tom169

I have a job offer from a large corporation that I was fully transparent on my current immigration status with.

HR have given me an offer contingent on having received EAD (or permanent residency) at my start date (which is past the 90 day estimate).

If I don't have it by then they will move my start date.

Simply, they will wait for me.

Is there anything against me accepting this in written form? Just to give them some more assurance that i'm serious.

I have given informal verbal acceptance to the salary, benefits etc.

Cheers
Tom

Guindalf

Go ahead and accept. There is no law that says you can't.

Make sure you accept contingent on the EAD coming through, which you've already indicated, they're happy to wait for you.

ian-mstm

Yes - you can't. The moment you sign your name, you become a de facto employee, and that is something you can't do without an EAD.

Ignore Guindalf's comment - it's wrong.

Ian

ian-mstm

Sorry, but that's wrong. He can't sign his name to any paperwork without an EAD in his hand. Will he get caught? Probably not... but that's not the same thing as it being allowed. If you want to take chances with your own life, that's great... but please don't be so cavalier about someone else's.

Ian

tom169

Is this still true if i'm in the first 90 days of entry on K-1?

Noorah101

A K-1 visa holder is work authorized for the first 90 days in the USA. So you can indeed sign paperwork and get hired on, as long as the employer doesn't need you to fill out an I-9 form.

If your EAD arrives after the 90-day period ends, you can't work during the gap time. That being said, if the company is OK with you continuing to work during that time, USCIS will forgive the unauthorized work, although the company might get in trouble for employing someone not authorized to work, if found out.

Rene

Twinkle0927

I'm surprised the employer is expecting you to sign before they have proof that you are legally able to work. I applied for, and received a job offer for, my current job whilst I was still in the UK. I verbally accepted the offer and it was made clear by the employer that the offer was made on the understanding that I would show up at the office at 9 am on January 3 with proof of being able to work in the USA and only then would anything be signed. Although they have hired foreigners before, including Brits, and they are well aware that an IR-1 (as mine was) enabled me to work immediately upon endorsement on arrival, they couldn't just take my word for it. They needed to see the endorsed visa with their own eyes.

Guindalf

With respect, Ian, there's nothing wrong with accepting a position with the proviso that you are unable to become an employee without the EAD, so no, it's NOT wrong. If you are not being paid or performing any kind of work at all, you are not breaking any rules or laws. It's merely a promissory note with no implications whatsoever.

ian-mstm

Verbally, yes. He can't sign anything without an EAD.


He becomes an employee the moment he signs any paperwork... not when he has an EAD in hand.


He becomes an employee the moment he signs any paperwork. Whether or not the job has actually started is irrelevant. Whether he gets paid or performs work is irrelevant.

Ian

Guindalf

I get what you're saying, Ian, but I still disagree with you.

There isn't a court on earth that would differentiate in this way. If work is not being done, no 'crime' is being committed.

Let's just agree to disagree, OK?

Noorah101

In the long run, for anyone in the OP's situation, if the employer is willing to hire them without an EAD or other work authorization, the burden falls on the employer, as USCIS routinely forgives unauthorized work when adjusting status based on marriage to a USC.

Rene

Pulaski

I agree, and furthermore I can't even imagine a prosecutor trying to explain to his/her boss why resources were being used to bring such a case to court.

zerlesen

I am certain that none of my previous employers would've started in on immigration paperwork on my behalf prior to my indicating (in writing!) that I was accepting their job offer. On the other hand, the job offer is always contingent on receiving work authorization, so it's a chicken and egg deal. I'd be interested to know what's wrong with the OP signing his name to the statement "I want to work for you, once I'm legally able to work."

Eric S

Seems to me that it depends on what exactly he is signing. Maybe if you sign an employment contract, you become an employee at that point. But if you just sign a letter saying you accept an offer of employment, do you become an employee at that point? The company doesn't need to fill out the I-9 until you actually start showing up to work.

- Eric S.

Pulaski

It is very rare for anyone in the US, other than senior executives, to have an employment "contract".