tom_1984

According to the social security website, a K-1 visa holder does NOT require an EAD to work, as outlined here in Section C of the 'Employment Authorization for non-immigrants':

"The following sections list nonimmigrants, by alien class of admission codes, who are authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from DHS. The person’s I-94 will not have the DHS employment authorization stamp and the alien will generally not have an EAD."
The K-1 is included in this list.

Link:https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms....pendocument#c1

Bob

plenty of threads on this....you are work authorised for the 90 day period of the visa, reality is, without the stamp in the passport as proof, which only JFK apparently do, no one will touch you, and then once married and you file AOS, you'll apply for an EAD at the same time.

Noorah101

Are you continuing the recent debate, or are you asking if this is correct?

For SSN purposes, that's true...a K-1 visa holder does not need to show SSA an EAD in order to receive a SSN. Since you got these instructions from SSA, it might just be their take on the whole thing, so their employees know who they can give a SSN to.

From other sources, it seems USCIS has a different opinion regarding a K-1's right to work without having an EAD in hand.

Rene

tom_1984

According to the site, you can use a printout of the webpage as proof that you are eligible to work:

"Required evidence for employment authorization is either a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, showing a class of admission that indicates the person can work without specific DHS authorization (RM00203.500C.1.)"

"Employment authorization for nonimmigrants can be determined by:

the alien's class of admission code as shown on the I-94 (the non-immigrant classifications shown on the I-94 with employment authorization inherent in status are listed in RM 00203.500C.1.)"

Your class of admission is in itself a stamp of authorization.

Noorah101

But that's the SS website you're referring to. It doesn't mean they know DHS law. I'm not saying it's wrong, as I'm still on the fence whether a K-1 is work authorized with having an EAD or not. I'm just saying you're reading about DHS rules on the SSA website...two completely different entities who may or may not know each other's rules. SSA probably only knows what class they are actually allowed to give a SSN to.

Rene

TKO

The recent discussions on this have me totally confused as to whether JFK is a necessary stop or not. Delta fly out of Edinburgh and Glasgow to JFK and then transfer to pretty much everywhere, so I think i'm just going to do that. Price is pretty competitive anyway.

tom_1984

This is definitely a massive grey area. I see what you're saying Rene, and I agree that SS may not be in line with DHS. However, they should be! :P

What I'm thinking is that although POEs do not issue a physical stamp (apart from JFK who apparently love their stamp and do not want to let it go) it is because the stamp is not necessary since the type of visa is in itself a stamp in your passport. After all, JFK offer their precious outdated stamp to K-1s, and we know that if K-1s become employed DHS is not going to make a fuss. The real issue is demonstrating to employers that K-1s have a right to work, and according to SS they do.

Bob

But it needs to be according to USCIS...

Also it's usually a moot point because a employer probably won't bother with someone that's going to be not authorised to work within 90 days....

Noorah101

An employer needs to complete an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification for all new employees.

The only thing a K-1 holder who doesn't come through JFK will have is his unexpired foreign passport with a K-1 visa in it, and an unexpired I-94.

The specific wording on the I-9 requirement is:

An unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired Arrival-Departure Record, Form I-94, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement of the alient's nonimmigrant status, if that status authorizes the alien to work for the employer. (my bold and italics)

Now the question is...is the above blurb referring to a K-1 status (where one might work for ANY employer, not THE employer....or something more like an H1B or L1 where it's tied to THE specific employer? That's the debate going on.

Rene

meauxna

I'm not even going to read this thread.

I hate the SSA and their poxy memo. :curse:

tom_1984

I don't have a quote from USCIS that says K-1 visa holders must have an EAD to work. According to SS your authorization is inherent in your K-1 status.

I'm not trying to be difficult when it comes to this issue, but it is an important one that remains unresolved. If your authorization is inherent in your status, then you can work as soon as you receive an SSN. However, I do see the problem that once your K-1 expires and you are waiting for AOS, your inherent eligibility to work will have expired.

It seems to me to be down to the discretion of the employer, and if you can find adequate evidence that you are allowed to work that the employer is satisfied with (even if it is from SS and not USCIS) then that's all good.

meauxna

The only people with truly inherent work authorizations are USCs and PRs.

You can look for a recent thread (past couple of months) where Knight and I gathered all the relevant pages to bicker over. You need an EADocument; the law says K-1s may apply for one.

tom_1984

Yeah, I'm aware of the I-9.. All I know is that SS is obliged by their own rules to provide me with an SSN that is valid for employment. I think it is down to the employer to make a decision, and if they do decide to employ you, and USCIS find out, then no-one is going to make a fuss, because the issue just isn't explicit when it comes to the rules regarding K-1s.

Apologies to keep this debate running longer than I'm sure most of you would like, but as a K-1 holder, it is rather annoying!

Tracym

My now husband just went through JFK - easier to avoid the problem.

Our attorney seemed to feel he would be work authorised without the stamp, and maybe the attorney could write a letter - but the employer would probably have gotten to the I-9 and been afraid to hire him.

imo - correct or not - it's not worth the hassle. If you want to work immed., go through JFK.

Knight

*resists*

Go read:
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=538478

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535293