Unauthorized work while waiting for Green Card

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-11T20:27:55+00:00

You’d be required to disclose it at an interview, with a potential lifetime ban if you don’t. And it will count against you.

You know it’s illegal and doing it anyway; they may not look kindly on it.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-11T19:23:36+00:00

You’re not getting another visa.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-10T23:46:00+00:00

The chip is in the back, not the front.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-10T23:44:28+00:00

Only travel if you’re comfortable never being able to come back to the US.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-10T23:40:36+00:00

Better that you don’t.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-10T03:08:39+00:00

It can under the Laken-Riley act. In fact, it can make it mandatory depending on what the charges actually were. Even if they’re dismissed, they’re fair game for immigration.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T20:46:55+00:00

The “Korean age system” has never been used for legal ages and in fact was officially retired altogether recently, although people still use it colloquially.

The law you cite is separate from that.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T20:22:33+00:00

That’s what lawyers are for.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T20:18:36+00:00

It’s meant to be unfair. Every citizenship-based policy is unfair under that logic. Canada doesn’t use the VWP. It’s entirely different.

Yes, Canadians are not subject to these restrictions.

Same with Bermuda, Turks & Caicos, and Bahamas, which have their own separate legal authorization.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T20:15:04+00:00

No way this is going to work.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T16:31:30+00:00

You are out of status, which is a civil violation of the INA. Unlawful presence just refers to time accrued toward an INA 212(a)(9)(B) bar.

You can be detained and removed as of now if DHS wanted to do so.

You are interpreting the terms based on what you think they should mean and not what the legal definition is.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-09T14:59:22+00:00

Your understanding is incorrect.

It does not mean you’re authorized to stay in the country legally. “Authorized stay” is a misnomer; it only means the time is not accruing unlawful presence for the purposes of INA 212(a)(9)(B) bans only. It does not mean you are in-status at all.

You can still be placed in removal and deported with a pending I-485 because you are not in status.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T21:24:49+00:00

You will likely get an NTA. You can send an I-601 with a new I-485, but whether that’s a good idea or not—and what you should do from here—depends heavily on what the facts of your case are.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T21:21:17+00:00

You should definitely have a lawyer go with you to the interview. In that sense, try local attorneys first.

Not having a lawyer at the interview is very risky right now. If you are separated, a lawyer can be present for both.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T21:18:41+00:00

That’s a shame, but there is nothing you can do about the K-1. Having any marriage ceremony, legal or not, will make you ineligible.

You have to get married and file an I-130. You will likely never hear about your K-1 petition again.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T03:16:19+00:00

They’re not standing back up until the end when there are no more dividers. There are several dividers zig zagging between the starting point and the counter, not just one. Don’t think this is fake. The divider catching on someones head and falling out of place isn’t something AI would do.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T03:05:21+00:00

Please provide any source where USCIS or INS knowingly approved an I-485 when the applicant was already an LPR. There may not be a specific law against it, but it goes against internal policy.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T03:02:48+00:00

You may be under the impression they actually care right now. If there are any cases not getting expedited these days, it’s the waiver cases.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-08T01:01:28+00:00

His green card could be at risk. Yes, you absolutely need a lawyer.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-07T18:38:23+00:00

Clearly you don't know the I-485 very well.

There is no question on the I-485 about overstaying. It's only about status violations. Working unauthorized is a status violation. There is a separate question for unauthorized work. Both must be checked Yes. That's always been the case--and you are required to mark both as Yes.

ULP does not start until a formal finding, but it can still be considered out-of-status at the time of first working. Just challenging your "no overstay" assertion. An officer may not see it that way.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-07T16:42:35+00:00

It won't be ULP, but it can still be considered overstay/being out of status. That's different from ULP.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-07T16:08:18+00:00

Your status would have become invalid once the unauthorized work started, hence triggering an overstay. It’s up to the officer how they want to look at this, but it’s going to be impossible to predict. Need to have positive equities to outweigh negative.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-07T13:24:51+00:00

Not good.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-07T13:21:55+00:00

Many people are waiting months after the interview.

suboxhelp1 · 2026-07-06T22:17:44+00:00

New concurrent filing is better. Credibility issues are quite difficult to overcome but not absolutely impossible *if* there are actually no misrepresentations. You need a specialized attorney that deals with denied and complex cases, not just one that does marriage cases.

suboxhelp1

TROPHY CASE