Hacker News Reader

Comment by einhverfr | Hacker News Reader

Um.....

A b-1 visa allows consulting with business associates. Isn't this pretty much something that allows corporate officers to do pretty much all duties of corporate officers? I mean what can't they do in this case?

View on HN

The point is that the visa is required to perform the work. There's no exception for "corporate officers", it's still work, and you must have a visa for it. I use the existence of the B-1 to demonstrate this.

How do you distinguish between salaried top level management work and suspending that work (still remaining on salary though) while "consulting with business associates." Inquiring minds want to know.

I didn't say you needed to. I used the B-1 to point out that a visa is required even for things that could be considered "top level management work". No visa, the work is illegal. If you have a B-1 visa, obviously some "top level management work" is thus authorized. What part of this is so difficult to understand?

But the B-1 allows you to consult with business associates according to the link you provided. For a salaried worker whose work can be easily considered to be nothing more than "consulting with business associates" (i.e. a CEO, CTO, and the like), it seems you can:

* Show up

* Attend meetings

* Tell people what they should do

* Conduct business

That's what a B-1 is for. Now, my question is why that suddenly applies differently for a director who may be offering such services without direct compensation other than travel expenses than it would, say, the CTO?

And if the government were to admit the director doesn't need anything more than a B1 to attend the directors' meetings, they had better be able to say what makes that different from the CEO other than pay.

Now, none of these address residency which is where I think you'd have to draw the line since there is no relocation involved. Now, I suppose you might say "should != must" but that ends up being really weird.

Here's my hypo. Suppose a US company ends up having a CEO in Canada. The Canadian CEO travels to the US once every year for the director's meeting and a meeting with top-level employees. My contention is that a B-1 (or VWP entry) would be sufficient.

Yes the B-1 would be sufficient for a director, board member, significant stockholder, etc to do such work legally. The thing is, B-1 visas expire, you can only be in the country for 3 months at a time, maximum 6 months a year.

The lady in the article is not covered by the B-1 immigration status since whatever visa or authorization (if any) she had has long since expired. By law she supposed to remove herself immediately from the country, get deported, etc.

Bring to mind: A frind of mine plans and builds equipment for expos. When he went over to the US he brought all finished work and plans but was required to hire someone to assemble it :/

Many conference venues have workplace rules which prohibit vendors from setting up their own booths. Eg, quoting http://www.pacvet.net/doc.asp?id=264, selected arbitrarily:

> All work performed in the exhibit area is under union jurisdiction and under safety jurisdiction. Show management and all exhibitors are expected to comply with the unions and with fire and safety requirements in effect.

> All work involved in the construction, touch-up painting, dismantling, and repair of all exhibits may fall under union jurisdiction. This work is to include wall coverings, floor coverings, pipe and drape, painting, hanging of signs and/or decorative materials from the ceiling, placement of all signs, and the erection of platforms used for exhibit purposes.

> Full-time employees of exhibiting companies may setup their own exhibits provided that one person can accomplish the task in less than one-half (1/2) hour without the use of tools.

So, was that restriction you mention based on US immigration restrictions, or on local venue restrictions?

I checked back: In this case it was local venue restrictions.

Thanks for checking!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com