I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

That's very kind of you. Thank you.

> Employers should have to prove they were not able to find a U.S. citizen who can do the job before they're allowed to hire someone that needs a work permit.

Why?

It's their money and their business.

What business do you or I have in forcing upon them what they can do?

Most major employers have offices in EU, US, India etc. so the can just allocate racks in those countries.

That's right, a lot of international founders participate in the batch as business visitors, whether under ESTA or a B-1 visa. The most common post-batch work authorization options are the country-specific visas (for those from Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Singapore), the O-1, and the E-2. If based abroad and only coming to the U.S. for investor meetings and the like, then you could continue as a business visitor but practically this can become a problem if traveling to the U.S. regularly; at some point CBP will push back.

There was a blogpost from someone from germany who got accepted. I looked it up for you: https://web.archive.org/web/20220604131034/https://richventu...

There is also a post on hackernews about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31601638 And there is a Ask HN that could be helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31620700

You should still create a US C-Corp, ideally in Delaware.

Thank you for your answers, it's super helpful

Could follow this group of EU business people forming a US entity this year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shWe5dNqUrc

Also, attend a few free AMCHAM webinars to get the details on foreign ownership rules.

Depending on how large your project becomes, some people may just use a brokerage service to localize the Merchant on Record (MoR) like withreach.com for online retailers. However, only US domestic corporations can mitigate liability on sold goods/services etc. Keep aware of the IRS grace thresholds on sales, as even if you owe $0 in federal and state taxes... it can still become a $8k fine for forgetting to file a return in the US.

Best of luck, =3

I think your forgetting one of the most important pros: an inalienable right to re-enter the country after going abroad.

Also a pro is that while traveling you have the services of the U.S embassy to you, which could be a life saver depending on what other citizenship you hold and the circumstances.

I wouldn't frame the tax parts like that. Just by having a green card, you are generally subject to the same worldwide taxation as US citizens, with only subtle differences.

Perhaps a bigger difference is that it's somewhat easier to abandon the green card than to renounce US citizenship.

I became a US citizen because I wanted to be able to vote and be a full participant of my community, and it's easier to be in the same line as my wife and child at the airport.

But even though I am not a criminal, it was also on my mind that if I were ever falsely convicted in some travesty of justice, I could also be deported, which would make it even worse.

As long as you keep your greencard, you still need to declare your income worldwide.

Depending on your home country, having US passport opens up a lot of other possibilities for travel too.

Major con: infinitely easier to deport

[dead]

This is my (not Peter's) advice for Canadians/Mexicans for TN, Australians for E-3, and seems to apply for Singaporeans/Chileans for H-1B1: If it is an automated system, just put no. That may be an automatic filter. There will be time to talk to a human and say "all we need is X/Y/Z" where X/Y/Z is something the hiring manager can do without involving a lawyer. If a human is asking you, then just say "Yes. I need a visa but I can walk you through the process. No lawyer needed."

hey fellow singaporean - you may enjoy my h1b1 guide https://www.swyx.io/h1b1

most impt thing to note is that while you do still need a visa sponsor, it is a LOT easier and cheaper for you and yes ive had a job where i paid for my own visa lawyer, and only needed simple docs from the company (which was ~10 people at the time if that helps). didnt turn out to be a GREAT job ofc but thats separate.

dont ask me how to get a job in the us from singapore tho. if ur applying thru the "front door" as u seem to be doing, yes its harder. lots more back door options but you'll have to network well to do it (i recommend https://swyx.io/LIP)

Not Peter Roberts nor a lawyer, but: Why don't you just say "I'm Singaporean, so I'm not sure I would need to apply", and give a link to some article which describes the special visa eligibility for Singaporeans? Also note that H-1B1 is just one kind of visa, and there are many others - for which you likely would need to apply.

There are multiple options to working for your own company in the U.S. The most common paths are the O-1, the L-1, and the E-2 and E-1 visa. Creating a company in Germany first might open up a path to an L-1 visa but that's the only relative advantage to opening a company in Germany first. The E-1 and the E-2 require that the U.S. company be at last 50% German owned and that there be a substantial investment of German money into the U.S. company or substantial trade between the U.S. and Germany via the U.S. company. The O-1 is based your own personal achievements. If you can have German invested into the U.S. company (whether from you or others or both), which generally means at last $100k, then the E-2 is a very good and easy option and relative to the O-1, allows spouses to work.

Patents are just the starting point of the analysis because patents in and of themselves don't say anything about impact or significance so the next step is to try to understand the impact/significance of the patents through usage and citations, for example.

I think you will get a better answer if you clarify your situation.

* Are your kids US citizens?

* In what country you do currently live?

> I was told that in order to get a spouse Visa, I need to start the process in Thailand. Is this true? Do i need to apply for everything in Thailand just because this is where we got married? Thank you

This is generally incorrect. For a spouse of a US citizen living abroad, you "start" by filing I-130 and then by completing the NVC paperwork, which can be done either online or through mail. The final stages are generally handled by the overseas consulate where the intending immigrant resides.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...

However, you may need documents from Thailand, such as your marriage certificate with English translation and police records for the immigrant.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Rec...

Back when I was working on an L1, I continually lobbied my employer to apply for an H1B for me to give me more options in the event of losing a job, or even just the ability to change employer at all really. This is one of the most significant downsides of the L1 visa IMO, the options are comparatively limited/difficult if you do lose your job. Its biggest plus over the H1 is of course no lottery though, which is why employers that can use the L1 like it etc.

As I understand it, your employer can apply for the H1B lottery every year for you while still on the L1. Some companies will do this, eventually I did get the H1B I wanted back then. My colleagues on L1 all did the same thing too.

Regarding your first question, you would get a 60-day grace period following the end of your employment (limited, however, by your I-94 expiration date). During this 60-day period, you could remain in the U.S. and apply to change your status to another visa classification before the end of the 60-day period, such as to another work visa (if one is available) or a visitor visa. Regarding your second question, you are referring to an EB5 green card. That is too convoluted to explain here. If you are interested, you should consult with someone who specializes in EB5 green cards.

> (I’d like something to offer my conservative friends/family who increasingly think all immigration should be verboten.)

Not proberts, but observing left wing media in the States over the last 8-10 years I've seen a carpet bombing of the same concept: eliding the difference between immigration and illegal immigration. If you want to talk to your conservative friends and family I'd start by checking whether or not it's illegal immigration they're against. Even the Democrats seem to be noticing that people don't like open border policies and are scrambling to adjust campaign promises in light of this.

While you were unmarried, you were either an immediate relative if under age 21, or family preference F1 if 21 or older. Because you married, you are now in the family preference F3 category, which has a much larger backlog and a much longer wait.

You should have considered the immigration consequences before you got married. The only thing that can change your situation is if your marriage ends in death or divorce. Otherwise you must wait.

9 FAM 502.2-3(D)

> a. (U) Immediate Relative Converts to Third Preference: If the child of a U.S. citizen is the beneficiary of an IR petition, the petition automatically converts to a third preference petition if the child marries. The priority date of the third preference petition is the filing date of the immediate relative petition.

> b. (U) First Preference Converts to Third Preference: If the unmarried son or daughter of a U.S. citizen marries before the visa is issued, the beneficiary's first preference petition automatically converts to a family third preference petition. Any child(ren) of the beneficiary would then be entitled to derivative third preference status. The priority date remains the same.

> e. (U) Third Preference Converts to First Preference: (1) (U) A third preference petition approved for a married son or daughter of a U.S. citizen who has since become widowed or divorced automatically converts to accord first preference status (or IR status if the beneficiary is under the age of 21). If the petition converts to first preference, the accompanying or following-to-join child(ren) may be granted derivative first preference status. The priority date remains the same.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM050202.html

E3 is absolutely the best way for Australians in my experience. It's more flexible than a H1B and the process is much simpler. The only downside is there is no simple path to a green card like H1B, but I managed to get one anyway.

You'd need a US entity to apply on your behalf. In my case they never asked about assets to pay the salary but that may be an issue.

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...

I just don't see how the value - from a benefit to the U.S. economy perspective - is tied to salary so that doesn't make sense to me as a line to draw. If the H-1B program were to be limited in any way (which is not something I necessarily agree with), one option is to list occupations that are in short supply each year and to prioritize those. Many countries do this.

US residency and citizenship is in extremely high demand, so whatever immigration system is put in place will ultimately be gamed. Creating a visa category that is solely based on salary would be attractive to some cohort of people who want to live in the US regardless of the costs.

We saw similar things with previous "investor visas" where there was no intention to start a business and the USCIS had to stop issuing them for many years because of the pervasive fraud on both sides of the equation. I can guarantee that some creative lawyer out there was already thinking about how to game the US "startup visa" when that was proposed a few years back.

This is your visa application so you don't need to wait on the school or its counsel to act. You can ask the Congressional representative in the area where you will live in the U.S. to make an inquiry with the Consulate. This is done all the time although it often doesn't make a difference, unfortunately. Where were you born, where have you traveled, and what's the focus of your post-doc?

No worries. I just discussed this in response to another question.

That's a question directed to YC.

As Peter says, K1 is not a option for you because you're married. F2A will convert to immediate relative (either CR1 or IR1) once you become a US citizen.

CR1/IR1 is generally superior from the perspective of the immigrant spouse. However, CR1/IR1 does not allow derivatives, unlike F2A. If you have any children or stepchildren that don't have US citizenship or a green card, you will need to file a separate I-130 for them if you become a US citizen.

The conversion is from an F2A to an immediate relative green card application. This will be the fastest path. You would want to notify the U.S. Consulate in Russia when you become a U.S. citizen. The K-1 is for fiances of U.S. citizens, not spouses of U.S. citizens. Has the I-130 already been approved?

If the individual is employed by a related entity abroad, then large companies would transfer him or her to the U.S. using the blanket L visa, a super fast and easy process. If the individual is not employed by a related entity abroad, then other options must be considered. First, there are easy options if the individual is a citizen of one of five countries with its own visa; these are Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Singapore. These countries have free trade agreements with the U.S. that give rise to these visas. If the individual is not a citizen of one of these countries but is employed in H-1B status by another company (or previously was employed in H-1B status), then an H-1B change of employer application is usually the best option and an easy one. If the individual is not employed in H-1B status (and never has been), then we look at the O-1. Sometimes the E-1 or E-2 visa is an option but this has very specific and limited requirements regarding the nationality of the company and the individual and regarding the company's trade with U.S. and investment into the U.S. company. It's a great option when it works. The EB1A is a green card path and is a high standard that takes a while.

We went through the Fiance Visa program and it wasn't a big deal, but the foreign one of us was Canadian, which is on the we like that country list, which probably helped a lot.

You have to follow special rules for the fiance visa program, and most all the paperwork happens before you get married.

The big thing I remember(it's been decades now), there was a fee we had to pay at one of the consulates somewhere, and they gave us 2 receipts, a big fancy full page one and the tiny cash register receipt. Way afterwards they made us prove we paid the fee. They wanted the tiny cash register receipt, not the fancy full page one. Make sure you keep literally everything , you have no idea what might be important later on.

I'm not saying the fiance visa is right for you in your situation, just mentioning it in case you are not aware.

This is complicated so it's important to speak with an immigration attorney before you take any steps. The better option is to apply from within the U.S. but doing this while in the U.S. as a tourist is problematic. The other path, through a U.S. Consulate abroad, raises no legal concerns but can take a very long time (compared to a U.S. based application).

> I go there with the intent of getting married, do I need a special visa or not, considering I can already enter legally?

Yes, you absolutely need a visa (specifically the K1). Entering the US with the intent to get married without it is immigration fraud!

I've been through this process myself and I can tell you that it's quite the lengthy process and there's financial requirements and many checks along the way. For me it was about 18 months from start of K1 application to issuance (delayed due to COVID) and then about 6 month wait on employment authorization (and greencard about 6 months later).

These times could be much longer if you're not from a western country or mess up the paperwork along the way (easy to do, there's quite a lot of stuff both partners need to file).

Just letting you know so you can start the process early. There's several forums online for people going through such a process with a lot of resources, I'd suggest looking there for other's experiences.

The waiver is the only alternative to satisfying the 2-year home residence requirement but hardship waivers are tough. Do you have an attorney? I could recommend attorneys who focus on such waivers.

The hardship waiver is likely going to be specific to the facts of your situation, so you may benefit from hiring your own immigration lawyer.

If your waiver is denied, there's of course the alternative of your spouse going back to her home country by herself.

You may find this passage from USCIS relevant, particularly the last sentence.

> E-3 Specialty Occupation Workers may be admitted initially for a period not to exceed the validity period of the accompanying E-3 labor attestation (i.e., for a maximum of two years), and extensions of stay may be granted indefinitely in increments not to exceed the validity period of the accompanying E-3 labor attestation (i.e., for increments of up to two years each). As there is no limit on the total length of stay for an E-3 alien in the legislation, there is no specified number of extensions a qualify ing E-3 Specialty Occupation Worker may be granted. Under the current E regulation, 8 CFR 214.2(e)(5) , an alien classified under section 101(a)(15)(E) as an E-3 nonimmigrant shall maintain an intention to depart the United States upon the expiration of termination of E status. An application for initial admission, change of status or extension of stay in E-3 classification, however, may not be denied solely on the basis of an approved request for permanent labor certification or a filed or approved immigrant visa preference petition.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-ma...

Not a lawyer. Visas and green card applications are orthogonal. Do your EB2-NIW however you like - either yourself or with the help of a law firm. It has no bearing on anything else. You'll get the green card when your number is up (somewhere in the next 5 years).

Not a laywer. Withdrawing and reapplying after changing the app, or responding to the RFE are both valid options. The only thing that is not useful is appealing a rejection. The appeals rarely work and are a waste of money and time. There was also an executive order about O1 which was supposed to lead to rulemaking that would make O1 and EB1 easier for AI (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...). I don't know if anything came of this, but look into whether any rulemaking is happening and apply after a final rule is published, assuming you are doing AI. (Everyone is doing AI, btw).

From an immigration standpoint, there are no issues with U.S. companies employing foreign nationals who are working remotely OUTSIDE the U.S.; U.S. immigration doesn't come into play unless and until the individual will be working IN the U.S. For employees working remotely in the U.S., while this needs to be noted and referenced in any immigration application, it doesn't really change the immigration options and paths.

Individuals working outside the U.S., even as employees of U.S. companies, are outside the reach of U.S. immigration law. Now, that doesn't mean that they are outside the reach of all laws, such as those controlling exports or combatting (cyber)terrorism. But immigration law has no say.

There are two types of EB2 green card paths, one (the PERM-based EBs) is tied to a specific employer and a specific job) and the other (NIW or national interest waiver) is not.

From an immigration standpoint? Only that the immigration options and issues should be fully vetted and understood as early as possible. While there are some minor differences, from an immigration standpoint, there's little difference between the immigration options/path for employment with an established/large company and a startup.

Of course you should consult with an attorney before applying but I don't see any issue with any of these impacting your ability to get a green card

From an immigration standpoint, no downside and no risk. We have a lot of companies that do this: employ people abroad as W-2 employees without any U.S. work authorization (which isn't required if the employee is working remotely outside the U.S.).

To be clear, green card paths are not helped or hurt or impacted in any way by the underlying status so your green card options are the same whether you're in O-1 status or not. That being said, because of the nature of the O-1, many of those in O-1 status go the EB1A extraordinary ability path or the EB2 national interest waiver path. An O-1, except in limited circumstances, is tied to a specific employer so if your O-1 employer went out of business, your O-1 would go away - but it's very easy to transfer an O-1 from one employer to another.

It's challenging but not impossible. A key is having less than 50% ownership interest in the company and an employment agreement with the company. It's close to impossible where the ownership is vested and at or above 50%. Again, not impossible but extremely challenging. The other owners also can be foreign nationals; they don't need to be U.S. citizens. So, where there are three foreign national founders, each owning a third, this should be fine.

There's no downside to having your company kick off the green card process now; the process could move fast enough to allow you to stay past July 2026 (although this isn't likely). The standard options are the O-1 (which should be evaluated soon because you have time to build up your O-1 profile now if you need to) and full-time F-1 CPT through a graduate program.

One can only hold one visa so one would need to hold the principal E-2 visa and the other could get the benefit of the E-2D visa.

There is no cap on number of attempts. I think the 3 attempts you are referring to is the 3 year OPT after you graduate with a degree, companies usually try to sponsor during those three years while you're employed with them.

It's just an unmitigated disaster. The only non-laughable path is via the EB1 (or marriage to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident). Many Indians who are working for U.S. companies in managerial positions will agree to work abroad for their employer for at least one year and this opens up the EB1C path.

Good catch! Thank you. Immigration lawyer should have been included.

That's really not true. There was some slight truth to this (but really just slight) years ago before the AC21 legislation, which allows those in the green card process to change employers without having to restart their green card process. Again, to be clear, lawyers used to say there were issues leaving soon after getting a green card, but that really was never true and with AC21, there's really no risk. All this being said, it's still good to have a consultation about this to rest easy.

100%. This would be permissible on any work visa, whether TN, O-1. H-1B, E-2, or E-1.

The other concern would be tax wise, how do you deal with the CRA regarding the US salary and what not.

Super cheap, easy, and fast. The E-3 visa is the easiest visa to get (as long as the applicant is Australian of course) and it doesn't matter whether the employer is a startup or an established large company.

This is a payroll/tax issue. Many employers in these situations use an Employer of Record, such as Deel, to employ U.S. citizens living and working abroad but you also could be employed directly as a W-2 employee.

That's regarding the judging of hackathons.

This can't be done while still in school but once you graduate, you can found a company while in F-1 OPT and then while in F-1 OPT status, look to change your status to O-1 (assuming that you also don't qualify for STEM OPT or another country-specific visa).

There's a lot to worry about but to keep the worry/analysis grounded, I think it makes sense to review what his administration did last time. And most of the damage was done to those who were illegal or seeking asylum or were from certain countries and seeking to travel to the U.S. It was awful and very disruptive to the lives of many. On the legal business immigration side, the main damage was the result of changes in policy and the way regulations were interpreted and applied. This included doing away with the deference given to previously approved applications when extensions/renewals were sought. This was disastrous, resulting in the denial of applications for people who had been employed in the U.S. by the same employer for years. The Biden administration immediately undid this when it took office. The other major change was in changing/increasing the requirements for getting H-1B and O-1 visas and extraordinary ability green cards. The Biden administration undid some but not all of these changes. There is concern that a Trump administration would undermine the H-1B program as well.

Again, this is outside my scope. That question should be directed to YC directly.

Those who are in YC and who previously were in YC almost always can get work authorization, whether it's an O-1, E-2, H-1B, or country-specific visa. Relatively speaking, the harder cases are those involving those who don't have at least a bachelor's degree. While lots of experience sometimes can fix this, not always, which means that an O-1 visa is usually the only option. Regarding the impact of a change in administration, I just touched on this in response to another question/comment.

From abroad? From an immigration perspective, there are no issues but other export controls/commerce laws might come into play.

Unfortunately, no. Historically, the only thing that has fixed PERM backlogs is a bad economy or a major change in immigration law.

I know. That's embarrassing. I've never done that before. Thanks for pointing out!

You can't expect an attorney in private practice to have an authoritative answer to this question.

(And, it frankly appears this account is owned or operated by a state actor.)

Thanks! I need to shut down that website. I merged my firm with another.

Fixed now!

That is going to be confusing, good luck ;)

What you write is incorrect. Even worse, arguably, is that applications by Russian citizens sometimes just end up in a black hole and never get reviewed. Unfortunately, while applying for an O-1 visa can be a solution, this isn't always the case and O-1 visa applications also can end up in a black hole. In other words, there are no easy solutions for Russian citizens unless they are seeking to travel to the U.S. on government business or possibly seeking to travel to the U.S. to create jobs. But the background security check/security concerns can undermine just about any application unless the Executive branch/State Department is involved and is specifically supporting the visa application.

I love responses like this because they highlight how allowing broken systems to persist can so thoroughly warp their purpose. Did anyone go to law school and specialize in immigration because they felt called to be "the modern equivalent of the overseer on the plantation?" Probably not.

But if you want to sample the kind of vitriol that somebody living with the precarity of a H-1B "employer controls your life" environment, here's a paragraph of it to chew on.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that immigration lawyers are "overseer on the plantation". That is an extreme imo. Lawyers are only there to help there clients navigate the laws of the land. They have serve both companies and immigrants as clients.

Though, I strongly believe that H1b problem is modern slavery. Especially for people from India and China. The law is carefully crafted to ensure a constant supply of captive labor who work hard, pay taxes and if they fail to be competetive then get sent back to their home country irrespective of how long they have lived here or their contribution to the economy/society here. Sometimes I wonder if the law would have been the same if it were to impact europeans the same way (Pls don't take this as racist. Nothing against European ppl. I'm just complaining about a racist law).

I know the counter-argument is always that "you can leave the job and go back if you feel it's slavery". That's true but like Europeans and like people from many other countries, we also want to live in this great country. This country has attracted immigrants over centuries. The problem is that the law is carefully crafted to ensure that not too many people of color become citizens here without having a clear race based restriction in the law.

This is an inappropriate question for this AMA. The person is trying to help out others by offering some free guidance, and your question is, "how do you sleep at night, you scum-sucking bastard?"

wow, who hurt you ?

That's outside my area but the key is to engage with corporate/IP counsel at the outset, ideally before the company has been incorporate. One non-immigration issue that comes up all the time is incorporating before the founder has left his or her employer and thus putting the IP at risk.

If your goal is time bound (say a few years), the asylum path may work. It will eventually run out though when you get your hearing in court. Asylum applications are overwhelmingly rejected. The legal path, at least theoretically, has a higher probability* of leading to permanent residence.

*Except for Indians.

not getting ICE knocking on your door and deporting you after living here for decades (happened to a friend's brother in law).

Crossing illegally is an option of last resort.

If you have the ability to immigrate on a visa, it's much safer and easier than relying on "coyotes" or having to cross multiple borders illegally just to take a shot at entering the US.

There's a reason you don't see Mexicans cross the border illegally anymore.

If you can cheat without consequences, what is the advantage of not cheating.