hi,
Not quite.
SSA considers K-1s employment authorized incident to their status. That is what the memo that skemper is talking about states. That is an INTERNAL SSA memo; it has nothing to do with getting hired for a job, except in the most roundabout way.

ANY K-1er may apply for and receive their Social Security account in their first 76 days in the US.

After 76 days in the US as a K-1, they need EVIDENCE of their employment authorized status that is independant of their K-1 (ex; EAD, Green Card).

The SSA card is not 'work authorized' or not. Until you are a PR or citizen, the SS card will have the legend 'only valid for work with DHS authorization' (or similar, don't have it to hand)

Mostly.
K-1s ARE employment authorized incident to their status (as a built in part). BUT, they have no evidence/proof of this UNLESS they get an EAD. The stamp given on the I-94 is an EAD. (K-1s are eligible to apply for a card EAD, but since those cards take +90 days to recieve, there is no use in filing for one via I-765).

People holding an Immigrant Visa (CR/IR etc) become Permanent Residents (Green Card) at entry; employment authorization is also built into that status. These people must also have evidence to be hired for a job. They get their visa endorsed at entry, when it starts to act as a 'temporary green card'.

Sorry I can't help with the last couple there..
Receiving a work authorization stamp has only one benefit for a K-1: it allows them to be hired legally by an employer. The K-1 will demonstrate their desire to stay in the US by filing for Adjustment of Status to Permanent Resident.



That is correct.

SSA understands that K-1s are already employment authorized, stamp or no stamp. Those people will receive SS cards with the legend. Sometimes SSA makes an error and issues a card with no legend--that doesn't mean the person is automatically a PR or USC, just that SSA made an error in card production. SSA doesn't need any extra proof--if USCIS says 'She is a K-1', then SSA knows she is employment authorized.



I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by a 'work authorized SS#'. If someone is employment authorized, SSA will issue them a SS#. SSA makes cards that have the legend described above, and cards with no legend.

I believe that Mr skemper was in valid K-1 status (and therefore Employment Authorized) but that he had no EA stamp on his I-94 (no EAD) and that his employer chose to hire him regardless. This becomes the responsiblity of the employer--any problems would be on the employer.

Wanda Logic.

I think you are confusing the Social Security memo as being some kind of immigration document. It is not--it only describes SSA policy.

Form I-9 and its instructions are crystal clear about which documents can be used to show employment authorization. An I-94 without a stamp saying "employment authorized' is not a valid employment document.

H-1B, L-1 and other employment authorized non-immigrants have visas with those numbers on them. I don't know how to explain it better, than K-1s are a different animal.

Please download and read form I-9 for a better understanding of hiring documents.

That is f'in brilliant--what a good way to rephrase the situation!

I see a link to this quote in its future.

I9 doesn't say you need a stamp. I9 only says you need an "unexpired" authorization to work. If a K1 is by esence work authorized then what is relevant is the experiation date plus the status of you visa (you visa is either a work authorized and stamp or not it's the same" or is not initially authorized and then you need to show this "specific" authorization materialized by the bloody stamp but I am not sure it wouldn't work and/or being illegal w/o a stamp.
Btw I had alraeady a SS# under a J-1. It is not a "worked authorized" ss#, the authorization comes with the status of you visa once approved (meaning a DS2019 for a J1 + I94 with no stamp an I beleive just a I94 with a K1)
I think K1 visas are part of a sub category and I think I9 makes reference to a more general rule.

Anyway I m flyin to JFK next week and gonna figure this out and let u know.

Take care

Vince

Skemper,

You are right, this is quite simple.

The fact remains that some HR departments take what the I-9 instructions literally. It states "Unexpired foreign passport, with I-551 stamp or attached INS Form I-94 indicating unexpired employment
authorization"

The fact that JFK has a little red stamp that states "work authorized" only compounds the issue. If an HR person sees this stamp once they will always want to see it.

The employer has a responsibility to ensure that people they hire are legal, if there is a doubt, even if it is unfounded. They may not want to take the risk and get a fine.

Agreed and I think the post on the following website will close the debate, especially the last attached doc embedded.
http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...f=7&t=10720


Good luck

This basically restates everything above.

Quod erat demonstrandum (QED)

stamp or not you are authorized to work: "some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK
should ring a bell hein
vedi vixit

OK, last time.

Yes, K1s are authorized to work BUT without a specified EAD an employer cannot (legally) hire.

An employer needs to see an I-94 that is specifically marked 'employment authorized' in order to hire.

If your I-94 was not stamped with employment authorization, you must wait until you receive the EAD after adjusting status.

ok you know what you do whatever you want and ok last time pleasze read what was in the link
show that to your emplyer and to the INS and let me know or do just like me call a good lawyer to backtest ur assumption.
sorry for helping. I kind of understand skemper now.
Afterwards I understand skemper. Btw u ll find also in a circular that CBP is not allowed to issue EAD so dont event bother with a stamp.
anyway I think with differents circular including one pointing out the stupidity of the situation you should be fine to work your way through... In any case I think any employer as any gov agent with a brain plus a lawyer would be comfortable wit h all of this. ur call.

and btw nowhere is written the word stamp on the I9. It says unexpired work authorization which an unexpired I94 linked linked to a K1 is.

Unexpired work authorization comes from two potential places:

1) A work authorization stamp received at the point of entry that is not expired

2) Employment Authorization Document issues by the USCIS that is not expired.

Unexpired work authorization does NOT equal "an unexpired 194 linked to a K1"


This issue has been debated again and again. If K1s COULD work without an employment authorization document an/or stamp, this would be common knowledge all over the site as well as others. There have many several reports like Skemper's of employers who did not understand the rules or perhaps chose to take the chance of hiring someone who did not have a work authorization document.

Go ahead and give it a try without a valid work authorization stamp or document and be sure to report back here how that goes for you.

It really depends on the employer - I've registered with many agencies and some have asked for proof of my work authorisation and some haven't (this is mainly because some don't even look at my social security card, and take the fact that I have a number as meaning I'm allowed to work).

This debate comes up so often - the fact is, if you don't have the temp EAD the employer should not employ you, but many do. This is not really working illegally, as it is the employer that can get into trouble, not the employee.

Glad I had the stamp so I didn't have to debate with myself whether I should get a job or not!

Wrong.



Right.

I guess that because employers are either stupid or too kind by accepting to take a risk for you then?
With all due repect I will better rely on an official circular & lawyer and let you sepculate about the validity of offical agencies amendments that I was quoting word for word above. Anyway no wonder why even people from the INS still refuse sometimes some SS# to K1s.

Yes. Some employers don't understand the rules (just like you I think) or don't care since I-9 auditing appears to be a rare situation and they are willing to take the risk.


You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding the "official circular".

Again, if K1s could work without an official stamp or document indicating authorization, everyone would be doing it and there would be no debate here.

probably you didn't read the memo completing the official circular. that helps too... to read...
the quote is exactly
"some I 94s issued to K1's are stamped or annotated "EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED", and some are not. EITHER WAY, the I94 is PROOF A K1 ALIEN IS AUTHORIZED TO WORK
now I know I must be stupid....
everybody should not smoke as well but some do. please you can prove me I am wring but not telling me the other do that so everubody should do the same...
u've got the docs I found you use it as you want. I you think it's useless then don't even bother to try working the first 3 months if you don't stop by JFK

Whose circular? SSA's?
Yes, that ruling applies for SSA purposes, not employers.

Once again:

1) The circular is about the SSA - not about the documents an employer needs to see.

2) Yes, K1s are authorized to work. K1s can work WITH A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

3) An I-94 is NOT A PROPER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT OR STAMP.

I think you do not understand the difference between being allowed to work vs. having an employment authorization document or stamp. It is all clearly written here in this thread courtesy of Mo and Yodrak. There is nothing more anyone can do to try to make it clear.

As I said, go ahead and try to work without one of these documents. You may find any employer willing to look the other way or one who does not understand the rules.

1/ the employer needs to see what the administration ask him to see right? what does say the administration
2/SSA says in the official circular: K1 are work authorized ... will not receve a stamp (for me and the memo and my lawyer because you don't need any since you are alrady authorized cfqfd)... will not receive an EAD (by definition it is a 1 year doc > 90 days)
3/ try to find me an official circular saying what you are saying.

Now and again I will not waste my time anymore with you. Just try not to bullshit everyone by things you read in randoms forums and that you take for granted. There are some laws and amendments to them. officials texts are the only things you ll be able to uses, not some bad past experiences.
PS: you ll note that everybody who showed the right circular or memo ended (by insisting a bit or not) to get what they want. the other one just gave up like you.

think about who is gonna take the employer to the court...

btw just gave a look at your profile/post... undertsand better now and will not waste my time anymore ...

You are flat out rude, and you are not appreciating the difference between what the Social Security Administration's internal paperwork says, and what and employer is required to do in order to hire someone. As a US employer, I am familiar with what is acceptable for form I-9. If YOU want to back up your point, YOU go find all this documentation that "proves" your point.

Talk about a waste of time (and further speaking of bullshit...)--hopefully someone else will benefit from the many ways the correct info HAS been stated in here.

1/ think my point is clearly proofed regarding the memo
2/ apparently employers like firms I m working for got some lawyers confirming what i m saying... just rying to help
3/ you didn't answer me swho s gonna take you to the court.
4/ you are an employer... wonderful ask some serious lawyers to help rather than flowding of crap people trying to find true info, maybe there ll have more case like skemper'shusband who, btw, was working for a serious firm too it seems.

seriously even if you re makin me laugh now

Like most of what you are posting, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean and I couldn't care less.

You do not seem to be capable of reading the very clear words being posted here: The "circular" you are reading does not apply to the question at hand.

No one is disputing that K1s are employment authorized and can get a SSN.

You would be well advised to pay attention to the assistance of people who who have already been through this process and are well versed and experienced in immigration. That is, after all, the point of this forum.

I'm not at all interested in continuing to debate this with you as you clearly are not capable of understanding.

Look at this link:

www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

Look at page three.

Look at List A.

Look at #4.

An passport with attached !-94 establishes both identity and employment eligibility -- until the I-94 expires.

#4
Unexpired foreign passport,with I-551 stamp or attached Form I-94 indicating unexpired employment authorization

A fiance who enters the US on a K1 who does NOT receive a temporary EAD does NOT have an"UNEXPIRED EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION" therefore they cannot work.

don't worry man
...

http://www.skyweb.net/~rlls/ssn/em00154.pdf

just for the one who can read

Right! I see that now. Wow! I finally read all the posts. This is amazing! We all WANT to have this be simple and clear: K-1 authorized to work so employer can hire, right? But a STAMP is needed and it may or may not be given at JFK and only at JFK. Holy crap! This is truly bizarre.

Thanks to you KitKat1 for trying to clarify, but it is hopeless. One can find anything they want with this to work with.

I love that everything depends on the gerund phrase following the hope inspiring information! Beautiful! Only the government could manage this level of craziness.

Lawyers must LOVE this stuff!!

I suggest we all just chill out, try to get jobs anyway, and let the employers be damned if they are willing to hire.

Thanks to all those who tried so hard to make the impossible clear -- actually many of you make it all clear, but no one can make it REASONABLE!!!

I love this forum!

I think it was made clear earlier in the thread but the concept is a strange and confusing one.

Think of it this way

A person on a K1 has the right to work unlike a person on a tourist visa, for example. People on a tourist visa do not have the right to work.

But in order for an employer to hire a person who came on a K1, they need to show a separate work authorization document. Their visa, or their I-94 alone are not enough. Some people get temporary work authorization docs from the point of entry - usually JFK.

Those who don't have to wait until they apply and receive their work authorization card. So even though they have the right to work, an employer cannot legally hire then without seeing this document. Since some employers don't seem to care, some people do end up being able to work.

No, I think I understand it ok. I just can't see why the stamp is only given at JFK (there was some disagreement as to that actually happening even there) and not routinely at all POE's. I mean, really, why make it difficult for people when a simple stamp would eliminate all the anxiety and confusion. A quick marriage, a quick filing for AOS and employment documentation, and one could work from entry on. I mean, K-1's are permitted to work, everyone seems to agree. It is just the ridiculous stamp that is randomly given that is causing all the stress.

Didn't Americans get upset about a Stamp Act years ago and do something in Boston Harbor? I think my US History lesson is beginning to make sense now!

Well, I will try to ask at Chicago POE and let you know if anything happens. Enough for now that my fiance will be here in a week!

Oh, and by the way, can we have a bit of civility out there? I mean, just because there is disagreement in interpreting the laws, no need for rudeness. There really IS a difference between social security administration instructions and immigration law, by the way.

Chicago doesn't give the stamp

#1: The EA stamp is not given only at JFK. JFK is the only POE that *regularly* gives it out (people have a funny way of reading what they want, see above). You can scan posts here, or look for the rolling POE list to see other POEs where people have recieved the EA stamp (it's usually land borders).

#2: The reason for #1's locations could be because the stamp is not a very secure device (most peple are unaware that the smudgy thing is their EAD), but is more likely due to the fact that CIS is starting to disagree about the 'incident to status' argument and is looking to completely eliminate the EA portion of the K-1 status. There is a lengthy thread here on that topic.

#3: What stresses me out is people who argue badly and make me want to call them fukctards.

#4: I think you are confused about the word 'stamp' having anything to do with the other here. A non-immigrant is entitled to exactly zero. Sorry if that does not sound nice, but the plight of a few weeks without work is not high on the priority list for 99.9999% of the population.

I have not seen reports from Chicago of EAD success, but by all means, ask for it. Explain that K-1s are work authorized 'incident to status' but need the evidence. See what can be learned at the POE, and share it back with VJ.

Best of all, enjoy your reunion!