working without EAD?

[rebeccajo 14]

K1 entrants do not qualify to use a single document from List A on the I9 form.

K1 entrants must provide a document from both List B and List C.

The changes proposed to the I9 do not nullify anything contained in the INA as cited in my post above.

[Izoom 0]

As there is an important word in that too...

Proposed

Until changes take effect, the law that many have stated thus far still stands as grounds for employment approval/denial.

Why take any chance rather than wait for the document and then work as a "normal" individual? I can't imagine waiting

just a little bit longer is going to hurt considering some people waited upwards of a year or so to just enter the country.

[Degrizz 0]

Wow, you guys have given me a lot to think about very interesting.

I decided it would be best if my wife quit, but She really didn't like the idea. We got into a big fight I told her all the possible ramifications it could have including getting her deported, but she insist that this is very unlikely and really loves her job (waitress), she absolutely loves getting tips. We went round and round over this in the end I got angry and gave up. She also feels her working is good for us because we are both home all the time and she worry's that I am getting bored with her around all the time. I failed to reassure her other wise. I also threatened her that if she was deported i was not going to go get her, he he . This did not persuade her. So I have decided to not worry about it any more. I will file a EAD as soon as possible and hope for the best.

I want to thank everybody for the helpful discussion

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

I will file a EAD as soon as possible and hope for the best.

Yep. File for your AOS and EAD right away, and make this whole discussion mute. It is hard to cough up another $1,000 plus dollars at this point, but you got to get it done.

One positive to having the wife work now: It will make your AOS go smoother if you can show joint income. During our interview, they seemed to be concerned about two things: 1) bonafide relationship and 2) sufficient income.

Make sure your wife reports all her income, including tips.

Good luck!

[rebeccajo 14]

sonoma -

I really don't want you to think I'm picking on you. I understand you want to believe that working without an employment document is perfectly ok. There's been plenty of threads on the same subject to testify to the fact that you aren't the first to feel that way. At least in this case, the OP decided for himself what was best.

But your advice that AOS will go more smoothly if there is joint income is just - well - odd. USCIS is interested in 'evidence of co-mingling of assets'. In fact those are the exact words our adjudicator used at our interview. They really could care less about 'joint income'. Sufficient income - yes. Joint - no.

Joint income is inconsequential. If that were the case many couples who have more 'old fashioned' income situations in their household wouldn't be approved.

Edited January 4, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Degrizz 0]

USCIS is interested in 'evidence of co-mingling of assets'. In fact those are the exact words our adjudicator used at our interview. T

what do you mean by co-mingling of assets? We have been trying to get her own bank account because we thought it would be good to help her get a WI id card, she has to have proof of residence. Your sentence makes me think the USCIS will look down on her having her own account?

[LorriQ 0]

USCIS is interested in 'evidence of co-mingling of assets'. In fact those are the exact words our adjudicator used at our interview. T

what do you mean by co-mingling of assets? We have been trying to get her own bank account because we thought it would be good to help her get a WI id card, she has to have proof of residence. Your sentence makes me think the USCIS will look down on her having her own account?

there is nothing wrong with her having her own - but you also need a joint account. loads of people have yours, mine and ours - mainly using the "ours" for bills and joint expenses.

co-mingling - both names on leases, or mortgages - car titles, or loans - credit cards in both names, basically sharing assets.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

sonoma -

I really don't want you to think I'm picking on you. I understand you want to believe that working without an employment document is perfectly ok. There's been plenty of threads on the same subject to testify to the fact that you aren't the first to feel that way. At least in this case, the OP decided for himself what was best.

But your advice that AOS will go more smoothly if there is joint income is just - well - odd. USCIS is interested in 'evidence of co-mingling of assets'. In fact those are the exact words our adjudicator used at our interview. They really could care less about 'joint income'. Sufficient income - yes. Joint - no.

Joint income is inconsequential. If that were the case many couples who have more 'old fashioned' income situations in their household wouldn't be approved.

Really? I just remember the interviewer's expression change from one of concern to one of satisfaction when he saw my wife's check stubs, and his eagerness to include those in the file. The only hitch was when we did not have any wedding pictures. Our futile search bothered us more than him, when he said, "Don't worry about that. You are approved!"

Joint income is not required, I am sure, if the sponsoring spouse has much more than adequate income. But, when the economy is sputtering, and good paying jobs are harder to find, and keep, the willingness of a wife to work might just ease the mind of those not wanting to see another burden added to the taxpayers.

We all seem to read what we want into the interview. I think the interviewer just wants to see a relationship that is going to work. It is pretty hard to to show "evidence of co-mingling of assests" when you have only been married a few months. A joint bank account, and putting your spouse's name on the utility bills seems to take care of that issue.

The burden for "evidence of co-mingling of assests" will be greater when it comes time to removing conditions, I am sure.

And don't worry about hurting my feelings.

[rebeccajo 14]

Well, if you want to know what adjudicator's are looking for at time of interview, here's the memo that was issued to them shortly after the I864 had it's major revision in 2006.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AffSuppAFM062706.pdf

Edited January 5, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Well, if you want to know what adjudicator's are looking for at time of interview, here's the memo that was issued to them shortly after the I864 has it's major revision in 2006.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AffSuppAFM062706.pdf

(4) Use of Intending Immigrant’s Income. If the sponsor does not meet the income requirement on the basis of his or her own income and/or assets, the sponsor may also count the intending immigrant’s income if (1)(a) the intending immigrant is either the sponsor’s spouse or (B) has the same principal residence as the sponsor, and (2) the preponderance of the evidence shows that the intending immigrant’s income results from the intending immigrant’s lawful employment in the United States or from some other lawful source that will continue to be available to the intending immigrant after he or she acquires permanent resident status. The prospect of employment in the United States that has not yet actually begun does not count toward meeting this requirement.

Note: The revised definition of "household income" retains the requirement that, unless the intending immigrant is the sponsor’s spouse, the intending immigrant must have the same principal residence as the sponsor in order for the sponsor to rely on the sponsored immigrant’s income. It is no longer required, however, that the intending immigrant must have had the same principal residence as the sponsor for at least 6 months.

Note: The interim rule did not directly address the ability of a sponsor to rely on an intending immigrant’s income from unauthorized employment in meeting the Poverty Guidelines threshold for the sponsor’s household income. In response to a specific comment relating to the issue of the sponsor’s reliance on an intending immigrant’s income, the revised definition of "household income" now makes it clear that income from an intending immigrant’s unauthorized employment may not be considered in determining whether the sponsor’s anticipated household income meets the applicable Poverty Guidelines threshold. The basis for this clarification is the clear public policy, as stated in INA §§ 245©(2) and 274A, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255©(2) and 1324a, against unauthorized employment. Unauthorized employment, admittedly, is not always a bar to adjustment of status. Nevertheless, sections 212(a)(4)© and 213A clearly assume that it is primarily the sponsor himself or herself who must meet the income threshold for the Form I-864. This principle is gravely undermined by permitting the sponsor to rely on the intending immigrant’s income, if it is derived from unlawful employment.

Interesting

[rebeccajo 14]

sonoma -

Note it says the income from the intending immigrant that can be shown on the I864 is income from lawful employment. The footnotes reinforce that language.

As such I think it's on topic.

[TinTin and Samby 11]

Hi Sonomocountygal,

I was exactly where you are now in my thinking about a year ago or so on this topic. I just couldn't understand how there could be any question and debate over what appeared to me as completely unambiguous documentation.

That was until I found out that there is more to the story..and unless you happen to know about it, there is no way to have known of the addiitonal superceding documentaiton. I always thought that the US TAX CODE needed simplification....but I've come to realize that the IRS "ain't got nothin'" on the USCIS!

Take a good luck through this thread, it may be enlightening.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...amp;pid=1709354

Warm Regards,

Samby

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

sonoma -

Note it says the income from the intending immigrant that can be shown on the I864 is income from lawful employment. The footnotes reinforce that language.

As such I think it's on topic.

My thoughts exactly. But I also noted that "unauthorized employment is not, admittedly, always a bar to adjustment of status." That is what is "interesting." This is bureaucrat speak for, "We understand the realities you may encounter in the field."

Maybe the Government really has a soul!

[LorriQ 0]

sonoma -

Note it says the income from the intending immigrant that can be shown on the I864 is income from lawful employment. The footnotes reinforce that language.

As such I think it's on topic.

My thoughts exactly. But I also noted that "unauthorized employment is not, admittedly, always a bar to adjustment of status." That is what is "interesting." This is bureaucrat speak for, "We understand the realities you may encounter in the field."

Maybe the Government really has a soul!

Wouldn't that be lovely!

Okay, from this thread and the other what I gather (skipping all the legal speak) - is

1. K-1 are not eligible to work withOUT the EAD - temp or otherwise

2. K-1 holders will not be deported for working while AOS is pending? as the NOA for the EAD is considered a pending type of doc?

3. Interviewers will allow "unauthorized employment" income from said immigrants IF the primary sponser does not meet the income requirements?

Jump thru this hoop - duck that one and cover your a$$ - why don't they just issue a temp work permit with the POE check? One that will last until GC? Would be a lot easier!

[rebeccajo 14]

sonoma -

Note it says the income from the intending immigrant that can be shown on the I864 is income from lawful employment. The footnotes reinforce that language.

As such I think it's on topic.

My thoughts exactly. But I also noted that "unauthorized employment is not, admittedly, always a bar to adjustment of status." That is what is "interesting." This is bureaucrat speak for, "We understand the realities you may encounter in the field."

Maybe the Government really has a soul!

Oh, I think they do. And I'll be quite frank with you - it's my impression (personal opinion only) that adjudicators are far more likely to look for every way possible to approve the application of a couple who is clearly 'bonafide' - ie there is no impression that the alien is attempting fraud via the marriage. That doesn't mean they will turn their heads to a clear violation of the law. But where the law allows them to make and exception, I believe that exception will be made.

However, it's those words "not always a bar to adjustment" that keeps me nagging on with you folks about the letter-perfect way to conduct yourselves with the Service.

I'm a believer that the system works if you pay attention to how to navigate it. But - I don't trust 'em. It's a big bureacracy full of people looking out for their jobs while keeping track of a heck of a lot of immigrants. I think it's best to keep your head above water; play by all the rules; and leave no stone unturned.