Comment by yurisagalov | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yurisagalov | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of whether you're a YC founder or not, in general unless you're Canadian/Mexican and can qualify for a TN, or Australian and can qualify for an E-3, your only viable real option is an O-1 (Alien of Extraordinary ability). It's not an unachievable visa, and there are many founders who use it, but the requirements to demonstrate extraordinary ability are onerous.

From USCIS:

* Receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor

* Membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought which require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field

* Published material in professional or major trade publications, newspapers or other major media about the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work in the field for which classification is sought

* Original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field

* Authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals or other major media in the field for which classification is sought

* A high salary or other remuneration for services as evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence

* Participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in a field of specialization allied to that field for which classification is sought

* Employment in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation

Additional info on the O-1A can be found here: http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers...

I'm specifically ignoring H-1B as an option because it's only a viable option between April 1st and 5th of a given year, and the odds are very much stacked against you at this point (from a pure statistics perspective).

There are a few other visas that may be an option, such as the investor visa (E-2), and intra-company transfer visa (L-1), but these are highly situation specific visas.

Also, this is not legal advice, I'm not an immigration lawyer, and you really should talk to an immigration lawyer :)

Calls for O-1aaS startup.

Setup an organization that will:

* Generate awards and prizes in computer science and its sub-fields.

* It will have a journal that will be populated by a deep learning nn. Seeded by a few areas of interest a user will put in, it will then auto-generate articles.

* Setup a contracting service where you invest in it initially, then it pays it back to you as salary for whatever minimum amount of periods O-1 requires. (Bonus, use also for money laundering).

* Have a number of "critical" position and can only be filled by <firstname.lastname> person.

This is of course a joke. But that how some PR organizations works. There is of course the classic book "Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" how the word sludge turned to biosolids. One of the techniques was to create a fake scientific journal and start publishing fake papers to it. Then convinced the dictionary publishers that biosolids is now a word and it is used by "scientists".

I'd work with you.

There's a number of EB-5aaS services out there, mostly targeted at rich Chinese/Russians/Saudis - invest $500k into a property development that is tenuously linked to a depressed area (eg. a condo on Park Ave that is dubiously associated with a low income project in Harlem) and the developer will help you with your visa.

Be very careful before patronizing such a service: http://www.law360.com/articles/710485/eb-5-investors-plead-t...

Incidentally I heard the court just ruled for the investors on that one but the only link I have so far is Lexis-Nexis paywalled.

I'd advise tempering your sense of humor on this topic, since attempts to do more-or-less what you're talking about above tend to culminate in long prison sentences for both operators and customers of such a service, unless it's based in a jurisdiction that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. since 'securing the border' is one of those fundamentally unattainable political goals prosecutors tend to throw the book at anyone they find engaged in this kind of activity because it plays well at oversight hearings. If you want to make money by disrupting the immigration system, set up a fake law firm to scam immigrants with paperwork problems - you can run that one for ages because your erstwhile customers are afraid of the police and you won't get too heavy of a sentence if you do get caught since the lives you ruined don't belong to registered voters.

Read a lot of immigration law news and you too can develop a jaundiced attitude! Seriously, it seems like things may be improving somewhat under Loretta Lynch's administration of the DoJ but it's a bit early to tell. http://trac.syr.edu is probably the best resource that doesn't require some sort of professional or academic subscription.

> since 'securing the border' is one of those fundamentally unattainable political goals prosecutors tend to throw the book at anyone they find engaged in this kind of activity because it plays well at oversight hearings.

It's not a political ploy. If you try to make an end-run around the law, they're going to go after you to defend the rule of law. The law isn't a computer program that you can find a bug in and circumvent (well, most of the time). The law is purposefully broad and fuzzy, and is interpreted by human judges who will see through your little scheme.

It's not the prosecutor's or the judge's role to pass political judgement on the law. Their job is to uphold the laws that the people's representatives have passed.

> If you try to make an end-run around the law, they're going to go after you ... It's not the prosecutor's or the judge's role to pass political judgement on the law.

They don't have the resources to prosecute more than a minority of violations, and their choices many times are based on politics.

I agree, politics does definitely have a hand, especially at the state level where prosecutors are often elected officials. Judges too. I think that's an abomination to justice, but it's the unfortunate reality.

Even at the federal level, we see the Justice department "deprioritizing" enforcement of drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. I agree with the outcome in that particular case, but it's definitely pushing the limits of the intended separation of powers.

>The law isn't a computer program that you can find a bug in and circumvent (well, most of the time).

The biggest exceptions are finance and tax law right? Seems bizarre that they are though.

Yeah. It makes sense to some extent because those laws are regulating highly technical fields where legal certainty about details is important. We all benefit when public companies have that certainty.

But so much of the complexity is from politicians abusing the tax code to support their pet social projects, to benefit some company in their constituency, to protect some industry from competition, etc. Then they have to make it even more complex and technical to undo the unintended negative effects of their original abuses. Everyone involved should really be ashamed.

Have an acquaintance working in USCIS, so heard all kinds of stories. Their own perspective is interesting as well. They are very pro-US, defending the borders and the law. Yet they at the same time they are very jaded about working in what seems like a beaurocracy full of incompetency and mismanagement.

Sounds like a plan. Hack the system. I wish it was reality.

I hear that O-1 review has become less favourable to founders over the last 1-2 years.

TN is risky because you may be asked to prove that you are not employing yourself and that you can can be fired at any time by your boss. On top of that, you must be paid market wage or higher and not a "founder's salary".

Another visa to consider is the E-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa) if you have the financial resources or after you have raised some funding.

This is not legal advice, consult an attorney.

>I hear that O-1 review has become less favourable to founders over the last 1-2 years.

Is this because it wasn't intended for that purpose and the system is cracking down on founder's using it as such?

I've looked into the O-1 based on the fact that I'm (legitimately) a top expert on a very niche field. If I ever move to the states I think it's my only possibility since I work for myself.

From what immigration lawyers have described to me, USCIS is cracking down and making the requirements for an O-1 (And EB-1, by proxy) more strict.

What they want is "objectively verifiable" evidence in the form of press, recognition, awards, earnings, etc. What they value much less now than they used to is famous people telling them how awesome you are (e.g. getting your famous investor to write you a letter is less valuable now). Their stance on this is that if you're as awesome as you say you are, there should be objective third party validation available.

So in your case, since you are a very top expert in a very niche field, you should be able to produce objective verification from experts in the field, peer reviewed publications (or well regarded publications in the field), and so on.

The good news is that the visa actually is designed for people like you :)

Once again though: Talk to an immigration lawyer, this is not immigration advice, just things as I know them :)

Yeah, I'd get a lawyer if I ever had to do it. In my case the field is very narrow, so there's basically no press. But I'd be able to get letters from all the major players saying I was major. A couple of them have scattered press mentions.

Strong ++ for talking with an immigration lawyer - the system is best navigated by those who know it well. My O1 application (early 2015) was 270+ pages and I also submitted references from multiple people/recognized experts as verification. The preparation took months and the processing took days.

Seriously? I'm one of those people who is here on an O-1 visa, which was obtained mostly through a series of recommendation letters from "famous" VCs and tech CEOs and a few press mentions. Looking into applying for the EB-1 at the moment. Would love to hear more about these changes, because I think I may be directly affected.

Yeah, they have become more strict over the last 2 years. Mentorships is another thing they value less

Not knowing what YC actually does, my first 2 thoughts were: O-1 and J-1 Visas (certainly there could be other solutions)

O-1: Typically I would think of athletes/entertainers, in the US for competition/show/tour/etc... It may not apply to some young founder getting into YC who has no other track record of success; however, YC/Tech are politically connected so the mere fact one is accepted into YC, it might = extraordinary ability (in the eyes of the Gov. anyway)

J-1= I personally have never gone down this path in my legal career, so I am not 100% sure, but it is possible YC is part of an exchange program...if not, they should set up their own business education exchange and consider this especially for their fellowship program...boom legal hack (and except the fact I just gave it away, I could have applied to YC with the idea of hacking the legal system to get more visas for foreign founders joining US incubators...YC application hack)

I think J-1 would be the most legally correct (IANAL and all but I have some J-1 experience). YC should be able to bring founders on board. Since J-1 is for education and the program is basically an education.

J-1 is also quite openly (ab)used to bring employees over who do not qualify for a H1B or O-1.

Only important thing to remember is to pay the J-1 "student" otherwise they are (depending on origin country, but most I think) subject to a rule preventing said person from returning to the US within two years.

I think J-1's are 18 months max. Plenty of time to get a business up and running. By that time if the founder is successful (e.g. take on more investment) they could probably employ themselves with a H1B or E-2 ("investor") visa.

But I'm sure the J-1 has a bunch of issues concerning founding legal entities - this part I have no experience or knowledge of.

No, as a founder you can forget to get a H1B visa, even 2 years in. Unless you have a legit board of directors and you can demonstrate you could potentially be fired, they will argue that you started the company to employ yourself and get yourself a visa that way.

Two year mandatory return for many origin countries can make J-1 messy.

Also, J-1 being run by State rather than DHS/USCIS introduces some extra weird things.

There are companies who are identified as providing J-1 visas and they charge $5k - $6k for the service

http://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-se...

We applied through Intrax (http://www.intraxinc.com/global-internships) and the cost for the 18 months was a little over $2k. Considering it also includes medical insurance, I'd say it's a pretty good deal.

The main requirement is the US company needs to have at least 25 full time employees -- not sure if YC qualifies.

O-1: Typically I would think of athletes/entertainers, in the US for competition/show/tour/etc

No, athletes and entertainers are covered by the P-* visas:

P-1A Internationally recognized athletes.

P-1B Internationally recognized entertainers or members of internationally recognized entertainment groups.

P-2 Individual performer or part of a group entering to perform under a reciprocal exchange program.

P-3 Artists or entertainers, either an individual or group, to perform, teach, or coach under a program that is culturally unique.

I (Australian) had never heard of the E3 visa until just now - Interesting that it defines "Speciality work" as anything that requires a degree in the job description.

I don't have one, but have been working professionally in this field for 4 years (I'm 22), and thus would not be eligible. To qualify for experience in lieu of a degree you require 3 years of work for each one year of university, so when I've been working for 12 years I could do that.

Interesting regulation, in Australia we have a "skilled occupations list" [0] which is a list of skilled work which specifically is in demand in Australia

[0] http://www.visabureau.com/australia/skilled-occupation-list....

The E3 has basically the same requirements as the H1B (regular work visa), the main difference is that there is no cap (whereas H1Bs are capped and it's basically a lottery whether you get one or not).

IIRC there is some way to avoid the degree requirement if you have a skilled job and an equivalent # of years work experience.

Technically E3 has a cap, but since only Australians can apply for it (as opposed to the whole world applying for H1-Bs) the cap has never been reached.

Yeah, the quota is 10k of which about 3-4k a year is used. Extensions don't count against the quota and are renewable indefinitely.

Drawback is: non-permanent visa (so banks won't lend to you) & you can't have intent to stay (can't apply for greencard).

I got a mortgage on H1-B so I don't think non-permanency is necessarily a problem. I also know several people who have gone from E3 to green card: http://www.limaechoecho.com/2012/11/e-3-visa-to-green-card.h...

E-3 to green card is OK if you put in your application from outside the US.

H-1B is dual-intent (i.e. not non-permanent) & better known to banks (3k vs. 120k granted per year).

Not true. I got a GC while being on an E-3 in the US.

Better hope DHS doesn't find out

I really doubt it matters. F1 student visa isn't dual intent either, but a lot of foreign students end up marrying US citizens and adjusting to green cards in the US.

I obtained an E3 without a degree via the relevant experience path.

Somewhere filed away I have a letter from an organization accredited by the US government proclaiming that I have degree-level experience. I value it almost as much as the certificate I obtained in/for Canada confirming I have conversational level English skills.

Can you share the name of the organization where you got the accreditation please?

I can't remember (and the doc is filed away in the basement somewhere)... It was all handled by the immigration lawyers of my employer.

> I don't have one, but have been working professionally in this field for 4 years (I'm 22), and thus would not be eligible.

My understanding is that the quoted figures are indicative only and not backed by black-letter regulation. Of course, consult a lawyer. Or have a potential employer pay for you to consult a lawyer.

If you're Australian, and assuming you have a relevant bachelor's degree, the E3 visa is trivial to get, and to maintain.

It has basically zero cost or effort for the employer: just need to get a Bureau of Labor statement that the offered salary is above market rates for role and location.

It sucks a little for the holder: you've got 10 days to leave the country if your employment ends, and you need to demonstrate every two years that you don't want to remain in the US permanently (yup, that's proving a negative). The renewals seem like they're pretty automatic, but the criteria aren't public and if the decision goes against you, you've again got 10 days to get out.

You don't need a lawyer to get an E3, but once you've got enough cash flow, it might be worth it for renewals and the potential for an appeal if your renewal (technically a new visa issue) is rejected.

I would not recommend the E-3 for a founder. Technically it's allowed to set up a company & then extend an offer to yourself to fulfill the requirements of the visa, but it will count against you at renewal time (or if you want to apply for a greencard at a later date).

E-2 is more general and useful than people realize - I say after exploring it and getting it.

TN? Doesn't that require a job offer and a degree for it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com