conditional resident eligible to work after divorce?

[americancitizen 0]

I am a conditional resident here in US since one year.I am not in good terms with my wife.I have heard that divorce terminates the conditional residence.Does this mean that i would not be eligible to work even before the expiration of my green card?Please help.Thanks.

[pushbrk 12,157]

I am a conditional resident here in US since one year.I am not in good terms with my wife.I have heard that divorce terminates the conditional residence.Does this mean that i would not be eligible to work even before the expiration of my green card?Please help.Thanks.

You heard wrong. You are authorized to work until your green card expires. Whether you can remove conditions after a divorce is something you'll want to consult an attorney about.

[wildestkabs 0]

If you get divorced, you would be eligible to file the I-751 immediately, with whatever evidence you have to establish a bonafide marriage. You are not required to wait for the 90 day window. A few days after filing, you should expect to get a Notice of Action, which you can use to renew your driver's license, which combined with the social security number would be proof of work authorization - in case you are looking for a new job.

[wildestkabs 0]

You are authorized to work until your green card expires.

He is authorized to work even after his green card expires, as long as stays with the same employer, files the I-751 on time and/or the I-751 is not denied by USCIS. He does not have to have the plastic card to prove either his status or his work authorization. However, if he changes his employer during the time period when his green card has expired and he has not received the Notice of Action, which he can use to renew the DL and use that with the social as a valid I-9 combination, he might have some trouble getting a new employer, because even though he would still be a permanent resident, he would not have valid hiring documents (an expired GC combined with the NOA is not a valid combination, neither is the NOA combined with the social).

On a side, I am assuming that you were the one who created your user id. If that is the case, I cannot even begin to tell you what serious trouble you might find yourself in for misrepresenting or addressing yourself as a US citizen, when in fact, you are not one.

Edited August 11, 2007 by wildestkabs

[Ban Hammer 12,863]

On a side, I am assuming that you were the one who created your user id. If that is the case, I cannot even begin to tell you what serious trouble you might find yourself in for misrepresenting or addressing yourself as a US citizen, when in fact, you are not one.

i think that is a major stretch. highly unlikely by just having such as a screen name.

[wildestkabs 0]

i think that is a major stretch. highly unlikely by just having such as a screen name.

It is highly unlikely yes, mainly because it might not have the same chance of getting noticed as lets say, registering to vote, when one is not a citizen.

However, it could still represent a violation, as by looking at it, you get the impression that the OP is an american citizen. Nonetheless, you and I are not in a position to make a decision on what is a violation or not. One should not represent themselves as citizens in any way, shape or form, otherwise they could find themselves in trouble. That is what I was trying to make the OP aware of.

Also it would not be right to decide whether it is a "stretch" or not, unless you are absolutely sure that it is not a violation *and* you know that CIS does not have the ability to track/trace it.

As far as I know, they are pretty capable.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

i think that is a major stretch. highly unlikely by just having such as a screen name.

It is highly unlikely yes, mainly because it might not have the same chance of getting noticed as lets say, registering to vote, when one is not a citizen.

However, it could still represent a violation, as by looking at it, you get the impression that the OP is an american citizen. Nonetheless, you and I are not in a position to make a decision on what is a violation or not. One should not represent themselves as citizens in any way, shape or form, otherwise they could find themselves in trouble. That is what I was trying to make the OP aware of.

Also it would not be right to decide whether it is a "stretch" or not, unless you are absolutely sure that it is not a violation *and* you know that CIS does not have the ability to track/trace it.

As far as I know, they are pretty capable.

Wild,

Living up to your namesake, eh? The OP is not violating any law by using a moniker, even if it reads "americancitizen". There are many monikers used in online fora that refer to an individual's passion, lover, spouse, betrothed or pet. It doesn't mean that the individual is masquerading as one. For example, I do not have a tail or scales...even though my moniker is a mermaid!

Where you are right is that an alien should not hold him or herself out to the Service or a government agency as an American citizen if he or she is not.

[wildestkabs 0]

The OP is not violating any law by using a moniker, even if it reads "americancitizen". There are many monikers used in online fora that refer to an individual's passion, lover, spouse, betrothed or pet. It doesn't mean that the individual is masquerading as one.

Hi, maybe, maybe not. What I know is that the N-400 asks whether you have addressed yourself as a citizen, or not, and as far as I can recollect, it does not ask you to specify what settings, or any settings where you might have any exception. It simply asks that question.

You mentioned passion. Going by the same logic, anybody who is not a citizen, could simply get passionate, and start running on the street and at the same time yell that they are citizens. Violation in my book.

Also, it seems that the OP might not necessarily be aware that you don't commit a mistake like this. I have corrected a few people in the past, where the situation was similar to this and they had no idea that such a restriction existed. I know I would never do something like this but that might be because I am too paranoid, or maybe I do believe that it is a violation.

Anyway, I think that the OP's original question has been answered and I also think that he has learned what he needs to from this whole "representation" thing. So I will let it go.

PS - By the way, I am still waiting for a decision on my I-751. Been almost 4 months.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

The OP is not violating any law by using a moniker, even if it reads "americancitizen". There are many monikers used in online fora that refer to an individual's passion, lover, spouse, betrothed or pet. It doesn't mean that the individual is masquerading as one.

Hi, maybe, maybe not. What I know is that the N-400 asks whether you have addressed yourself as a citizen, or not, and as far as I can recollect, it does not ask you to specify what settings, or any settings where you might have any exception. It simply asks that question.

You mentioned passion. Going by the same logic, anybody who is not a citizen, could simply get passionate, and start running on the street and at the same time yell that they are citizens. Violation in my book.

Also, it seems that the OP might not necessarily be aware that you don't commit a mistake like this. I have corrected a few people in the past, where the situation was similar to this and they had no idea that such a restriction existed. I know I would never do something like this but that might be because I am too paranoid, or maybe I do believe that it is a violation.

Anyway, I think that the OP's original question has been answered and I also think that he has learned what he needs to from this whole "representation" thing. So I will let it go.

PS - By the way, I am still waiting for a decision on my I-751. Been almost 4 months.

Right, we can let it go, because it is moot. But, my point is that one has to claim one is a US citizen in order to be found guilty of "making a false claim". The OP hasn't done that, not in the slightest. In fact, he or she has claimed quite the contrary in his post. Only you, Wild, have drawn conclusions from the OP's selection of a moniker. I don't think that would fly in a court of law.

[wildestkabs 0]

Only you, Wild, have drawn conclusions from the OP's selection of a moniker.

Instead of trying to convince each other, I think it would be a good idea to simply agree to disagree. I don't buy your logic and I am sure you don't buy mine, which is ok.

I never drew any conclusions. If my post indicated otherwise, then that is not what I meant. I simply wanted to let the OP know that this is something which should be avoided. Not really bad advice, is it, eh?

Anyway, the OP can do whatever he likes. I am beginning to feel a little uneasy here, with this continuous argument, so this is *definitely* my last post. As far as whether it is a violation or not, till the time I can be shown specific instances where it could be a violation, I would tend to be have a little more generalized approach on this.