Proof as to why I am WRONG.

[PachucoBro 3]

Ok as I had to dig further on my own since no one else cited proof... I have found the CORRECT information as stated within the legal jargon of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

I believe dr_lha was one of the persons continually telling me the correct information, but not showing me any exact documentation to the contrary. below I have provided links/text to confirm the following.

You CAN NOT work during your initial 90 day period on K-1 visa and still MAINTAIN status unless you also have an EAD.

I will leave out the words ILLEGAL and LEGAL because these documents do not say that so.. that is a whole 'nother discussion.

The best information I got came from a response document that Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote speaking about changes to the EAD process for K-1 Visas (Response Letter - Page 3).

The first sentence sums it all up actually. The K-1 visa allows for the ability to work, but yes you do need to also have an EAD as well. It further states that the K-1 visa DOES NOT grant automatically 'Employment Authorization' incident to the status of being a K-1 visa holder.

My mistake was reading (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 - as quoted by Dr. Gonzalez) which does say in the wording...

(a) Aliens authorized incident to status. Pursuant to the statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes.

BUT.... the following sentence then contradicts the 'incident to status' with the following...

Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(8) or (a)(10) through (a)(16) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to the Service for a document evidencing such employment.

Also another section as quoted by Dr. Gonzalez (8 C.F.R. § 214 - search for the text "(9) Employment authorization") contains this information which also says words that can be misconstrued.

(9) Employment authorization. An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act shall be authorized to work incident to status for the period of authorized stay.

BUT... then again are followed by...

K–1/K–2 aliens seeking work authorization must apply, with fee, to the Service for work authorization pursuant to §274a.12(a)(6) of this chapter.

So the problem I have fell victim to is the wording K-1 visas have incident to status the ABILITY to work, but not the actual EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION which is actually proven with the EAD.

SO! I am WRONG, but I have PROVEN that you guys are correct. 'You guys' meaning those that just spit out no can't do that, but never really said why not or never really knew why just that no one else said you could.

Now please tell me that with using the INA as my proof what I have said is TRUE.

Thanks goes to all of you who kept telling me what is right and forced me to look further into the documentation. I have learned alot. It all boils down to what we all have said and known that the business are who are at fault for ALSO not knowing what is correct and our government for not enforcing it.

Edited December 22, 2006 by PachucoBro

[PachucoBro 3]

On another note... if you continue to read to the end of the response letter from Dr. Gonzalez you will also learn the intentions of the USCIS to ELIMINATE the ability for K-1 Visa holder to work at all during the initial 90 day period.

That will truly s*ck as how do they expect a wonderful marriage to start when economic hardships cause many marriages to fail. For a USC who make good money this may not be an issue, however the limits of support allow those making less than $20k a year be a sponsor.

Pretty hard I would think for someone in the bracket to afford all the fees and such of the immigration process as well as support another adult. Difficult to me maybe not to others...

[Dr_LHA 3]

Thanks for posting that, it's infrequent that people posting on the internet admit they were wrong, and you're good for doing so.

That will truly s*ck as how do they expect a wonderful marriage to start when economic hardships cause many marriages to fail.

Well your wife can get an EAD within 90 days of filing for AOS.

Personally I'm in favor of eliminating the K-1 EAD, because the whole "90 days from entry and then you have to quit working while waiting for your EAD" thing is confusing, and often leads to people working illegally. Plus they only tend to give out the EADs at JFK anyway, so its hardly an equally applied rule.

[Girona40 0]

Thanks for posting that, it's infrequent that people posting on the internet admit they were wrong, and you're good for doing so.

That will truly s*ck as how do they expect a wonderful marriage to start when economic hardships cause many marriages to fail.

Well your wife can get an EAD within 90 days of filing for AOS.

Personally I'm in favor of eliminating the K-1 EAD, because the whole "90 days from entry and then you have to quit working while waiting for your EAD" thing is confusing, and often leads to people working illegally. Plus they only tend to give out the EADs at JFK anyway, so its hardly an equally applied rule.

Unfortunately, I have learned that the USCIS are known for not applying rules equally!

[edsperfect 25]

Thanks for posting that, it's infrequent that people posting on the internet admit they were wrong, and you're good for doing so.

That will truly s*ck as how do they expect a wonderful marriage to start when economic hardships cause many marriages to fail.

Well your wife can get an EAD within 90 days of filing for AOS.

Personally I'm in favor of eliminating the K-1 EAD, because the whole "90 days from entry and then you have to quit working while waiting for your EAD" thing is confusing, and often leads to people working illegally. Plus they only tend to give out the EADs at JFK anyway, so its hardly an equally applied rule.

Unfortunately, I have learned that the USCIS are known for not applying rules equally!

That is true be4cause so much tends to be individal interpretation by the Immigration officer. Most of tem are not rocket sienists either. Look at all the effort you had to put yourtself through to find the answr to your question.

As far as the overty levels my personal opinion, and that is all it is, is it is way too low a threshold even at 125%. I think it starts a ouple out in serious financial difficult from the outset and many times leads to breakups. It is just unrealistic to think someone can live a normal life with a spouse o that type of money.

Having handled probably 1500 divorces in my lifetime i can say that well ovr 50% brok apart because of lack of money or arguements over money. Maybe in the carribean yo can live in a metal shack on the beach and eat fish bu try that in Montana or Maine in the winter

[nathmc31 0]

Ok as I had to dig further on my own since no one else cited proof... I have found the CORRECT information as stated within the legal jargon of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

I believe dr_lha was one of the persons continually telling me the correct information, but not showing me any exact documentation to the contrary. below I have provided links/text to confirm the following.

You CAN NOT work during your initial 90 day period on K-1 visa and still MAINTAIN status unless you also have an EAD.

I will leave out the words ILLEGAL and LEGAL because these documents do not say that so.. that is a whole 'nother discussion.

The best information I got came from a response document that Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote speaking about changes to the EAD process for K-1 Visas (Response Letter - Page 3).

The first sentence sums it all up actually. The K-1 visa allows for the ability to work, but yes you do need to also have an EAD as well. It further states that the K-1 visa DOES NOT grant automatically 'Employment Authorization' incident to the status of being a K-1 visa holder.

My mistake was reading (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 - as quoted by Dr. Gonzalez) which does say in the wording...

(a) Aliens authorized incident to status. Pursuant to the statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes.

BUT.... the following sentence then contradicts the 'incident to status' with the following...

Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(8) or (a)(10) through (a)(16) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to the Service for a document evidencing such employment.

Also another section as quoted by Dr. Gonzalez (8 C.F.R. § 214 - search for the text "(9) Employment authorization") contains this information which also says words that can be misconstrued.

(9) Employment authorization. An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act shall be authorized to work incident to status for the period of authorized stay.

BUT... then again are followed by...

K–1/K–2 aliens seeking work authorization must apply, with fee, to the Service for work authorization pursuant to §274a.12(a)(6) of this chapter.

So the problem I have fell victim to is the wording K-1 visas have incident to status the ABILITY to work, but not the actual EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION which is actually proven with the EAD.

SO! I am WRONG, but I have PROVEN that you guys are correct. 'You guys' meaning those that just spit out no can't do that, but never really said why not or never really knew why just that no one else said you could.

Now please tell me that with using the INA as my proof what I have said is TRUE.

Thanks goes to all of you who kept telling me what is right and forced me to look further into the documentation. I have learned alot. It all boils down to what we all have said and known that the business are who are at fault for ALSO not knowing what is correct and our government for not enforcing it.

Mate you put up a BLOODY good argument. I like the fact that your man enough to admit that you were missled just like heaps of us have been by this bull cr*ap process.

So now that you no this new information, is your missus still going to work at sears?

You business but I would hate to here about here getting screwed over by the USCIS fvckers.

Anyway take care and good luck with the rest of your journey

[payxibka 10,044]

I do not think there is any doubt that he put up a "passionate" arguement. I think what was learned in all this is how intertwined this process is. Using a percieved answer by one beaureaucratic agency will simply get yourself trapped by another competing agency. It is important to step back and see the "big picture" and then and only then untangle the web.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Nice to meet someone who can come back and say"sorry I was wrong" I hope you journey if fast and smooth from this point...

Good Luck

Kez

[Yodrak 7]

PachucoBro,

Good decision on your part, making a good post even better.

I hope that others will follow your lead and stick to what is actually written in their sources and references rather than expanding and introducing additional issues that only confuse the main point under discussion.

Yodrak

.....

I will leave out the words ILLEGAL and LEGAL because these documents do not say that so.. that is a whole 'nother discussion.

.....