Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > Marriage Based Visas
Reload this Page >

EAD not required for K-1 holder?

EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Thread Tools
 
Old Jun 15th 2008, 9:16 am
  #31  
Senior Member
 
penguinbar's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 2,913
penguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond reputepenguinbar has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Thanks, What happens if he gets a job while he has the temporary EAD and it runs out before the other one rrives? Will he just have to stop working? We want to do everything the right way
penguinbar is offline  
Old Jun 15th 2008, 11:16 am
  #32  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
ian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by penguinbar
Will he just have to stop working?
Yes. As a practical matter though, any unauthorized work will be forgiven by USCIS since he's the spouse of a USC. The employer, however, may be liable if caught... but that still wouldn't affect him.

Ian
ian-mstm is offline  
Old Jun 15th 2008, 11:55 pm
  #33  
I'm back!
 
Just Jenney's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Just Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by ian-mstm
The employer, however, may be liable if caught... but that still wouldn't affect him.

Ian
Well... except that they might reconsider having him as an employee in that case. If I were caught and held liable because one of my employees shouldn't have been working for me once his/her work authorization expired, I'm not sure I'd want to keep that person around!

~ Jenney
Just Jenney is offline  
Old Jun 16th 2008, 12:15 am
  #34  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
ian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
Well... except that they might reconsider having him as an employee in that case.
True... but since it would be the employer's fault, I'm not sure how it could come back on the employee. It is always the employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are authorized to work.

Ian
ian-mstm is offline  
Old Jun 16th 2008, 3:12 am
  #35  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by penguinbar
Thanks, What happens if he gets a job while he has the temporary EAD and it runs out before the other one rrives? Will he just have to stop working? We want to do everything the right way
Hi:

The regulations allow a K-1 non-immigrant to work incident to status.

Section 214(b) of the Immigration & Nationality Act clearly states that a K-1 becomes an overstay only if they fail to marry the petitioner within 90 days. However, in enforcement of this provision, USCIS finds this section to be "unpersuasive" and they refuse to follow the language of the regulation. Apparently USCIS believes that its own "interpretation" trumps the express terms of the Immigration & Nationality Act.
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Jun 16th 2008, 5:16 am
  #36  
I'm back!
 
Just Jenney's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Just Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by ian-mstm
True... but since it would be the employer's fault, I'm not sure how it could come back on the employee. It is always the employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are authorized to work.

Ian
Here's an analogy for you:

Let's say you're a university student, and you and your friend are taking the same class. One day your friend is visiting your dorm room. You're writing a paper for that class and have your notes up on your computer monitor. You step out of the room for a few minutes to go to the bathroom down the hall. While you're gone, your friend sees your notes, decides to lift your thesis idea and submits a paper almost identical to yours. The professor accuses both of you of plagarism but your friend gets off because his dad works for the university. You, however, are put on academic probation because you didn't take the necessary steps to secure your notes before leaving to use the bathroom, therefore giving your friend the opportunity to plagarize your work.

Ok – it's not a perfect analogy, I know. But would you REALLY want to keep that person as a friend?!? I know I wouldn't!

~ Jenney
Just Jenney is offline  
Old Jun 16th 2008, 5:33 am
  #37  
Twice half his height
 
Knight's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Central Mississississippippi
Posts: 443
Knight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond reputeKnight has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

If an employer wasfined because they did not check/did nothing about work authorization status, is it a reason to dismiss the employee? They'd be opening themselves up for an unfair dismissal suit maybe?
Knight is offline  
Old Jun 16th 2008, 8:08 am
  #38  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NW Chicago suburbs
Posts: 11,253
Tracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond reputeTracym has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: EAD not required for K-1 holder?

Originally Posted by Knight
If an employer wasfined because they did not check/did nothing about work authorization status, is it a reason to dismiss the employee? They'd be opening themselves up for an unfair dismissal suit maybe?
I'm not sure it would be considered unfair dismissal.

The employee would be (apparently knowingly) working there illegally.

It is NOT ok for the employee to do this - it's illegal for both employee AND employer. The only difference is, USCIS usually forgives the employee - but both were equally guilty to start.

So I can see that the employer wouldn't feel the employee was someone they coudl trust, if they knowingly put the employer into that position, figuring they temselves would get away with it.

In many (most?) states, you can be fired at will anyway.
Tracym is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.