ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: 245 (i) question

  1. #1
    I have a 245(i) client who has been working because he has a social security number but not a EAD. Will this be a problem down the line or is he okay because he is allowed to work because of his 245(i) status?

  2. #2
    I have a 245(i) client who has been working because he has a social security number but not a EAD. Will this be a problem down the line or is he okay because he is allowed to work because of his 245(i) status?

  3. #3
    245(i)by itself is not and does not give a status. Most likely (you did not give details) your client?! has no legal status in USA, and as such can not and should not work.

    Will that be a problem? It depends on what bases he will acquire a legal status.

    Just my understanding of the rules...

  4. #4
    All aliens need permission from DHS to work, regardless of what application they have submitted. This illegal work cancels his status and he is removeable. Please provide your clients name and address to your local ICE office.

  5. #5
    Certain persons covered under Section 245(i) adjustment of status are listed at Section 245(a) and (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and include individuals who: Entered the United States illegally; Worked in the United States illegally; Failed to maintain continuously lawful status; Entered under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program; Entered as foreign crewmen, and Entered as foreign travelers in transit without a visa.

    But for any applications filed after January 14, 1998 (but before April 30, 2001) the applicant must prove they were physically present in the United States on the date of the enactment of the LIFE Act (on December 21, 2000) in order to be eligible for Section 245(i) adjustment of status.

    The physical presence requirement on US soil (or lose the coverage and be subject to the 3/10-year to reentry upon exit) runs counter to the current enforcement-only climate and E-verify era.

    But the silver lining is that E-verify is not compulsory (except for government contractors) and out of the seven million employers nationwide, short of 200k employers are participating. Most small establishments require only SSN and a valid ID prior to hiring.

    And I know of a number of cases of aliens who were issued NTAs but upon exhibiting proof of 245(i) grandfathering to the judge were being let go.

    So as mentioned above, unauthorized employment, among other infractions, is normally forgiven after paying $1,000.00 penalty at the AOS instance.

  6. #6
    Add to this that SC passed a law last year aimed at curbing illegal employment by stating that all employers must use E-verify or be able to ascertain by other methods the right to employment status. In effect it means E-verify is required by all employers in SC. Few employers have the time or resources to become immigration officers.
    "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

  7. #7
    it can be a problem down the line as well, but if he has his own SSN then sometimes it can be used differently. Hardship and paid taxes all those years and contributed to the economy. its all depends how you argue, and wfor what reason. EX: if you have dependent who are citizen, it can be used as hardship.
    a CAUSE.
    Its a discussion, not a legal advise..

  8. #8
    If the subject client would be petitioned, supposing, by an eligible US citizen child and if his violations only are overstaying and working without authorization, sans other grounds of inadmissibility, s/he doesn't even need a 245(i) coverage for AOS as an immediate relative of a USC.

  9. #9
    His sister filed an I-130 which has been approved, (got a Social Security # (legally) when he first came to the US). He is now just waiting for visa availability and has been paying taxes and been an exemplary member of his community.

  10. #10
    Of course no one is supposed to work illegally. However, when the beneficiary goes to the interview (and there will be an interview), do you think the officer will really believe that the alien has never worked since at least 2001? How has he/she been able to support himself if he has not been working? Officers are not idiots. The law has granted amnesty to individuals who have petitions filed on their behalf before April 30, 2001. If he has been paying taxes, he should be okay.

Similar Threads

  1. 245(i) section question
    By beFair in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 11:25 AM
  2. 245(i) Question
    By antivirus in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2006, 05:43 PM
  3. Question regarding 245(i)
    By wolfe in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-13-2004, 04:28 PM
  4. Any Expert answer this one, 245(a), 245(i) or 245(m)
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2003, 11:55 AM
  5. 245(i)-Big question
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-15-2002, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: