As an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is incredibly welcome news.
"The proposed rule is open for public comment for 45 days, allowing stakeholders to provide valuable feedback to DHS before the final rule is ultimately published. (We encourage you to read the details and submit your comments.)"
And from the proposal [0]:
"You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by e-mail at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS docket number USCIS-2015-0006 in the subject line of the message."
Hi, I'm doing research on this topic to draft a public comment for USCIS and I'd like to request everybody's input:
-Is it reasonable to limit this to only 3 founders per company, or should it be 4?
-Reasonable for a successful founder to own at least 10% at the end of the 2 year period (which could be 5 years after founding the startup)?
-Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
-Is $500k annual revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20% a good minimum requirement for proving "substantial and rapidly increasing revenue"?
-Will certain industries like biotech or medical devices be harmed if there is a requirement that the investor funding and application must occur within the first 3 years after founding? Are there some types of companies that take longer to get traction?
-Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
-Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
> Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
An international founder probably wants to come to the states for funding and scaling. Having pre-conditions on both scale and funding seems like a chicken and egg. Requiring funding rules out all bootstrapped businesses which are likely candidates.
> $500k annual revenue
The conditions feel like they select for small businesses like restaurants but filter out the potentially massive ones e.g. pre-revenue consumer facing like Facebook / WhatsApp or R&D heavy businesses like Biotech. Neither of these may see revenue in the first few years but have evidence potential in user growth, engagement or scientific achievement.
> Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
> Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
If a founder is wanting to relocate from a non-startup friendly region then neither of these are may have been available. IMHO both competitions and second-rate incubators are "playing at business" and distractions from the truly necessary steps.
Although they mention funding and grants as the criteria and not revenue, I hope "Partially satisfying one or both of the above criteria in addition to other reliable and compelling evidence of the startup entity’s substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation." means that revenue will at least be considered to some extent.
The sponsors of the legislation did think hard about this obvious issue and believe they've addressed it (I talked to several people involved). They learned a lot from the EB-2 and EB-5 visa processes, which were sometimes abused by people who weren't really here to create viable businesses. Do you have more specifics about what you think they missed?
> Do you have more specifics about what you think they missed?
Do you have any specifics of what you think they didn't miss, given that you're the one who has supposedly talked to the sponsors of the legislation?
Legislation, like code, should be considered buggy until proven otherwise -- but with the complication that the people who write legislation aren't necessarily interested in fixing the bugs in it.
Since the amounts involved are pretty small (15% ownership of a company that has received at least $350K in funding) there seem to be no end of ways for to make it happen. Six Chinese (say) dudes each pay $100K to some guy who is a "qualified investor" in the US, who invests $350K in a Chinese restaurant and makes them each 1/6th owners. Bam, hello US residency for all involved.
The number doesn't quite work out: you got two years, and if the business can demonstrate passing certain benchmarks (500k funding or (500k revenue and 20% annual growth) or 10 'murican jobs), you get another 3 years. 5 years is enough if your business fails fast, but otherwise it's unlikely to be sufficient for building one (on average).
This is a parole rather than a visa, so it still leaves the question on what's the follow up afterward.
I'm not aware of any meme with the usage of "'murican" that paints certain part of the US as parochial and unintelligent.
In any case, that's not what I intended. My usage of "'murican" would have been closer to the joke about Canadians always apologizing than your reading.
It's pretty cool that they're proposing parole rather than an actual visa - I never thought of that possibility, but it seems to fix a lot of policy-related issues, such as visa caps, and allow qualifying entrepreneurs faster entry. Might short-circuit the process and we don't have to wait for politicians to agree that a founder visa makes sense.
Founders also wouldn't have to get a certified LCA or meet minimum wage requirements, which can be pretty costly for a startup and is less relevant in case of founders (who are not taking anyone else's jobs or lowering average wages). And generally founders would probably prefer (and have more to gain from) spending that money to grow the company.
I suspect there are downsides to paroles vs visa (like fewer rights or difficulty obtaining green card/other visa types later maybe?), but this seems like a surprisingly good proposal to fix an acute issue.
Parole is a terrible experience on the ground. Yea you get into the states, but you'll be sent to secondary every time you cross the border while they validate your parole status.
It seems to be a trend for the US to make the immigration experience more and more demeaning in practice.
Having a visa didn't really make this particularly better for me, and at the end of the day being able to get/stay in and just work when you want to work is a damn sight better than what many people (like me) have had to go through in recent years to start a company.
> Nobody should take this proposal as an example of the system working.
I certainly agree, but it's a great example of how hacking a broken system works :)
"And while there is no substitute for legislation, the Administration is taking the steps it can within existing legal authorities to fix as much of our broken immigration system as possible"https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-e...
I have an O1 and go through secondary every single time I enter the states. Budget a couple of extra hours when traveling to the US and you're fine. After you do it a few times and the agents see you're on the up and up the process goes quite quickly.
Relative to the effort of getting an O1 or chancing your fate to the H1-B lottery this is huge.
It looks like this rule would provide the entrepreneur a 5 year stay (2+3 additional if the start-up is doing well), but I don't see any mention of granting a green card, so what would happen to that entrepreneur on year 6?
EDIT: from the medium link posted in another comment by yurisagalov:
> DHS will also publish guidance to clarify when entrepreneurs may self-petition for lawful permanent residence (also known as a “green card”).
EDIT2:
> That entrepreneur will have the confidence of knowing whether she is eligible for the temporary “parole status” pathway, allowing her to start growing her company here right away. Later, she will know under what circumstances she may qualify for the green card pathway, if she is successful in creating jobs for U.S. workers and attracting more capital from U.S. investors, allowing her to become an American over time. (Note that these pathways will likely also be open to "bootstrap" entrepreneurs who are successful in generating revenue from U.S. customers, without needing to rely on external financing.)
It appears, it has the same issue as H-1B visas. At least in my opinion.
If your business fails and you invested 5 years of your life, you are kicked out of the country and have to move your family and everything back to wherever you came from. This big uncertainty of the future is, in my opinion, a huge negative of both H1B and this parole.
A single country of origin is not allowed to use up more than 7% of the total green card quota. Thus, very populous countries with lots of qualified potential immigrants, and strong incentives to immigrate (e.g. significant quality-of-life difference), are at a disadvantage.
> It appears, it has the same issue as H-1B visas. At least in my opinion.
For India/China natives on EB-2 or EB-3 categories, I agree.
For all the others, being able to self-petition for the green card as an entrepreneur means you won't need a company to sponsor you. (or your own start-up is sponsoring you?), and the full process could be done in less than 5 years.
The downside here would be the legal costs and hassle associated with it that you would have to take care of.
Thanks to the unquestionable red tape and annoyingly (really annoying) slow and sloppy work-culture at the USCIS it is a privilege here to share with you that even the EB1 categories of both India & China are now s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶l̶o̶g̶g̶e̶d̶ frozen [1].
Yes, welcome to 2016.
A significant portion of talent that used to earlier fall in H1B->(Eb2/Eb3) category has now grown up in life and also gone up the corporate ladder to only come back and (re)apply as multinational managers/executive in the EB1C category.
No matter what the USCIS tries to do now it cannot make up for the pile of shit (at the cost of anxiety and torture of millions of legal immigrants) accumulated in the past fifteen/twenty years. The beast is simply too big.
EB1 visas are now taken away by highly skilled and talented "managers" from TCS, Infosys, Cognizant etc. There's a special category of EB1 visas, EB1C which is on offer for managers. Skills that these companies face severe shortage in US include HR, Relationship Management, Finance/Accounting.
It will be interesting to see what happens to these people if Trump were to get elected, given his promise to investigate H1 visas.
Will he ask whistleblowers to step forward? Perhaps deport these "extraordinary individuals" and hand over their green cards to the actually deserving ones in the queue? Or is the number of affected people too small to matter?
Many people on message boards rarely seem to appreciate the actual pull of a person like Trump. Very few people actually want to support Trump, but the system badly needs a shake-up, even one that might well be too arbitrary and might negatively affect more people than it helps. The alternative feels like being the frog boiling in water.
While I am on the matter, I would also comment that the H1B visa lottery mess itself can be cleared quite quickly by someone who is not catering to lobbyists. Ask the ones who obtained their higher degree in the US if they genuinely think there are more people who are qualified to get the visa than the number of people who actually receive it - that is, does it make sense that there would be a lottery for the visa?
I know this opens an entirely new can of worms - why does getting a degree in the US give any more credibility? Here is a not very PC answer: being a student in the US actually gives you a chance to understand the culture and work ethic which makes the US what it is, which is almost 100% lacking in people who suddenly find themselves in the corporate environment of a completely different culture from their country, don't particularly care for assimilating, and often cause a lot of questions to be raised about whether the H1 visa is actually serving its designed purpose.
> why does getting a degree in the US give any more credibility?
It does not! And probably never will. A lot of people who I know went on to get a phd because of lack of options or because of frustration and failure in corporate life. The latter is statistically a sizeable number; consider unless the kid in your class went off immediately after school.
Whereas a multinational manager is usually directly contributing into the US economy for years with sweat and hard work, including engineering and research -- if needed, for their business to survive and grow. I'd rather say they gather and implement more according to the culture and edge it off with cultural gaps between the host country and their own. Of course now we're entering a class war. :-)
With all due respect to the multinational manager who may be extremely good at what they do, everyone knows that there is still some pretty drastic exploitation of the process going on if they are actually coming in under the EB1 category. Here is an easy test: these individuals will very rarely openly discuss exactly why they qualified for an EB1 (if they even willingly talk about it) - and I am fairly certain the deserving ones in the category will feel no such compunctions. Here is another - you can usually find scores of people with exactly the same qualifications as these multinational managers if you actually bother to probe further.
Having said that, I do think the system is too far beyond reform at this point, and people would be much better off trying other countries to showcase their talents, including their own.
Where does it say bootstrappers can use this method?
I'd love it to be the case. My market is almost entirely based in the USA. I'm in Canada, but have no legal method to do any work in the US. So it's all remote now.
Oh, I added in another comment that I run a solo business. I don't think an L1-A would apply in that case, because I couldn't have a subsidiary without employees.
I could hire employees, but it would involve doing a whole new business model purely for the sake of a US visa.
This would definitely help foreign founders but after they have founded the company in US since 3 years. That initial period of founding a startup is the most difficult part for immigrants in USA as their visas are tied to employer (like H1B).
So would this "startup visa" help in anyway in that initial stage of founding a startup?
This is a great step forward. I actually like the idea of parole rather than a proper visa upfront. First, get entrepreneurs to US and let them show their skills. If they succeed, they can always apply for GC directly through the existing outstanding skills category or take an investor visa.
Summary:
- New startup entity (< 3 years old)
- Atleast 10% stake
- No more than 3 applications per startup
- Atleast $345,000(VC,Angel,Incubator) or $100,000(govt grants) or show public benefit if less funding available
- Initial stay for 2 years
- Employment authorization only from startup
- Minimum salary at 400% poverty level
- Spouse gets EAD, but minor children do not.
After 2 years, 3 years extension
- Atleast 10% ownership and active role in startup
- Atleast $500K additional funding OR $500K revenue with 20% growth OR 10 Full time Jobs
Spousal Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is huge. IIRC, H1B spouses (ie, H4Bs) were recently allowed, but only if the H1B holder is applying for legal residency - which can take a while.
In this case, you can get an EAD for your spouse as soon as you get your parole.
WOW. This instantly makes this program substantially better than many other visas. The difference between a working spouse and not is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - especially over a 5 year time frame. This is better than the O1!!
I was told that a person with an H4B VISA can work only after the PERM has been accepted, during the adjustment of status (the last step of a green card process)
" A subsequent request for re-parole (for up to three additional years) would be considered only if the entrepreneur and the startup entity continue to provide a significant public benefit as evidenced by substantial increases in capital investment, revenue or job creation."
In case you're not joking: it depends greatly on what country they're coming from. In countries without a strong rule of law, you can be a very bad person without ever being convicted of a criminal offense. And in other countries, good people are given criminal records for things we approve of, such defending human rights or religious freedom.
USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide who's "good". They mostly have to rely on submitted documents, and there's no document you can submit to provide high confidence you're not a criminal.
What happens, if you get one of these paroles, but your business falls apart for whatever reason within the first two years?
There doesn't appear to be any specific language in the actual document outlining the rules changes, but it does say DHS would retain the right to terminate the parole at any time without prior notice and in DHS' discretion (pg. 84 in the PDF).
Looks like a little bit of gray area, unless there is some language in there about the parolees responsibilities to maintain the conditions under which the parole was granted and consequences if the parolee does not. I couldn't see anything like that during a quick read through the document.
#2 is interesting for university spinoffs, since it'd mean one way for PhD students to stay post-graduation is to get an STTR or SBIR grant for a spinoff company based on their thesis work.
Does anyone know where and how the public can provide their comments? I cannot find a link on the page. Bootstrapped startups with no outside investments wouldn't be eligible based on this criteria.
you are right and that was probably intentional. if not, there would be no way to determine if a startup is legitimate or not. attracting investment or funding seems to be the determining factor in this process.
If you have growth and revenue, it should be easy to get investors to invest. By outsourcing their decision, the government doesn't have to understand how to benchmark growth or revenue in every kind of business.
If you are a hardware entrepreneur there may be better options than trying to set up in the USA.
Try setting up shop in Shenzhen, China. Just spent a week over there. It is truly a Hacker's Paradise.
You can validate your ideas and get an MVP out in much faster time than the USA. You can be close to your eventual supply chain when you do make it big. It may sound a bit like premature optimization but the advantages are huge.
Of course, it will not hurt to learn a bit of Chinese (Mandarin) if you do decide to take that route. At least start with a few useful phrases to help break the ice. 'Ni Hao' (Hello); 'Xie Xie' (Thank You) and 'Duo Shuo Qian' (How much does it cost?). Learning the number system will also help know what the price is.
I spent a lot of time in the Huaqiang Bei and LoWu malls.
A special shoutout to Andrew "Bunnie" Huang for his 'The Essential Guide to Electronics in Shenzhen'[1]. It was invaluable.
Another shoutout to my Mandarin teacher Larry Xue and the San Jose Learning Center.[2] Attending his classes made me so much more confident that I could manage there even with the language barrier.
I think in the documentary you refer to, the supplier and user were part of the same company. Upaa I think? They basically had a huge campus. I was also impressed by that documentary but just saying ...
And let me guess, you went over on a 30-day (or 60 or 90 max) tourist visa?
Try getting a Chinese work visa from a startup (or one you found). USCIS's new rule proposal allows entrepreneurs to stay legally in the U.S. an initial 2 years.
I am not implying it is the best option for everybody trying to come and set up in the US, but for hardware companies there are better options than the US. In fact there are US based hardware accelerators[1] that encourage and facilitate setting up in Shenzhen for a short while so that you can be close to your eventual supply chain.
Coming and setting up in the US is no easy matter for people of Indian or Chinese origins.
I have been using a book called 'the Shenzhen insider's guide' [1] as a reference to help me understand what I need to do to setup something there. There is an entire chapter 'Business in Shenzhen' that lays out the groundwork needed to setup operations in Shenzhen and the different types of entities allowed to do business there. There may be advantages to having a Chinese partner in the setup.
I am currently only at the investigative stage. I will let you know as soon as I know more about bureaucratic obstacles.
In my experience, if something is hard to do in the USA, it is much harder to in China, which doesn't really acknowledge immigrants. Now, this is just "by the book", which the USA takes much more seriously than China. Often times, the book in China isn't even written and all they will say is "没办法", your only option is a tourist visa where they wink you'll probably be ok, unless you are unlucky enough to be caught in some crackdown, then it's 6 or so months in Chinese detention before being deported.
Only be in China if you REALLY need to be there, otherwise it's a whole lot of pain without corresponding upside.
In the same vein, for those in the USA trying to do business elsewhere, please be aware of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [1]. There is no upside to breaking those rules.
Sean, my Mandarin/Chinese is at below beginner's level. My google translate of your phrase is 'no way'. Was that what you were saying?
Yes, 没办法 just means "what you want to do is impossible, though (often implied) should be possible."
FCPA applies not just to Americans, but anyone who does business in the USA, so even non Americans can be caught up in it, and many developed countries have their own versions of it.
I don't think bribes fly around so easily these days. At least nothing overt, though the Chinese partner they thrust on you is often just a backdoor bribe that looks legit on paper.
Please note that this does not seem to be any improvement for citizens of "US treaty countries", e.g. most northern and western european countries. Where the needed capital investment is only needed to be substantial to get an E-2 investor/entrepreneur visa. E.g. 100-150k of initial investment needed as far as I know ;)
This definitely seems like an improvement even if you're treaty country citizen; particularly if you don't have $100-150K to invest (or whatever is required depending on the industry), or you'd rather have US investors contribute the capital. The E-2 investor visa requires the foreign national to be the investor:
"The E-2 nonimmigrant classification allows a national of a treaty country (a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce and navigation) to be admitted to the United States when investing a substantial amount of capital in a U.S. business"https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...
In any case more options is better for people seeking to start a business in the US (even people who are not paroled will benefit from not having to compete with paroled entrepreneurs over the same limited number of visas).
My prediction: This too will be gamed just like the rest of the immigrant worker visa systems (H-1B, OPT, O-1, EB-5, etc). That big fat vague 3rd criteria will see to it. A whole cottage industry of immigration attorneys who specialize in this visa will crop up to prey on unsuspected foreigners and collude with the knowing and corrupted ones.
The fact of the matter is most foreigners complaining about not being able to start businesses in the US don't have profitable or well funded businesses. The ones that do have profitable and well funded business can easily set up shop on US soil and don't need to immigrate here and can use L1 visas when they do need to come state side.
To me the most interesting aspect to this visa is it takes away the talking point from the H-1B proponents that immigrant workers are job creators because immigrants start companies that employ citizens.
It's worth noting that granting parole seems to be entirely at the USCIS's discretion:
"Under this proposed rule, DHS may parole, on a case-by-case basis, eligible entrepreneurs of startup enterprises"
I think this is different from visas where the applicants/petitioners have at least some legal rights: The USCIS are probably aware that some people are gaming the current visa system, but they may be "forced" to approve visa petitions if all the criteria are met - even in cases where they're obviously not in "the spirit of the law".
The USCIS can likely just refuse to give parole under the new rule if they think someone is abusing the system - and blacklist any startup investors they believe is aiding in such behavior.
You prediction may be right, but I think there's reason to be optimistic. The rule can also be changed more easily than laws if abuse is detected while providing valuable data that can guide future startup visa legislation.
For those looking to get a much more comprehensive look at this proposed rule from USCIS, read the advance version of the notice to be published in the Federal Register:
The sections most relevant to those who wish to apply under this rule would be:
IV. Proposed Changes
A. Overview of Parole for Entrepreneurs (pages 30 - 32)
B. Criteria for Initial Parole (pages 32 - 52)
1. Recent Formation of a Start-Up Entity
2. Applicant is an Entrepreneur Who is Well-Positioned to Advance the Entity’s Business
3. Capital Investment or Government Funding Criteria
C. Application Requirements for Initial Period of Parole (pages 53 - 61)
1. Filing the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941)
2. Requirement to Appear for Submission of Biometric Information
3. Income-Related Condition on Parole
4. Adjudication of Applications
5. Limitation on Number of Entrepreneur Parolees Per Start-Up Entity
6. Authorized Period for Initial Grant of Entrepreneur Parole
D. Employment Authorization (pages 61 - 66)
1. Employment Authorization Incident to Parole with a Specific Employer
2. Employment Authorization Eligibility for Spouses
3. Documentation for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)
F. Re-Parole (pages 67 - 84)
1. Criteria for Re-Parole
2. Application Requirements for Re-Parole
3. Ensuring Continuous Employment Authorization
4. Technical Changes
G. Termination of Parole (pages 84 - 87)
1. Automatic Termination
2. Termination on Notice
H. Automatic Adjustment of Investment and Revenue Amount Requirements (pages 87 - 88)
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
3. Population of Entrepreneurs Potentially Eligible (pages 103 - 116)
>Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments
Not sure what does the qualified US investors mean though. Would seed funding/angel funding from individuals not be considered for this? I guess this has been added to avoid abuse by wealthy foreigners, but how do they determine the qualified individuals or companies?
I would guess you have to be an accredited investor and have some history investing in startups.
Accredited Investor:
- net worth, or joint net worth with the person's spouse, that exceeds $1 million or
- income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year
I don't think it's necessarily targeted at abuse from wealthy foreigners, at least if you mean the kind wealthy enough to be putting up the whole investment themselves. There are other ways a wealthy foreigner can get a visa, like through the investor visa route. I would guess it's targeted more at visa-selling via sham investors. Something like, you charge a person $50k as a fee to "invest" $500k in their "startup", but structure it in such a way that they never actually see the money, or it comes back to you via some backdoor. Restricting it to legitimate investors who have some kind of track record probably makes it easier to police; they're less likely to running brazenly illegal schemes in the first place (gray-area stuff maybe, but probably not flat-out visa selling), and have more to lose from misusing their name/reputation.
143 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] threadAs an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is incredibly welcome news.
"The proposed rule is open for public comment for 45 days, allowing stakeholders to provide valuable feedback to DHS before the final rule is ultimately published. (We encourage you to read the details and submit your comments.)"
And from the proposal [0]:
"You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by e-mail at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS docket number USCIS-2015-0006 in the subject line of the message."
[0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article...
-Is it reasonable to limit this to only 3 founders per company, or should it be 4?
-Reasonable for a successful founder to own at least 10% at the end of the 2 year period (which could be 5 years after founding the startup)?
-Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
-Is $500k annual revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20% a good minimum requirement for proving "substantial and rapidly increasing revenue"?
-Will certain industries like biotech or medical devices be harmed if there is a requirement that the investor funding and application must occur within the first 3 years after founding? Are there some types of companies that take longer to get traction?
-Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
-Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
Thanks Sophie Alcorn
My blogs about this program: http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-r...
An international founder probably wants to come to the states for funding and scaling. Having pre-conditions on both scale and funding seems like a chicken and egg. Requiring funding rules out all bootstrapped businesses which are likely candidates.
> $500k annual revenue
The conditions feel like they select for small businesses like restaurants but filter out the potentially massive ones e.g. pre-revenue consumer facing like Facebook / WhatsApp or R&D heavy businesses like Biotech. Neither of these may see revenue in the first few years but have evidence potential in user growth, engagement or scientific achievement.
> Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
> Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
If a founder is wanting to relocate from a non-startup friendly region then neither of these are may have been available. IMHO both competitions and second-rate incubators are "playing at business" and distractions from the truly necessary steps.
Do you have any specifics of what you think they didn't miss, given that you're the one who has supposedly talked to the sponsors of the legislation?
Legislation, like code, should be considered buggy until proven otherwise -- but with the complication that the people who write legislation aren't necessarily interested in fixing the bugs in it.
Since the amounts involved are pretty small (15% ownership of a company that has received at least $350K in funding) there seem to be no end of ways for to make it happen. Six Chinese (say) dudes each pay $100K to some guy who is a "qualified investor" in the US, who invests $350K in a Chinese restaurant and makes them each 1/6th owners. Bam, hello US residency for all involved.
Borrow against your Google shares and make it rain on the State Department!
This is a parole rather than a visa, so it still leaves the question on what's the follow up afterward.
I'm about the farthest thing there is from a SJW, but have you considered how people will interpret your use of the slang "`murican"?
To me, it sounds like a reference to a meme which paints persons from the southern part of the U.S. as parochial and unintelligent.
Have I misunderstood the reference?
In any case, that's not what I intended. My usage of "'murican" would have been closer to the joke about Canadians always apologizing than your reading.
Founders also wouldn't have to get a certified LCA or meet minimum wage requirements, which can be pretty costly for a startup and is less relevant in case of founders (who are not taking anyone else's jobs or lowering average wages). And generally founders would probably prefer (and have more to gain from) spending that money to grow the company.
I suspect there are downsides to paroles vs visa (like fewer rights or difficulty obtaining green card/other visa types later maybe?), but this seems like a surprisingly good proposal to fix an acute issue.
It seems to be a trend for the US to make the immigration experience more and more demeaning in practice.
In the old days when this country's government worked you'd see a new visa category created and USCIS able to keep processing times within reason.
Nobody should take this proposal as an example of the system working.
I certainly agree, but it's a great example of how hacking a broken system works :)
"And while there is no substitute for legislation, the Administration is taking the steps it can within existing legal authorities to fix as much of our broken immigration system as possible" https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-e...
Go Obama!
Relative to the effort of getting an O1 or chancing your fate to the H1-B lottery this is huge.
EDIT: from the medium link posted in another comment by yurisagalov:
> DHS will also publish guidance to clarify when entrepreneurs may self-petition for lawful permanent residence (also known as a “green card”).
EDIT2:
> That entrepreneur will have the confidence of knowing whether she is eligible for the temporary “parole status” pathway, allowing her to start growing her company here right away. Later, she will know under what circumstances she may qualify for the green card pathway, if she is successful in creating jobs for U.S. workers and attracting more capital from U.S. investors, allowing her to become an American over time. (Note that these pathways will likely also be open to "bootstrap" entrepreneurs who are successful in generating revenue from U.S. customers, without needing to rely on external financing.)
(From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wan... )
If your business fails and you invested 5 years of your life, you are kicked out of the country and have to move your family and everything back to wherever you came from. This big uncertainty of the future is, in my opinion, a huge negative of both H1B and this parole.
If they made it a separate quota for entrepreneurs then you could get most people a green card within that timeline.
Agreed. However, since you can't self-petition in most cases, it is unclear if you have a path or not.
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
For India/China natives on EB-2 or EB-3 categories, I agree.
For all the others, being able to self-petition for the green card as an entrepreneur means you won't need a company to sponsor you. (or your own start-up is sponsoring you?), and the full process could be done in less than 5 years. The downside here would be the legal costs and hassle associated with it that you would have to take care of.
Yes, welcome to 2016.
A significant portion of talent that used to earlier fall in H1B->(Eb2/Eb3) category has now grown up in life and also gone up the corporate ladder to only come back and (re)apply as multinational managers/executive in the EB1C category.
No matter what the USCIS tries to do now it cannot make up for the pile of shit (at the cost of anxiety and torture of millions of legal immigrants) accumulated in the past fifteen/twenty years. The beast is simply too big.
[1] money.cnn.com/2016/08/19/technology/eb1-visa-india-china/
Will he ask whistleblowers to step forward? Perhaps deport these "extraordinary individuals" and hand over their green cards to the actually deserving ones in the queue? Or is the number of affected people too small to matter?
Many people on message boards rarely seem to appreciate the actual pull of a person like Trump. Very few people actually want to support Trump, but the system badly needs a shake-up, even one that might well be too arbitrary and might negatively affect more people than it helps. The alternative feels like being the frog boiling in water.
While I am on the matter, I would also comment that the H1B visa lottery mess itself can be cleared quite quickly by someone who is not catering to lobbyists. Ask the ones who obtained their higher degree in the US if they genuinely think there are more people who are qualified to get the visa than the number of people who actually receive it - that is, does it make sense that there would be a lottery for the visa?
I know this opens an entirely new can of worms - why does getting a degree in the US give any more credibility? Here is a not very PC answer: being a student in the US actually gives you a chance to understand the culture and work ethic which makes the US what it is, which is almost 100% lacking in people who suddenly find themselves in the corporate environment of a completely different culture from their country, don't particularly care for assimilating, and often cause a lot of questions to be raised about whether the H1 visa is actually serving its designed purpose.
It does not! And probably never will. A lot of people who I know went on to get a phd because of lack of options or because of frustration and failure in corporate life. The latter is statistically a sizeable number; consider unless the kid in your class went off immediately after school.
Whereas a multinational manager is usually directly contributing into the US economy for years with sweat and hard work, including engineering and research -- if needed, for their business to survive and grow. I'd rather say they gather and implement more according to the culture and edge it off with cultural gaps between the host country and their own. Of course now we're entering a class war. :-)
With all due respect to the multinational manager who may be extremely good at what they do, everyone knows that there is still some pretty drastic exploitation of the process going on if they are actually coming in under the EB1 category. Here is an easy test: these individuals will very rarely openly discuss exactly why they qualified for an EB1 (if they even willingly talk about it) - and I am fairly certain the deserving ones in the category will feel no such compunctions. Here is another - you can usually find scores of people with exactly the same qualifications as these multinational managers if you actually bother to probe further.
Having said that, I do think the system is too far beyond reform at this point, and people would be much better off trying other countries to showcase their talents, including their own.
I'd love it to be the case. My market is almost entirely based in the USA. I'm in Canada, but have no legal method to do any work in the US. So it's all remote now.
I could hire employees, but it would involve doing a whole new business model purely for the sake of a US visa.
So would this "startup visa" help in anyway in that initial stage of founding a startup?
After 2 years, 3 years extension - Atleast 10% ownership and active role in startup - Atleast $500K additional funding OR $500K revenue with 20% growth OR 10 Full time Jobs
0
In this case, you can get an EAD for your spouse as soon as you get your parole.
How will they measure this? It's so subjective.
USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide who's "good". They mostly have to rely on submitted documents, and there's no document you can submit to provide high confidence you're not a criminal.
If you charge $100 an interview, you can interview as many people as you want. It would be a better job program than the TSA.
There doesn't appear to be any specific language in the actual document outlining the rules changes, but it does say DHS would retain the right to terminate the parole at any time without prior notice and in DHS' discretion (pg. 84 in the PDF).
Looks like a little bit of gray area, unless there is some language in there about the parolees responsibilities to maintain the conditions under which the parole was granted and consequences if the parolee does not. I couldn't see anything like that during a quick read through the document.
1. $345K from private investors.
2. $100k from govt or Federal entities.
3. partially satisfying the above criteria(up for a toss with uscis).
Some nascent YC potential companies might still loose out but nevertheless theres some glimmer of hope. Hope the rule gets published.
"You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006, by any one of the following methods:"
Web: http://www.regulations.gov Email: uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov Mail: Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20529
Try setting up shop in Shenzhen, China. Just spent a week over there. It is truly a Hacker's Paradise.
You can validate your ideas and get an MVP out in much faster time than the USA. You can be close to your eventual supply chain when you do make it big. It may sound a bit like premature optimization but the advantages are huge.
Of course, it will not hurt to learn a bit of Chinese (Mandarin) if you do decide to take that route. At least start with a few useful phrases to help break the ice. 'Ni Hao' (Hello); 'Xie Xie' (Thank You) and 'Duo Shuo Qian' (How much does it cost?). Learning the number system will also help know what the price is.
I spent a lot of time in the Huaqiang Bei and LoWu malls.
A special shoutout to Andrew "Bunnie" Huang for his 'The Essential Guide to Electronics in Shenzhen'[1]. It was invaluable.
Another shoutout to my Mandarin teacher Larry Xue and the San Jose Learning Center.[2] Attending his classes made me so much more confident that I could manage there even with the language barrier.
1. https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-gui...
2. http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php
In some documentary of some Chinese factory on Youtube, they showed an employee bicycling to a supplier to get more parts.
Coming and setting up in the US is no easy matter for people of Indian or Chinese origins.
1. https://hax.co
I am currently only at the investigative stage. I will let you know as soon as I know more about bureaucratic obstacles.
1. https://www.amazon.com/Shenzhen-Insiders-Guide-Never-Ever/dp...
Only be in China if you REALLY need to be there, otherwise it's a whole lot of pain without corresponding upside.
Sean, my Mandarin/Chinese is at below beginner's level. My google translate of your phrase is 'no way'. Was that what you were saying?
1. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-pract...
FCPA applies not just to Americans, but anyone who does business in the USA, so even non Americans can be caught up in it, and many developed countries have their own versions of it.
I don't think bribes fly around so easily these days. At least nothing overt, though the Chinese partner they thrust on you is often just a backdoor bribe that looks legit on paper.
Looks like the proposed parole is quite similar to L1 except instead of foreign company there's foreign private person direct relationship.
The Internet has ruined me.
"The E-2 nonimmigrant classification allows a national of a treaty country (a country with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce and navigation) to be admitted to the United States when investing a substantial amount of capital in a U.S. business" https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...
In any case more options is better for people seeking to start a business in the US (even people who are not paroled will benefit from not having to compete with paroled entrepreneurs over the same limited number of visas).
The fact of the matter is most foreigners complaining about not being able to start businesses in the US don't have profitable or well funded businesses. The ones that do have profitable and well funded business can easily set up shop on US soil and don't need to immigrate here and can use L1 visas when they do need to come state side.
To me the most interesting aspect to this visa is it takes away the talking point from the H-1B proponents that immigrant workers are job creators because immigrants start companies that employ citizens.
"Under this proposed rule, DHS may parole, on a case-by-case basis, eligible entrepreneurs of startup enterprises"
I think this is different from visas where the applicants/petitioners have at least some legal rights: The USCIS are probably aware that some people are gaming the current visa system, but they may be "forced" to approve visa petitions if all the criteria are met - even in cases where they're obviously not in "the spirit of the law".
The USCIS can likely just refuse to give parole under the new rule if they think someone is abusing the system - and blacklist any startup investors they believe is aiding in such behavior.
You prediction may be right, but I think there's reason to be optimistic. The rule can also be changed more easily than laws if abuse is detected while providing valuable data that can guide future startup visa legislation.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article... (PDF, 649 KB, 155 pages)
The sections most relevant to those who wish to apply under this rule would be:
IV. Proposed Changes
A. Overview of Parole for Entrepreneurs (pages 30 - 32)
B. Criteria for Initial Parole (pages 32 - 52)
1. Recent Formation of a Start-Up Entity 2. Applicant is an Entrepreneur Who is Well-Positioned to Advance the Entity’s Business 3. Capital Investment or Government Funding Criteria
C. Application Requirements for Initial Period of Parole (pages 53 - 61)
1. Filing the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) 2. Requirement to Appear for Submission of Biometric Information 3. Income-Related Condition on Parole 4. Adjudication of Applications 5. Limitation on Number of Entrepreneur Parolees Per Start-Up Entity 6. Authorized Period for Initial Grant of Entrepreneur Parole
D. Employment Authorization (pages 61 - 66)
1. Employment Authorization Incident to Parole with a Specific Employer 2. Employment Authorization Eligibility for Spouses 3. Documentation for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9)
F. Re-Parole (pages 67 - 84)
1. Criteria for Re-Parole 2. Application Requirements for Re-Parole 3. Ensuring Continuous Employment Authorization 4. Technical Changes
G. Termination of Parole (pages 84 - 87)
1. Automatic Termination 2. Termination on Notice
H. Automatic Adjustment of Investment and Revenue Amount Requirements (pages 87 - 88)
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
3. Population of Entrepreneurs Potentially Eligible (pages 103 - 116)
>Receiving significant investment of capital (at least $345,000) from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments
Not sure what does the qualified US investors mean though. Would seed funding/angel funding from individuals not be considered for this? I guess this has been added to avoid abuse by wealthy foreigners, but how do they determine the qualified individuals or companies?
Accredited Investor:
- net worth, or joint net worth with the person's spouse, that exceeds $1 million or
- income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year