Updated US immigration rules: H1-B can work for own company
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
A few questions - does it let me build apps and publish them to the Appstore to make money? (Since that doesn't count as working fulltime for the company I assume).
How do they prevent Masters students who are on an OPT from creating their own companies and sponsoring a H1B for themselves? No regulations on the amount of investment required?
If both of the above are possible .. well, mind=blown.
"... business owners on H1-B visas could work for their own companies, provided that they work full time for the company and are treated like an employee. For example, the company could have a board that is able to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the worker like they would any other staff member."
I don't know how many startups have a board that can fire the founders...
Sad that Washington is so useless that even something as straightforward as "let really smart, educated, financed people in the country to start businesses that hire other people" is controversial.
Say, YC or other incubator can form a board that will formally control the founders but in reality it's in the incubator's best interest to let the founders do their thing
---------------
You probably don't want to do that since it would invite quite a bit of scrutiny ...
"How do they prevent Masters students who are on an OPT from creating their own companies and sponsoring a H1B for themselves?"
With this new regulation is it possible if I start my own company with other US Citizen if I am on OPT?
"boblesch wrote: the immagration fix is so simple
institute a $1 million fine for every occurrence of employing an illegal. no excuses, no exemptions, no exceptions, no pardons.
the illegal immigration problem will DISAPPEAR the day the first fine is assessed."
This has nothing to do with the issues in the articles and detracts from meaningful change. The primary and pressing immigration issues in the USA have nothing to do with 'illegals' but any attempt to talk about it is quickly derailed into a pro- or anti-illegal debate.
I get so angry sometimes . . .
This AWESOME news. I got my GC a year ago and I quit 3 montsh ago to start something so it doesnt matter now but I would've killed for this 5 years ago.
(Through an odd quirk of a US immigration directive, it also allows you to take your non-US same sex partner to the States, but they aren't allowed to work in any capacity. It must be about the only place where US immigration recognizes same-sex relationships.)
ie, Go to the US to work for your business, and take your partner along who'd be able to work wherever they'd please.
The point I was trying to make is that the E3 is possibly a better option than a H1B for any Australians interested in working in the US.
I was initially very happy about the announcement, but I think the employee-employer restriction is a trojan horse that really hacks the legs off from under the initiative.
here's the paragraph in question
> Yes. In footnotes 9 and 10 of the memorandum, USCIS indicates that while a corporation may be a separate legal entity from its stockholders or sole owner, it may be difficult for that corporation to establish the requisite employer-employee relationship for purposes of an H-1B petition. However, if the facts show that there is a right to control by the petitioner over the employment of the beneficiary, then a valid employer-employee relationship may be established. For example, if the petitioner provides evidence that there is a separate Board of Directors which has the ability to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the beneficiary, the petitioner may be able to establish an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary.
I see why they did it (CYA) but I think its kind of silly and counterproductive. I mean, you're trying to enable entrepreneurship but you want someone in the mix who is able to control them ... sigh
What I see from where I sit in the industry is that H-1B pay is not centered about a mean, it's really a very extreme bi-modal distribution. You have your Infosyses, bringing in ultra-cheap IT labor at a pittance, and you have your Googles and Facebooks, bringing in very highly paid engineers that are earning the prevailing wage (very, very high prevailing wage) for their field.
In other words, "H-1Bs" are not a singular group and cannot be analyzed as such. A large part of the H-1B program does address a very critical labor shortage in this industry, the other part... not as much.
I'd invite Dr. Matloff to actually hang around our industry for some time before laying a claim like: "There is no tech labor shortage." Has he been in the hiring chair recently? Because oh dear God.
It seems also interesting that the only source he actually bothers to cite is the confession of a single former H-1B employer, with the nasty implication that everyone is like Mr. Wadhwa.
I'll just say it: this is xenophobic, anti-immigrant, protectionist bullshit.
This is my 8th year here in USA and I have a green card being processed. I have decided to give it all up, move to India to start working on my idea for a year and come back here next year as a dependent (my spouse would continue to remain here). If this rule allows me to create my own startup without the wage rule, I should be able to remain here on my own H1 and possibly continue my green card as well (or does anyone know how it works in this case?).
However, having spent 6 months fighting USCIS, I'm a little sceptical about it translating well into practice.
Meetings are ok, AFAIK, as long as they are not for productive work, with some further caveats. Not that I want to dissuade you from pitching, but be careful there's nothing there to give the wrong impressions if/when you do decide to apply for a H1B.0
Not a lawyer, but I did get extensive coaching from an expensive immigration lawyer a few years back on what I could do (and how to describe it to US immigrations) while in the US, as I was traveling over every 2 months for meetings while we applied for a H1B, because immigrations understandably started asking more pointed questions when they saw my passport was full of stamps from the same US airport (never had a problem and they were always courteous, just probing more about my reasons for coming).
The bigger news really is the EB2 for entrepreneurs, but it remains to be seen how many companies qualify to be in the nation's best interest ...
Why prevent masters students from creating their own company if that creates more jobs and will probably help the economy.
EDIT - the "full time" sounds like a major hurdle for those who want to bootstrap. Am I correct?
www.h1b1.com/concurrent.htm www.h1bplanet.com/h1b-part-time-concurrent.php etc.
- Assuming no source funding yet. - I already read all the suggestions posted here but alot of questions still go unanswered.
Us H1B-ers are still tied down. I'd have to transfer my visa to my new, fledgling company. If it fails, I have to leave the country.
Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction. But the mythical Startup Visa it is not.
Not that there's anything to worry about usually, it's just the kind of uncertainty that really isn't helpful when you're setting up a company.
"You have authorisation to work for your new employer"
But the actual transfer is not complete. You are not guaranteed to be able to continue your work. The chances of problems are small, but it does happen.
b) Noone has to know.
c) Although different apporaches exist,my opinion is that you should have probably already made something that a lot of people use even before you talk to the VCs.By doing this you were working for your company without an H1B.But this issue can be solved if you refer to point - B above.
Except the investors, who would realise immediately. It's all very well to say that USCIS "shouldn't" and "probably won't" do things, but:
1) That doesn't reassure me much. I don't want to be deported.
2) That shouldn't reassure an investor much, either. If they realise you are going against immigration law they might run from your company at sprinting pace once they realise the founder could be deported.
I want these kind of changes because I want to be legitimate.
-But at least now the dream is POSSIBLE as opposed to IMPOSSIBLE.
-You have to make up for these shortcomings by making something that much more awesome.
-And lastly if a VC is not willing to take this simple risk,maybe he should drop the letter V from his designation.
a) willing to invest in someone who is waiting for a visa
b) willing to use their contact network to get their investment secured with a visa for the founders. I've seen this happen multiple times - good lawyers pulled into the deal to expedite visa issues.
It is in the investor's best interest.
-------------------------
that is incorrect. If it fails, your original h1b remains intact
Once its transferred, its transferred. There is no "return policy" equivalent because its tied to an employer and your past employer wont necessarily keep the position open just in case you need to come back.
another company applies to transfer it to them
you continue working at the first company
when the transfer goes through, you give notice at the first company and go to work for the new one
if it fails, you continue working for the first one like nothing happened.
Its a risk one must take but you don't just wake up one morning and 'fail' ... you see it coming, and you should be able to line up interviews and at least make an attempt at getting a gig before that happens .... thats what I'd do, but that's just me.
So they're saying if you have a H1-B visa, you can work for your own company full-time.
But.. umm.. if you have a H1-B visa, that means you probably got it from your current employer whether it's Google or Goldman Sachs. That uh.. means you're already working for them full-time, and if you quit, then your visa is gone! And now the rule doesn't apply to you anymore.
Am I missing something here?
This is exactly the kind of thing that could make investors very wary.
But also, now you are able to create a company that is profitable from day one, and might not need any external funding for a long time. At least the opportunity is there to create something.
Not all companies need investing. :)