Does receiving marriage-based EAD means I lose F1 Student status?

[HRQX 4,145]

57 minutes ago, geowrian said:

EAD is a benefit, not a status in itself. One can hold multiple benefits at a time - some via status, some via permission from DHS.

Agreed.

57 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Performing an activity that violates your status generally terminates your status. Any other benefits you hold (i.e. work authorization via an EAD and/or authorized stay via a pending I-485) would then kick in.

Agreed. Yet, one could assert per 8 CFR §21.1(e) that OP didn't violate F-1 status:

Quote

Employment. A nonimmigrant in the United States in a class defined in section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act as a temporary visitor for pleasure, or section 101(a)(15)(C) of the Act as an alien in transit through this country, may not engage in any employment. Any other nonimmigrant in the United States may not engage in any employment unless he has been accorded a nonimmigrant classification which authorizes employment or he has been granted permission to engage in employment in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A nonimmigrant who is permitted to engage in employment may engage only in such employment as has been authorized. Any unauthorized employment by a nonimmigrant constitutes a failure to maintain status within the meaning of section 241(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.

F-1 students may accept on-campus employment that meets certain conditions. OP's employment meets those conditions and the current I-20 expires in December.

 

I do concede that the above assertion is an untested legal theory.

Edited July 4, 2019 by HRQX

[geowrian 22,335]

2 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Agreed. Yet, one could assert per 8 CFR §21.1(e) that OP didn't violate F-1 status:

Agreed - hence my wording. I wasn't chiming in on if the employment was covered under F-1 or not.

[tiantian2 18]

Just now, HRQX said:

Agreed.

Agreed. Yet, one could assert per 8 CFR §21.1(e) that OP didn't violate F-1 status:

F-1 students may accept on-campus employment that meets certain conditions. OP's employment meets those conditions and the current I-20 expires in December.

 

I do concede that the above assertion is an untested legal theory.

Thank you! It may be untested legal theory but you sound very lawyerly:P