USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Sep 7th 2006, 9:30 am
#1
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
AILA posted a memo from CIS to the ombudsman which, in part, included their discussion of EAD for K-1's. Part of the memo is not correct, but that is just my opinion. The relevant text with typos introduced by cut & paste from a PDF to an ASCII block:
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1 noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon approval of an application for employment author-ization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute.
Employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status.
Accordingly, K-1 nonimmigrants seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)).
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for employment within the United States.
This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary, nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1 noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon approval of an application for employment author-ization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute.
Employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status.
Accordingly, K-1 nonimmigrants seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)).
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for employment within the United States.
This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary, nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
Last edited by Rete; Sep 8th 2006 at 1:40 am.
Sep 7th 2006, 9:42 am
#2
MODERATOR
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 58,687
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Wow, that was kind of hard to read. LOL Thanks Mr. F. I guess if USCIS does away with allowing the K-1 holder to work during the first 90 days, they'll issue an announcement, right?
Rene
Rene
Sep 7th 2006, 9:48 am
#3
I'm back!
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
AILA posted a memo from CIS to the ombudsman which, in part, included their discussion of EAD for K-1's. Part of the memo is not correct, but that is just my opinion. The relevant text with typos introduced by cut & paste from a PDF to an ASCII block:
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1
noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides
employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon
approval of an application fbr employment authorization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute. Employment authorization
for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the
employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status. Accordingly,
K-1 nonimmigrslnts seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be
consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to
enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter
into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)). Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating
marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for
employment within the United States. This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration
of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting
employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary,
nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate
employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent
of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1
noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides
employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon
approval of an application fbr employment authorization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute. Employment authorization
for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the
employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status. Accordingly,
K-1 nonimmigrslnts seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be
consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to
enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter
into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)). Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating
marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for
employment within the United States. This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration
of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting
employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary,
nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate
employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent
of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
Could you (or someone) please clarify what the following are supposed to mean (particulary bolded text):
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1 noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Such employment authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute.
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen.
By contrast, granting employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary, nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa.
Obviously whoever wrote this up originally is not a great typist, but I honestly can't figure out what those are supposed to mean...
~ Jenney
Sep 7th 2006, 9:54 am
#4
MODERATOR
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 58,687
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen.
I wonder if my fiance got a hily-baaed benefit when he came here on his K-1?? LOLRene
Sep 7th 2006, 9:56 am
#5
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Kentucky (husband is from W. Yorkshire)
Posts: 227
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Noorah101
Wow, that was kind of hard to read. LOL Thanks Mr. F. I guess if USCIS does away with allowing the K-1 holder to work during the first 90 days, they'll issue an announcement, right?
Rene
Rene
to read it w/o a lot of difficulty!
Sep 7th 2006, 10:02 am
#6
MODERATOR
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 58,687
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by psychobabbler1
Maybe it's because I work with special needs students but I was able
to read it w/o a lot of difficulty!
to read it w/o a lot of difficulty!
Rene
Sep 7th 2006, 10:51 am
#7
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
Could you (or someone) please clarify what the following are supposed to mean (particulary bolded text):
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1 noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Such employment authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute.
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen.
By contrast, granting employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary, nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa.
Obviously whoever wrote this up originally is not a great typist, but I honestly can't figure out what those are supposed to mean...
~ Jenney
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1 noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Such employment authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute.
Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen.
By contrast, granting employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary, nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa.
Obviously whoever wrote this up originally is not a great typist, but I honestly can't figure out what those are supposed to mean...
~ Jenney
As I said, I cut and pasted from a PDF document and I guess the conversion to ASCII was not as clean as it could be.
"breakar" is "breaks" in the original.
"disaetioniuy" is "discretionary" in the original.
"hily-baaed" is "family-based" in the original.
"fiunily-based" is also "family-based" in the original.
The typist was just fine. It was the cut-and-paste between formats that caused the confusion.
Sep 7th 2006, 12:15 pm
#8
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
AILA posted a memo from CIS to the ombudsman which, in part, included their discussion of EAD for K-1's. Part of the memo is not correct, but that is just my opinion. The relevant text with typos introduced by cut & paste from a PDF to an ASCII block:
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1
noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides
employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon
approval of an application fbr employment authorization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute. Employment authorization
for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the
employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status. Accordingly,
K-1 nonimmigrslnts seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be
consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to
enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter
into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)). Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating
marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for
employment within the United States. This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration
of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting
employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary,
nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate
employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent
of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
------------------
Third, the Ombudsman reammends that USCIS amend the regulations such that K-1
noaimmigrants are not subject to breakar in employment authorization.
Pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214(d) and 8 C.F,R. § 274a.l2(a)(6), USCIS currently provides
employment authorization to K-1 nonimmigrants for duration of status of up to 90 days, upon
approval of an application fbr employment authorization (Form 1,765). Such employment
authorization is disaetioniuy in nature and is not mandated by statute. Employment authorization
for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status, and once obtained, the
employment authorization cannot be extended beyond the 90-dsy duration of status. Accordingly,
K-1 nonimmigrslnts seeking adjustment of status to permanent residence as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
must submit a separate application for employment authorization once they file for adjustment.
USCIS does not consider automatic employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants to be
consistent with the intent of the underlying benefit. The K-1 nonimmigrant visa is designed to
enable an alien with a bona fide intention to marry a U. S. citizen to enter the United States and enter
into a valid marriage in the United States within 90 days after the alien's arrival. (See 8 C.F.R. §
21qd)). Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating
marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for
employment within the United States. This interpretation is supported by the short 90 day duration
of the K-1 nonimmigtant visa with no opportunity for an extension. By contrast, granting
employment authorization automatically to K-1 aliens appears to conflict with the temporary,
nonimmigrant and fiunily-based nature of the K-1 visa. USCIS instead plans to propose to eliminate
employment eligibility for K-1 nonimmigrants, in order to be more consistent with the overall intent
of the K- 1 visa.
----------------------------------------------
"Employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status"
Is this the part you think is wrong? I recall you saying the opposite of the above in the past.
"Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for employment within the United States."
Hmm, perhaps when evaluating the "intent" of the K-1, our hily-values gov't should consider how many families are able to survive in the US on one income. Or worse, one woman's income. Doesn't seem very hily-friendly to me.
It would be one thing to introduce/enforce this policy IF the Service was able to produce employment auth to AOS applicants in something much less than 3 months. This seems punative and azzbackward to common sense. Is there someone the collective we should complain to?
It's really starting to look like a war on poor people. Seriously, with the amount of time it still takes to even *get* a K-1 visa---well, I'm sure all of this looks good on paper to whoever writes it out. Out in Reality Land, it seems absolutely ridiculous (but then again think of the poor K-3s!).
discuss.
edit: Thank you very much (sincerely--not like to the Ombudsman) to you MrF for posting this. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Last edited by meauxna; Sep 7th 2006 at 12:20 pm.
Sep 7th 2006, 1:58 pm
#9
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by meauxna
Wow, a real example of the squeeky wheel getting acid instead of grease....Thanks Mr Ombusdman! (not)
"Employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status"
Is this the part you think is wrong? I recall you saying the opposite of the above in the past.
"Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for employment within the United States."
Hmm, perhaps when evaluating the "intent" of the K-1, our hily-values gov't should consider how many families are able to survive in the US on one income. Or worse, one woman's income. Doesn't seem very hily-friendly to me.
It would be one thing to introduce/enforce this policy IF the Service was able to produce employment auth to AOS applicants in something much less than 3 months. This seems punative and azzbackward to common sense. Is there someone the collective we should complain to?
It's really starting to look like a war on poor people. Seriously, with the amount of time it still takes to even *get* a K-1 visa---well, I'm sure all of this looks good on paper to whoever writes it out. Out in Reality Land, it seems absolutely ridiculous (but then again think of the poor K-3s!).
discuss.
edit: Thank you very much (sincerely--not like to the Ombudsman) to you MrF for posting this. It will be interesting to see what happens.
"Employment authorization for K-1 nonimmigrants is not grsnted automatically incident to status"
Is this the part you think is wrong? I recall you saying the opposite of the above in the past.
"Thus, the purpose of the K-1 visa is to provide a hily-baaed benefit in facilitating marriage between a foreign national and a U.S. citizen. Its purpose is not to provide an avenue for employment within the United States."
Hmm, perhaps when evaluating the "intent" of the K-1, our hily-values gov't should consider how many families are able to survive in the US on one income. Or worse, one woman's income. Doesn't seem very hily-friendly to me.
It would be one thing to introduce/enforce this policy IF the Service was able to produce employment auth to AOS applicants in something much less than 3 months. This seems punative and azzbackward to common sense. Is there someone the collective we should complain to?
It's really starting to look like a war on poor people. Seriously, with the amount of time it still takes to even *get* a K-1 visa---well, I'm sure all of this looks good on paper to whoever writes it out. Out in Reality Land, it seems absolutely ridiculous (but then again think of the poor K-3s!).
discuss.
edit: Thank you very much (sincerely--not like to the Ombudsman) to you MrF for posting this. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Personally, I think there is an administrative campaign against the K-1 visa. I wonder if there is lobbying to simply abolish the category. It pays to remember that the K-1 is a "hybrid" and notially speaking, somewhat a bastard one at that. We are still working under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended after all. The K-1 was added to the law in early 1970. The first wide body 747 was just starting to fly -- air travel was expensive and sometimes hard to get in parts of the world.
The other weird thing is that the K-1 adjustment used to be almost a pro-forma application -- processed on a walk-in basis! The K-1 visa is processed AS IF it is an immigrant visa in the first place and IMHO, it should be treated like any other admission but with a built in request for evidence. I think lot of the problems are based upon the way it is processed.
In the "if I were King" category, I would do away with K-1 non-immigrant category and in its place create an IMMIGRANT visa -- however, at the Port of Entry, the holder would NOT be "admitted" but would be "paroled" in for "deferred inspection" with the marriage certficate to be produced to complete "inspection" and then be admitted with a "green card."
Sep 7th 2006, 4:06 pm
#10
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Personally, I think there is an administrative campaign against the K-1 visa. I wonder if there is lobbying to simply abolish the category. It pays to remember that the K-1 is a "hybrid" and notially speaking, somewhat a bastard one at that. We are still working under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended after all. The K-1 was added to the law in early 1970. The first wide body 747 was just starting to fly -- air travel was expensive and sometimes hard to get in parts of the world.
The other weird thing is that the K-1 adjustment used to be almost a pro-forma application -- processed on a walk-in basis! The K-1 visa is processed AS IF it is an immigrant visa in the first place and IMHO, it should be treated like any other admission but with a built in request for evidence. I think lot of the problems are based upon the way it is processed.
In the "if I were King" category, I would do away with K-1 non-immigrant category and in its place create an IMMIGRANT visa -- however, at the Port of Entry, the holder would NOT be "admitted" but would be "paroled" in for "deferred inspection" with the marriage certficate to be produced to complete "inspection" and then be admitted with a "green card."
Personally, I think there is an administrative campaign against the K-1 visa. I wonder if there is lobbying to simply abolish the category. It pays to remember that the K-1 is a "hybrid" and notially speaking, somewhat a bastard one at that. We are still working under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended after all. The K-1 was added to the law in early 1970. The first wide body 747 was just starting to fly -- air travel was expensive and sometimes hard to get in parts of the world.
The other weird thing is that the K-1 adjustment used to be almost a pro-forma application -- processed on a walk-in basis! The K-1 visa is processed AS IF it is an immigrant visa in the first place and IMHO, it should be treated like any other admission but with a built in request for evidence. I think lot of the problems are based upon the way it is processed.
In the "if I were King" category, I would do away with K-1 non-immigrant category and in its place create an IMMIGRANT visa -- however, at the Port of Entry, the holder would NOT be "admitted" but would be "paroled" in for "deferred inspection" with the marriage certficate to be produced to complete "inspection" and then be admitted with a "green card."
All they have to do is stop JFK doing the stamp if they are worried about temporary work authorisation.
Sep 7th 2006, 10:32 pm
#11
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Boiler
So what did a Fiancee do before the K1?
There was no category, Immigrant or Non-Immigant, for an alien to come to the US for the purpose of getting married and then adjusting.
Also, when the K-1 was passed, the "sexual revolution" of the 60's wasn't all that new and the social convention was still that the wedding night was the "first time." These days, the wedding ranges from a formality to a huge wonderful celebration -- but I think it is an extremely rare situation where the guests assume the couple are both going to lose their virginity that night.
Last edited by Folinskyinla; Sep 7th 2006 at 10:39 pm.
Sep 8th 2006, 7:20 am
#12
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 83
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Personally, I think there is an administrative campaign against the K-1 visa. I wonder if there is lobbying to simply abolish the category. It pays to remember that the K-1 is a "hybrid" and notially speaking, somewhat a bastard one at that. We are still working under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended after all. The K-1 was added to the law in early 1970. The first wide body 747 was just starting to fly -- air travel was expensive and sometimes hard to get in parts of the world.
The other weird thing is that the K-1 adjustment used to be almost a pro-forma application -- processed on a walk-in basis! The K-1 visa is processed AS IF it is an immigrant visa in the first place and IMHO, it should be treated like any other admission but with a built in request for evidence. I think lot of the problems are based upon the way it is processed.
In the "if I were King" category, I would do away with K-1 non-immigrant category and in its place create an IMMIGRANT visa -- however, at the Port of Entry, the holder would NOT be "admitted" but would be "paroled" in for "deferred inspection" with the marriage certficate to be produced to complete "inspection" and then be admitted with a "green card."
Personally, I think there is an administrative campaign against the K-1 visa. I wonder if there is lobbying to simply abolish the category. It pays to remember that the K-1 is a "hybrid" and notially speaking, somewhat a bastard one at that. We are still working under the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended after all. The K-1 was added to the law in early 1970. The first wide body 747 was just starting to fly -- air travel was expensive and sometimes hard to get in parts of the world.
The other weird thing is that the K-1 adjustment used to be almost a pro-forma application -- processed on a walk-in basis! The K-1 visa is processed AS IF it is an immigrant visa in the first place and IMHO, it should be treated like any other admission but with a built in request for evidence. I think lot of the problems are based upon the way it is processed.
In the "if I were King" category, I would do away with K-1 non-immigrant category and in its place create an IMMIGRANT visa -- however, at the Port of Entry, the holder would NOT be "admitted" but would be "paroled" in for "deferred inspection" with the marriage certficate to be produced to complete "inspection" and then be admitted with a "green card."
On one hand, it bows to administrative reality that if heaven and earth could be moved to issue the K-1 EAD in reasonable amount of time, the time it takes to requalify for the new category of EAD renders this point moot, unless the AOS EAD could be issued just as fast.
Based on most experiences here very few people have even gotten the 90 Stamp much less the EAD card. Therefore in some it won't affect people. Though in this a catch-22 people won't apply for because they know they can't get it therefore we don't need it. This directly affect the ability of the people to earn a living, meaning they have to rely on savngs and their spouse.
Canadian Note: If you're collecting EI/UI before come to the US, having the EAD which gives to permission to work also entitles you to collect up to maximum of 26 weeks of EI/UI in the US. cf. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/ei/publica...sidecanada.pdf
On the other hand, I was fortunate enough to be issued both a 90 EAD Day, and my AOS EAD with no break in time. This was back in 2003 when walk-in AOS in Boston was still done. I started a job the next week. I would like to see be able to do this, most don't like sitting at home doing nothing. They want to get out and work at something.
As for "If I were king idea" a very reasonable and logical suggestion, no doubt to rejected because of this.
Sep 8th 2006, 7:48 am
#13
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,485
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
I corrected the cut and paste typos for you on another post.
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
As I said, I cut and pasted from a PDF document and I guess the conversion to ASCII was not as clean as it could be.
"breakar" is "breaks" in the original.
"disaetioniuy" is "discretionary" in the original.
"hily-baaed" is "family-based" in the original.
"fiunily-based" is also "family-based" in the original.
The typist was just fine. It was the cut-and-paste between formats that caused the confusion.
As I said, I cut and pasted from a PDF document and I guess the conversion to ASCII was not as clean as it could be.
"breakar" is "breaks" in the original.
"disaetioniuy" is "discretionary" in the original.
"hily-baaed" is "family-based" in the original.
"fiunily-based" is also "family-based" in the original.
The typist was just fine. It was the cut-and-paste between formats that caused the confusion.
Sep 8th 2006, 7:49 am
#14
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,485
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Boiler
So what did a Fiancee do before the K1?
Simple. They entered the US as a visitor, got married, and applied for adjustment of status.
Sep 8th 2006, 8:57 am
#15
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: USCIS on K-1 employment authorization
Originally Posted by Rete
Simple. They entered the US as a visitor, got married, and applied for adjustment of status.
Assuming you got the visitor visa. Going to the US with intent to marry and stay is not a bona-fide "visit." That was the rub.
As I said, the solution was not all that elegant, but it worked when adjustment was a "walk-in" adjudication and who the hell needed employment authorization. Then came the 1986 IRCA and IMFA legislation and its been downhill since.
