SSN vs EAD Debate

[david_dawei]

but I still think the EAD is technically required - not to get the SS card, but to get the job.

227891[/snapback]

Technically speaking, I think your wrong; practically speaking I think your right.. that said with a mouth full of sand

[Randy W]

To further muddy the sand - Jiaying says that there are plenty of jobs here (Houston) for someone who is merely eligible for employment authorization. That is, with a (any) k-visa, passport, SSN and/or state-issued ID you can get a entry-level job, with the expectation that you will produce an EAD.

 

I guess the employer's expectation is that the partial documentation would hold off any kind of an audit long enogh for them to "update their files", and that a legal alien is preferrable to an illegal alien.

[frank1538]

but I still think the EAD is technically required - not to get the SS card, but to get the job.

227891[/snapback]

Technically speaking, I think your wrong; practically speaking I think your right.. that said with a mouth full of sand

227895[/snapback]

Damn David, my head is really starting to ache like yours. Got room in that sand?

 

Advice to all K-1ers: Get the green card as fast as you can.

[david_dawei]

To further muddy the sand - Jiaying says that there are plenty of jobs here (Houston) for someone who is merely eligible for employment authorization. That is, with a (any) k-visa, passport, SSN and/or state-issued ID you can get a entry-level job, with the expectation that you will produce an EAD.

 

I guess the employer's expectation is that the partial documentation would hold off any kind of an audit long enogh for them to "update their files", and that a legal alien is preferrable to an illegal alien.

227896[/snapback]

Filing for EAD is apparently accepted by some.. there's a post by I think Don about that.. some years old..

[david_dawei]

but I still think the EAD is technically required - not to get the SS card, but to get the job.

227891[/snapback]

Technically speaking, I think your wrong; practically speaking I think your right.. that said with a mouth full of sand

227895[/snapback]

Damn David, my head is really starting to ache like yours. Got room in that sand?

 

Advice to all K-1ers: Get the green card as fast as you can.

227897[/snapback]

Finally we agree !!!

 

Both to K1s and to us getting in the sand pit

 

Actually, I really liked your analogy in that other thread about putting one's head in the sand.. and you see I milked it for all it's worth...

 

In fact, I read between your lines.. I ASSumed when you went into the sand that day, you dug a hole for me.. knew I was coming soon..

[Dan R]

The only document employers can go by is the I-9 to determine work eligibility. It is required for all employees upon start of work. Status or citizenship is not an issue except that the document clearly states eligibility can be proven by presenting an unexpired I-94 as proof. This is the I-9 is the only document an employer can go by. failure to have it correctly filled out would in audit result in $250.00 / line error or $2,500/document / employee fines. Most of our fine was for failing to update epired driver's license info for American citizens employed. This is the document (I-9) that determines if the company hired someone while knowing they were not eligible for work.

 

The issue for most employers is whether or not they can keep an employee after the 90 day expireration and before EAD or PR. Most update records once a year and would not check until that update. It is a technicality that puts the employer in jeopardy. If the employer wants to risk it they will as the chance of being audited during that gap is about equal to world peace being declared.

[david_dawei]

The only document employers can go by is the I-9 to determine work eligibility. It is required for all employees upon start of work. Status or citizenship is not an issue except that the document clearly states eligibility can be proven by presenting an unexpired I-94 as proof. This is the I-9 is the only document an employer can go by. failure to have it correctly filled out would in audit result in $250.00 / line error or $2,500/document / employee fines. Most of our fine was for failing to update epired driver's license info for American citizens employed. This is the document (I-9) that determines if the company hired someone while knowing they were not eligible for work.

 

The issue for most employers is whether or not they can keep an employee after the 90 day expireration and before EAD or PR. Most update records once a year and would not check until that update. It is a technicality that puts the employer in jeopardy. If the employer wants to risk it they will as the chance of being audited during that gap is about equal to world peace being declared.

227939[/snapback]

Proof by I-9 was too easy.. The SSN memo was half-digestible... I wanted the road less travelled

 

Here's the I-9 in case anyone wants to see one:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-9.pdf

[frank1538]

Proof by I-9 was too easy.. The SSN memo was half-digestible...  I wanted the road less travelled 

 

Here's the I-9 in case anyone wants to see one:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-9.pdf

228071[/snapback]

I'm still bothered by that portion of the I-9 handbook dealing with the I-94. From the handbook - http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/hand_emp.pdf

 

"I-94 Arrival/Departure Record

 

Arrival-departure record issued by INS to nonimmigrant aliens. An individual in possession of the departure portion of this document may only be employed if the document bears an "employment authorization" stamp or employment incident to the nonimmigrant classification is authorized with a specific employer (i.e. A-1, A-2, A-3, C-2, C-3, E-1, E-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H-1A, H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, I, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, Q, NATO 1-7, and TC). The expiration date is noted on the Form I-94."

[david_dawei]

Proof by I-9 was too easy.. The SSN memo was half-digestible...  I wanted the road less travelled 

 

Here's the I-9 in case anyone wants to see one:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-9.pdf

228071[/snapback]

I'm still bothered by that portion of the I-9 handbook dealing with the I-94. From the handbook - http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/hand_emp.pdf

 

"I-94 Arrival/Departure Record

 

Arrival-departure record issued by INS to nonimmigrant aliens. An individual in possession of the departure portion of this document may only be employed if the document bears an "employment authorization" stamp or employment incident to the nonimmigrant classification is authorized with a specific employer (i.e. A-1, A-2, A-3, C-2, C-3, E-1, E-2, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H-1A, H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, I, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, Q, NATO 1-7, and TC). The expiration date is noted on the Form I-94."

228160[/snapback]

I'm sure what we would all agree on is that the bothersome common denominator is that too many areas are affected and it does no good when one side issues a memo, POM, or policy directive and there's no need to update documentation in all the affected areas. It leaves one required to follow a maze of documents.

 

But, getting back to your comments...

 

I simply go back to some links you have previously supplied:

 

 

https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx...33;opendocument

 

Policy - Evidence of Employment Authorization

Required evidence for employment authorization is either a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, showing a class of admission that indicates the person can work without specific DHS authorization (RM00203.500C.1.) or an employment authorization document (EAD) (Form I-766 or I-688B).

 

[ Ergo: YOU MUST HAVE EITHER I-94 showing no need for DHS authorization OR YOU MUST HAVE an EAD.]

 

 

the alien's class of admission code as shown on the I-94 (the non-immigrant classifications shown on the I-94 with employment authorization inherent in status are listed in RM 00203.500C.1.);

 

RM 00203.500C.1.

1. Aliens Work Authorized Without Specific DHS Authorization

The following sections list nonimmigrants, by alien class of admission codes, who are authorized to work in the U.S. without specific authorization from DHS. The person’s I-94 will not have the DHS employment authorization stamp and the alien will generally not have an EAD.

 

[ This list includes K1 ]

 

Following through on the meaning/definition of "incident to status" , as previously discussed, suggests the status confers (makes eligible and authorizes) if you have an I-94...

 

---

 

I'll meet you back in the sandpit

[david_dawei]

frank... I haven't forgotten our exchange here.. and the fact is I didn't get the upper hand at all, just the last word...

 

Since your not the type to "put his foot down", I have had this feeling to get to the bottom of this debate. Although some of my thoughts were based on loose logic (bringing up asylee memo--oh please), I knew that you had the backup of solid documentary (and historical) proof...

 

Well... I'll just say that I finally and truly got to the bottom of this debate... and I can tell you that the reason we did not agree is because Social Security (me) and USCIS (you) did not necessary reflect agreement in their memos and regulations.

 

It's too late now to post all the links and the findings, but I will say that that K1 and EAD (together and separate issues) are under a lot of review, advice, and agreement... when it becomes public enough knowledge that even any lawyer site we visit has the right answer is unknown (Social Security posted their memo in 2000, and now, six years later it is finally having an effect on USCIS).

 

The good news is that I found it all on the internet.. so anyone who is willing to take some time away from their web forum will find it.

 

Actually, I'll end this with a confession: I took my position over to VJ and found a recalcitrant crowd to say the least... found myself slipping on asylees memos, and struggling with old SS comments that nobody had heard of, I decided it was time to figure out if time in the sand is reality or not.

 

Turns out, I was truly one with the asylee message...

 

In a write-up, RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CIS OMBUDSMAN TO THE DIRECTOR, USCIS, they stated, with loose logic to the asylee: "there would appear to be no rationale for the EAD requirement for K-1s"

[david_dawei]

See: http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19268