why file for EAD if you'll get a green card anyway?

[Dr_LHA 3]

I thought with the new fees it was inclusive now...AP, EAD and AOS.

Correct, but that doesn't appear to be what the OP is asking. You also still have to actually apply for the EAD even though the cost is now "free"/included.

[misa 2]

It most likely says, "Valid for work only with DHS Authorization" meaning you need an EAD. (I just checked mine)

That's it! Thanks. I was going to check mine but that would involve getting out of bed! That said mine says "INS" instead of "DHS". Yes, its old.

Heh, I only got mine last month, so it's kicking around here.

Perhaps the OP is reading it as two sentences when it's actually one and not meant to be read separately...

Line one: Valid for work only

Line two: With DHS Authorization

ETA: I should have said "meaning you need an EAD or GC or any other visa that allows you to work to go along with that SSN with the notation"

Edited August 8, 2007 by misa

[Tinker 0]

Then why NOT apply for the EAD? It's free. (included)

okay, night.....just not making any sense to me anymore.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tinker

[Dr_LHA 3]

Then why NOT apply for the EAD? It's free. (included)

No reason at all!

Heh, I only got mine last month, so it's kicking around here.

I've had mine for 14 years! Time to get a new one methinks!

[Carlawarla 1]

Then why NOT apply for the EAD? It's free. (included)

okay, night.....just not making any sense to me anymore.

Right now, you might as well, since the fee is inclusive of EAD and AP. At the time I filed in April, I had a choice on what to file. I did not file for EAD or AP figuring that I might get my GC before getting my EAD. My interview is this month. So...approximately 4 months since I applied. I'm fortunate in that I don't have to work, so it wasn't a necessity to apply for my EAD. Before, it was a ####### shoot on whether you'd get your GC before your EAD. I don't know which is better...guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out with the "inclusiveness" of the fee structure now in place and how soon applications are processed.

Carla

[irishgirl73 0]

Then why NOT apply for the EAD? It's free. (included)

okay, night.....just not making any sense to me anymore.

Right now, you might as well, since the fee is inclusive of EAD and AP. At the time I filed in April, I had a choice on what to file. I did not file for EAD or AP figuring that I might get my GC before getting my EAD. My interview is this month. So...approximately 4 months since I applied. I'm fortunate in that I don't have to work, so it wasn't a necessity to apply for my EAD. Before, it was a ####### shoot on whether you'd get your GC before your EAD. I don't know which is better...guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out with the "inclusiveness" of the fee structure now in place and how soon applications are processed.

Carla

my man's EAD was approved like 6 days before his greencard

I was a little annoyed, but it is a gamble. There was a good chance his greencard could have taken forever & he really needed to be able to get out there & work, so we decided to pay the extra money for the EAD.

good luck to ya!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Yes, it is a gamble. The GC could be approved quickly and before the EAD in which case you don't need the EAD - or it could be like what happened with me - the GC took almost 2 years to approve. I got the initial EAD and then had to renew it so I could continue to work while waiting for my AOS approval. I also needed the EAD to get my Driver's License so it more than paid for itself in my circumstances.

(No, there were no problems with the AOS - no RFE's or anything - and it was transferred to California where it was eventually approved without an interview. It just took a long time.)

Edited August 8, 2007 by Kathryn41

[Yodrak 7]

kitkat,

Not if she's within 90 days of entry as a K1. During that thime she is employment authorized, so she is OK and doesn't need the 'protection' of being married to a USC.

As Dr_LHA says, it's the employer who is breaking the law, and only the employer.

Yodrak

If you don't have an EA stamp on your I-94 then your employers are breaking the law.

AND you are working illegally although when married to a USC it doesn't create a problem.

.....

[Miranda&James 8]

Does she need the EAD stamp in the passport to be able to work those 90 days or is it the K1 itself that allows 90 days of working?

kitkat,

Not if she's within 90 days of entry as a K1. During that thime she is employment authorized, so she is OK and doesn't need the 'protection' of being married to a USC.

As Dr_LHA says, it's the employer who is breaking the law, and only the employer.

Yodrak

If you don't have an EA stamp on your I-94 then your employers are breaking the law.

AND you are working illegally although when married to a USC it doesn't create a problem.

.....

[Dr_LHA 3]

Does she need the EAD stamp in the passport to be able to work those 90 days or is it the K1 itself that allows 90 days of working?

The K-1 is work authorized for 90 days, but the EAD stamp is needed to meet the requirements of the I-9. So essentially, even though one is work authorized for the first 90 days, without the EA stamp you can't work.

[kitkat1 5]

Does she need the EAD stamp in the passport to be able to work those 90 days or is it the K1 itself that allows 90 days of working?

The K-1 is work authorized for 90 days, but the EAD stamp is needed to meet the requirements of the I-9. So essentially, even though one is work authorized for the first 90 days, without the EA stamp you can't work.

Which was exactly what I was trying to say above -- doesn't benefit one much to have "work authorization" if they don't have an EA stamp to show an employer.

[Miranda&James 8]

Does she need the EAD stamp in the passport to be able to work those 90 days or is it the K1 itself that allows 90 days of working?

The K-1 is work authorized for 90 days, but the EAD stamp is needed to meet the requirements of the I-9. So essentially, even though one is work authorized for the first 90 days, without the EA stamp you can't work.

Ok, thanks for the info I thought the stamp was required but the way Yodrak said it made me wonder.

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

EMPLOYEE’S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING FORM I-9

A new employee must complete Section 1 of a Form I-9 no later than close of business on his/her first day of work. The employee’s signature holds him/her responsible for the accuracy of the information provided. The employer is responsible for ensuring that the employee completes Section 1 in full. No documentation from the employee is required to substantiate Section 1 information provided by the employee.

EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING FORM I-9

The employer is responsible ensuring completion of the entire form. No later than close of business on the employee’s third day of employment services, the employer must complete section 2 of the Form I-9. The employer must review documentation presented by the employee and record document information of the form. Proper documentation establishes both that the employee is authorized to work in the U.S. and that the employee who presents the employment authorization document is the person to whom it was issued. The employer should supply to the employee the official list of acceptable documents for establishing identity and work eligibility. The employer may accept any List A document, establishing both identity and work eligibility, or combination of a List B document (establishing identity) and List C document (establishing work eligibility), that the employee chooses from the list to present (the documentation presented is not required to substantiate information provided in Section 1). The employer must examine the document(s) and accept them if they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee who presents them. Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice. If the documentation presented by an employee does not reasonably appear to be genuine or relate to the employee who presents them, employers must refuse acceptance and ask for other documentation from the list of acceptable documents that meets the requirements. An employer should not continue to employ an employee who cannot present documentation that meets the requirements.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

This is my chance to refer to the correct information and the source.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Gaby&Talbert

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

EMPLOYEE’S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING FORM I-9

A new employee must complete Section 1 of a Form I-9 no later than close of business on his/her first day of work. The employee’s signature holds him/her responsible for the accuracy of the information provided. The employer is responsible for ensuring that the employee completes Section 1 in full. No documentation from the employee is required to substantiate Section 1 information provided by the employee.

EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING FORM I-9

The employer is responsible ensuring completion of the entire form. No later than close of business on the employee’s third day of employment services, the employer must complete section 2 of the Form I-9. The employer must review documentation presented by the employee and record document information of the form. Proper documentation establishes both that the employee is authorized to work in the U.S. and that the employee who presents the employment authorization document is the person to whom it was issued. The employer should supply to the employee the official list of acceptable documents for establishing identity and work eligibility. The employer may accept any List A document, establishing both identity and work eligibility, or combination of a List B document (establishing identity) and List C document (establishing work eligibility), that the employee chooses from the list to present (the documentation presented is not required to substantiate information provided in Section 1). The employer must examine the document(s) and accept them if they reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee who presents them. Requesting more or different documentation than the minimum necessary to meet this requirement may constitute an unfair immigration-related employment practice. If the documentation presented by an employee does not reasonably appear to be genuine or relate to the employee who presents them, employers must refuse acceptance and ask for other documentation from the list of acceptable documents that meets the requirements. An employer should not continue to employ an employee who cannot present documentation that meets the requirements.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

This is my chance to refer to the correct information and the source.

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

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

There is something confusing in List C for the employer and that is:

U.S. social security card issued bythe Social Security Administration(other than a card stating it is notvalid for employment)

The employer could interpret this as it is authorized unless it specifically states "not valid of employment"