Confusion regarding self-employed fiancee and work permits

[art1234 14]

4 minutes ago, ra0010 said:

That’s why @Jorgedigkeeps rooting for people to go the CR1 route. If finances and the ability to work is an issue, then CR1 it is!

Yeap. But at the same time if you're 6-12 months in processes of K1 it makes no sense to abandon it for that reason because it would just double the time waiting. Waiting in our love based cases is worst thing ever...no idea why we do it to ourselves from logical stand point. 

[Rocio0010 5,562]

13 minutes ago, art1234 said:

Yeap. But at the same time if you're 6-12 months in processes of K1 it makes no sense to abandon it for that reason because it would just double the time waiting. Waiting in our love based cases is worst thing ever...no idea why we do it to ourselves from logical stand point. 

Absolutely. Im talking about people that haven’t started the process yet.

[SalishSea 16,770]

10 hours ago, mattUsUkr said:

Yea I'd prefer to follow the laws fully. As would my fiance, but I want to give her all the information so she can make a decision on her own. We don't need the extra income so I think she probably won't work...but again...just trying to understand the full picture.

 

Interesting that by law, working illegally is forgiven when you adjust status through marriage with a USC. That is a much clearer explanation of "getting away with it." Do you know what the risk is then, if by law it's forgiven during the AOS?

Thanks for your post!

Look at it this way:  If folks intending to work prior to authorization were to disclose this to the CBP @ POE, do you think they would be admitted?

[Redro 4,598]

The US wants US residents and citizens to pay tax on any income earned (over $12, 400) if you earn that income whilst working and living inside the USA. 

It doesn't matter if that income is from a company in California, Narnia or if it's from self-employment. You shouldn't draw a salary if you do not have an EAD. 

 

Asking about self-employment/ remote work is a red herring.  If USCIS does updates its rules, I'd bet all my money on them explicitly banning: remote work, being an influencer, earning ad revenue, or working for a country with no US presence for those without work authorization. (The country I currently reside in has updated their rules and foreigners without the correct authorization are not permitted to earn money through self-employment or remote work). It's not just about taking jobs from citizens but also stopping people from residing in the country without paying the proper taxes, paying into social security etc. 

 

If anything, K1 visa applicants and their USC partners should file a lawsuit or lobby for change. Request that K1s are allowed to work as soon as they land (I believe they can but work authorization expires when the I-94 expires) BUT ALSO if they marry and file AOS within 90 days they can schedule an INFOPASS appointment to get a stamp in their passport and extend their work authorization until the physical EAD arrives in the mail.  

 

Maybe then people will take getting married within the 90 Days and sending off the I-485 before the I-94 expires seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

[mattUsUkr 5]

I'm not posting this to argue about what is right or wrong - many good points have already been made - but I just saw this on the USCIS website, and found it interesting: unauthorized employment is defined as "any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States" - which in my opinion (as a novice just reading things on the internet) can be interpreted as saying that a service performed for an employer NOT within the US does not fall into the category of unauthorized employment.

 

The gray area I guess falls in the fact that under the definition of authorized employment just mentions "work" and doesn't give as specific of a definition as they do for unauthorized employment.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-6

[Boiler 43,429]

22 minutes ago, mattUsUkr said:

- which in my opinion (as a novice just reading things on the internet) can be interpreted as saying that a service performed for an employer NOT within the US does not fall into the category of unauthorized employment.

A service performed outside of the US does not fall into US employment legislation so yes.

[Ayrton 965]

9 hours ago, mattUsUkr said:

I'm not posting this to argue about what is right or wrong - many good points have already been made - but I just saw this on the USCIS website, and found it interesting: unauthorized employment is defined as "any service or labor performed for an employer within the United States" - which in my opinion (as a novice just reading things on the internet) can be interpreted as saying that a service performed for an employer NOT within the US does not fall into the category of unauthorized employment.

 

The gray area I guess falls in the fact that under the definition of authorized employment just mentions "work" and doesn't give as specific of a definition as they do for unauthorized employment.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-6

There are two ways you can read this sentence:

 

...labor performed...within the United States...

 

...an employer within the United States...

 

I believe the first one is the way to read it, and that's based on the RFE asking for work authorization sent by the USCIS to an immigrant that was trying to use their foreign income as part of the 864.