huge difference.

I watched a documentary once about CBP. They were denying entry to a couple of Canadians who were trying to go to a convention where they were going to receive free entrance in lieu of volunteering.

They were told this counted as compensation, ergo work and they were refused entry....

You saw it on the television... okay.......

[EM_Vandaveer 2,417]

10 hours ago, mongo said:

You saw it on the television... okay.......

No, that was simply an example to illustrate how seriously unathorized work is taken by the authorities. Again, it was not in a movie but a documentary.

Once you marry your fiancee, unathorized work is "forgiven" during AOS. Just for the sake of all that is holy, err on the side of caution and admit to it even if you dont think it counts... 

Because misrepresentation could cause problems while unathorized work by a spouse of a USC will not...

[Boiler 46,327]

Begs the question why on earth you would go K1 if working is so important.

[Ryan H 3,834]

***Posts violating the TOS (abusive language) removed; Administrative Action taken.  Additionally, this thread is also locked to any future discussion and is not to be restarted or referred to in future discussions.***