11 ms·

USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

400 points by jrbedard 10y ago

yurisagalov 10y ago
A less "PR"-ey take (but still PR-ey non the less) on the White House Medium blog: https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-entrepreneurs-d27571475dfd https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-e... 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.
- mkolodny 10y ago
  Really important blurb from that article: "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/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article...
  - Sophie_Alcorn 10y ago
    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? Thanks Sophie Alcorn My blogs about this program: http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-rule-foreign-founders/ http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-r...
    - duncanawoods 10y ago
      > 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.
      - bernardlunn 10y ago
        Just nodding and agreeing with all your points.
kirubakaran 10y ago
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.
toodlebunions 10y ago
Seems like the necessary investment amounts are pretty low.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
Unfortunately wealthy foreigners are just going to abuse the hell out of this to drive up real estate prices.
- tlb 10y ago
  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?
  - fmp 10y ago
    > 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.
- mitoyarzun 10y ago
  Wealthy foreigners have other/better means to get residence.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    Second passport woop woop Borrow against your Google shares and make it rain on the State Department!
- notadoc 10y ago
  I think you're referring to the EB-5 program, but I am sure this one will be used in a similar manner as well.
NhanH 10y ago
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.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  > 10 'murican jobs 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?
  - duckypaw 10y ago
    Yes, you have. He was referring to people of the entire U.S., not just the southern part.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    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.
runesoerensen 10y ago
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.
- slededit 10y ago
  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.
  - keerthiko 10y ago
    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.
    - slededit 10y ago
      Sure, it's better than nothing. That doesn't change the fact this is one more twist in an already Kafka-esque system. 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.
vmarsy 10y ago
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.) (From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wanted-president-s-actions-immigration https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wan... )
- chrisper 10y ago
  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.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    If you have a path to a green card then 5 years is a pretty solid amount of time for most places (not india/china). If they made it a separate quota for entrepreneurs then you could get most people a green card within that timeline.
    - outworlder 10y ago
      > If you have a path to a green card then 5 years is a pretty solid amount of time for most places (not india/china). Agreed. However, since you can't self-petition in most cases, it is unclear if you have a path or not.
gordon_freeman 10y ago
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?
nullcipher 10y ago
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.
drl42 10y ago
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 0
- pashabitz 10y ago
  I see 15%
- r00fus 10y ago
  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.
  - OmarIsmail 10y ago
    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!!
  - anaclet0 10y ago
    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)
yranadive 10y ago
" 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." How will they measure this? It's so subjective.
xyzzy4 10y ago
How about a rule to welcome anyone who isn't a criminal?
- tlb 10y ago
  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.
  - aianus 10y ago
    > USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide who's "good". 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.
gorbachev 10y ago
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.
bozoUser 10y ago
Great news for all the non-US budding entrepreneurs. Founders have to satisfy either of 3 criteria stated - 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.
- _delirium 10y ago
  #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.
vesh 10y ago
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.
- skynetv2 10y ago
  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.
  - vesh 10y ago
    What about using growth, revenue and profitability as a factor? Wouldn't that provide a similar data point to make the decision.
    - tlb 10y ago
      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.
- vesh 10y ago
  Ok I found the link to submit comments if anyone is interested. From the publication PDF: "You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006, by any one of the following methods:" Web: http://www.regulations.gov http://www.regulations.gov Email: uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov Mail: Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20529
gjkood 10y ago
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. 1. https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-guide-to-electronics-in-shenzhen https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-gui... 2. http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php
- witty_username 10y ago
  Related: In some documentary of some Chinese factory on Youtube, they showed an employee bicycling to a supplier to get more parts.
  - tostitos1979 10y ago
    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 ...
- toephu2 10y ago
  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.
AhtiK 10y ago
If entrepreneur can keep at least 50% of the company then already today L-1 could be a viable option. Looks like the proposed parole is quite similar to L1 except instead of foreign company there's foreign private person direct relationship.
patcheudor 10y ago
When I looked at that title I thought: "new rule in ____ . Leaves drivers furious!" and wondered how HN was infiltrated with click-bait advertising. The Internet has ruined me.
benmarten 10y ago
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 ;)
- runesoerensen 10y ago
  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-workers/e-2-treaty-investors 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).
ones_and_zeros 10y ago
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.
- runesoerensen 10y ago
  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.
e15ctr0n 10y ago
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: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf 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)
- Sophie_Alcorn 10y ago
  I extracted the text of the proposed rule from the 155 page pdf and posted it here: http://bit.ly/2bXrguq http://bit.ly/2bXrguq
sethbannon 10y ago
"Give me your tired, your overworked, your entrepreneurs yearning to innovate."
vthallam 10y ago
A great start for sure. >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?
- a13n 10y ago
  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
  - vthallam 10y ago
    Guess this should be the case.
- _delirium 10y ago
  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.
randall 10y ago
Wow!!! So great. I have two international cofounders. So stoked.
titomc 10y ago
What will happen after the 5 years stay ? Should the entrepreneur pack up and leave ? Why should an entrepreneur startup something when he/she is not sure about their residency in US. This rule says 'parole' & self petition, the residency path is not clear. And when it comes to residency, US immigration for skilled immigrants is so broken that you will regret applying for one.
- OmarIsmail 10y ago
  5 years is more than enough time in startup land to either be a failure or at least modest success - startups are designed to grow quickly after all. If you're on the success path then getting an O1 should be very straight forward, and then a EB1 greencard should also be easy. If you're a failure, well - this isn't supposed to be a path to citizenship for people with failed businesses.
tostitos1979 10y ago
I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a list of top international schools. How about something like that for people with Masters/PhDs (in STEM) from top-50 schools in the world. That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily. The limited term and renewals do raise some flags. But I guess if you are successful with your startup in the given time period, you can apply for a green card through other categories like Extraordinary Ability, etc.
- dineshp2 10y ago
  > I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a list of top international schools. Care to explain the reasoning? It seems shortsighted to limit this proposal to people with advanced degrees, and why only from the top 50 schools in the world? How does this make sense in the context of startups? > That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily. The article mentions that this is not a visa, but parole. And with the requirement of $345K in funding, getting into YC/Techstars would not be sufficient. Startups would need to raise additional money, unless they receive $100k from the Government.
  - tostitos1979 10y ago
    I make a value judgement that the economy needs startups that work on deep, meaningful technologies. While they are certainly instances where people without advanced education are able to innovate in deep technology disciplines, there are many cases where education is the key barrier to entry. If someone spent a decade getting specialized education in an area like FPGA, MEMS design, etc. I do think they should have an easier path into the country than someone with no specialized education. Canada is trying the "we'll give you a visa if your startup is funded by recognized investors". I think that stops people who have bootstrapped ventures or funding from their own savings/family savings. I'm also not saying advanced education is THE requirement. I'm saying, it should be one of the possible options. That's just my opinion :) With convertible notes that are sometimes given to member companies of distinguished seed funds, I think getting to 345K isn't a stretch.
xenosapien 10y ago
My startup will focus on building walls. I believe this is a burgeoning market.
runesoerensen 10y ago
Relevant essay: http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html In 3-5 years we'll probably hear founders tell stories about how this new rule allowed them to establish very successful companies in the US. That should help prove the value of a proper founder visa and (assuming the immigration system is still broken at that time) pass legislation to fix it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Animats 10y ago
There's already a visa deal for foreign investors, the EB-5 visa. You have to invest at least $1M ($0.5M if you're willing to invest in a bad area of the US) and create 10 jobs. That's why downtown Palo Alto has all those rug stores.
- nojvek 10y ago
  Anyone here who came down the EB-5 visa that can tell us their experience?
  - chrisper 10y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/realestate/want-a-green-card-invest-in-real-estate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/realestate/want-a-green-ca...
- gorkemyurt 10y ago
  http://thesfshipyard.com http://thesfshipyard.com and http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com are both eb-5 eligible projects, I wouldn't call them bad areas..
- arcticbull 10y ago
  There's also E-2 visas you can get (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa) to run your own business with a much smaller investment (15-100K) assuming you're a citizen of a treaty country.
  - stringlytyped 10y ago
    The problem with the E-2 visa is that you never become eligible to apply for a green card.
beagle3 10y ago
Anyone here aware of tax implications of the parole status? Usually, "us taxpayer" status is only triggered with a proper visa (H1B, L1, O1, etc.) or permanent resident status (green card). I've never met any mention of tax status on parole. To someone who has any non-trivial financial life outside the US (which I expect to be true for most people who would apply for this), a us taxpayer status is a horrible curse: You might get a call from your bank/broker/insurer back home, telling you that they have to close all of your accounts except perhaps a checking and 1 simple saving (and perhaps those too). If you accrued any benefits in your pension plan, you have to report them each year _and_ plan to pay yearly and/or dearly (because it is a PFIC[0]) for any profit made in that account, even though you cannot touch it for 30 years. Also, if you own another business outside the US -- e.g. you had a previous startup, or operated through some kind of personal LLC providing services -- the "us taxpayer" status means that you have to start filing financial reports to the IRS as if those business were operated in the US (that is, according to US financial standards, regardless of where it operated - and that might mean double taxation despite any treaties in place). Sure, you can just ignore it, and if your startup fails, no one will come after you. But of course, you plan to succeed, so be sure to read on PFICs, FATCAs, FBARs, and consult a US accountant that specializes in international taxation. As a general rule, the US tax system assumes any financial dealings you have outside the US are an attempt to evade taxes, and penalizes that (whether by forms or by actual tax). Once it is assumed you plan to make the US the center of your life (green card, H1B, L1), those assumptions, through the "us taxpayer" status, affect you. If it is assumed you won't stay (e.g. F1 visa for studying), they don't. So, what taxpayer status will parole put you in? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_com...
- vmarsy 10y ago
  You're right, that's an important thing to consider! Usually you just have the "substantial presence test" to determine if you are a us taxpayer. which is : If you spent >180 days in the US this year, you are considered resident for tax purposes. Otherwise you're non resident. Visa like the Student visa give you a 5 year exemption, where during that time you only have to report money made in the US, it would be great if that entrepreneur parole status had the same rules. I tried quickly looking for keywords (IRS, tax, substantial, resident, non-resident) in those 155 pages of proposal but couldn't find anything. People writing comments to the DHS docket should discuss this.
fmp 10y ago
There are six billion people in shitty countries, and one billion people in rich countries. If you move the population of Somalia to Connecticut, what do you think happens?
- xyzzy4 10y ago
  > If you move the population of Somalia to Connecticut, what do you think happens? Cheap Ubers, house cleaning, haircuts, home repair, and yard work
- dang 10y ago
  > shitty countries This is the kind of name-calling that the site guidelines ask you not to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It's particularly shameful that you put down a specific country as "shitty". We don't need that on HN. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367643 and marked it off-topic.
  - fmp 10y ago
    Oh, fucking come on. Somalia is shitty. I don't think that's controversial. Everyone knows Somalia is shitty, including Somalis, which is why they're so keen to get out.
    - dang 10y ago
      You can't comment like this here. If you do it again, we will ban you again.
pyb 10y ago
This sounds like the holy grail for international founders, but how likely is it to pass ? Anyone here in the know ?
- pyb 10y ago
  Reading further, it looks like it's getting fast-tracked, which is great news.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  This is administrative action, and does not need congressional (or other) approval.
chx 10y ago
Who knows what happens. The Canadian startup visa in three years managed to bring in 100 people including dependents http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-disappointment-laywer-says-1.3443956 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-disap...
- qaq 10y ago
  For Canada there are so many options it's hard to compare to US
  - chx 10y ago
    Are there? Express Entry, family unification (and that's a very limited one!) and some provincial programs. I managed to immigrate a few years ago and now I am a citizen but doesn't look like "so many".
    - qaq 10y ago
      If you go to study you can work half time. If your spouse goes to study you can work full time. That's pretty much opens the door for pretty much anyone.
rrecuero 10y ago
As another international founder, it is definitely a great step in the right direction. I am still missing an easier way to bridge the transition gap into a Green Card, maybe a different EB?
graeme 10y ago
Can anyone see if this applies to bootstrappers or solo founders? It doesn't look like it. Referring to the type of business that can have significant revenue, but doesn't need investment or even necessarily employees.
vadym909 10y ago
This is great for the US and many foreign entrepreneurs, but would suck for other country's startup efforts. Its like the Golden State Warriors getting Kevin Durant.
xbeta 10y ago
Is it really required to found a startup inside US to have a greater chance of success? Or more specifically in the bay? I have seen many successful startups found in other countries (such as China) Alibaba, Tencent, etc. Is this a push that all talented software engineers HAVE TO move to the bay to become successful? I'm very doubtful on that claim.
- outworlder 10y ago
  No, they dont' have to. However, if you are startup, then startup == growth, which means having access to lots of capital, fast. Therefore, you should move to where there's an abundance of money, harboring people with just the right mindset to invest.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    where there's an abundance of money, harboring people with just the right mindset to invest. Right now it's the best time in the last 15 years in mainland China to seek VC.
- jpatokal 10y ago
  "Required", no, but being in the US gets you access to the world's largest truly single market#, the world's largest IT talent pool and the world's largest startup ecosystem. Put another way, if you had the choice, why not do it in the US? # Thanks for trying, EU, but you're nowhere near there yet, and those language barriers aren't going anywhere anytime soon either.
- aianus 10y ago
  > Is this a push that all talented software engineers HAVE TO move to the bay to become successful? A fresh grad in the Bay earns more than a 40-year-old director of engineering in Toronto.
known 10y ago
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2199rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
1993USAFAgrad 10y ago
I am inviting foreign nationals in a nonimmigrant F-1 Post Completion OPT (EAD) status to meet in San Francisco and discuss their thoughts about the proposed rule. I am drafting a response from a nonprofit research organization and H-1B cap-exempt employer perspective: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-by-uscis-to-welcome-international-entrepreneurs-tickets-27393876823 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-by-u... or SMS text WHOMENTORSDOTCOM to 50500 to obtain my contact information. This year, my organization endeavors to maintain a relationship with startup founders of a startup that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution to work part-time on-site at the non-profit research organization anywhere in the USA.

400 points by jrbedard 10y ago

A less "PR"-ey take (but still PR-ey non the less) on the White House Medium blog: https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-entrepreneurs-d27571475dfd https://medium.com/the-white-house/welcoming-international-e... 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.

mkolodny 10y ago
Really important blurb from that article: "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/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Article...
- Sophie_Alcorn 10y ago
  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? Thanks Sophie Alcorn My blogs about this program: http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-rule-foreign-founders/ http://alcornimmigrationlaw.com/international-entrepreneur-r...
  - duncanawoods 10y ago
    > 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.
    - bernardlunn 10y ago
      Just nodding and agreeing with all your points.

kirubakaran 10y ago

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.

toodlebunions 10y ago

Seems like the necessary investment amounts are pretty low.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

Unfortunately wealthy foreigners are just going to abuse the hell out of this to drive up real estate prices.

tlb 10y ago
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?
- fmp 10y ago
  > 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.
mitoyarzun 10y ago
Wealthy foreigners have other/better means to get residence.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Second passport woop woop Borrow against your Google shares and make it rain on the State Department!
notadoc 10y ago
I think you're referring to the EB-5 program, but I am sure this one will be used in a similar manner as well.

NhanH 10y ago

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.

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
> 10 'murican jobs 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?
- duckypaw 10y ago
  Yes, you have. He was referring to people of the entire U.S., not just the southern part.
- NhanH 10y ago
  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.

runesoerensen 10y ago

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.

slededit 10y ago
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.
- keerthiko 10y ago
  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.
  - slededit 10y ago
    Sure, it's better than nothing. That doesn't change the fact this is one more twist in an already Kafka-esque system. 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.

vmarsy 10y ago

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.) (From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wanted-president-s-actions-immigration https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/26/entrepreneurs-wan... )

chrisper 10y ago
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.
- serge2k 10y ago
  If you have a path to a green card then 5 years is a pretty solid amount of time for most places (not india/china). If they made it a separate quota for entrepreneurs then you could get most people a green card within that timeline.
  - outworlder 10y ago
    > If you have a path to a green card then 5 years is a pretty solid amount of time for most places (not india/china). Agreed. However, since you can't self-petition in most cases, it is unclear if you have a path or not.

gordon_freeman 10y ago

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?

nullcipher 10y ago

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.

drl42 10y ago

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 0

pashabitz 10y ago
I see 15%
r00fus 10y ago
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.
- OmarIsmail 10y ago
  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!!
- anaclet0 10y ago
  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)

yranadive 10y ago

" 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." How will they measure this? It's so subjective.

xyzzy4 10y ago

How about a rule to welcome anyone who isn't a criminal?

tlb 10y ago
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.
- aianus 10y ago
  > USCIS can't really go interview lots of people for each decision to decide who's "good". 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.

gorbachev 10y ago

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.

bozoUser 10y ago

Great news for all the non-US budding entrepreneurs. Founders have to satisfy either of 3 criteria stated - 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.

_delirium 10y ago
#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.

vesh 10y ago

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.

skynetv2 10y ago
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.
- vesh 10y ago
  What about using growth, revenue and profitability as a factor? Wouldn't that provide a similar data point to make the decision.
  - tlb 10y ago
    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.
vesh 10y ago
Ok I found the link to submit comments if anyone is interested. From the publication PDF: "You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006, by any one of the following methods:" Web: http://www.regulations.gov http://www.regulations.gov Email: uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov Mail: Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20529

gjkood 10y ago

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. 1. https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-guide-to-electronics-in-shenzhen https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/the-essential-gui... 2. http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php http://sanjoselearningcenter.com/mandarin.php

witty_username 10y ago
Related: In some documentary of some Chinese factory on Youtube, they showed an employee bicycling to a supplier to get more parts.
- tostitos1979 10y ago
  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 ...
toephu2 10y ago
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.

AhtiK 10y ago

If entrepreneur can keep at least 50% of the company then already today L-1 could be a viable option. Looks like the proposed parole is quite similar to L1 except instead of foreign company there's foreign private person direct relationship.

patcheudor 10y ago

When I looked at that title I thought: "new rule in ____ . Leaves drivers furious!" and wondered how HN was infiltrated with click-bait advertising. The Internet has ruined me.

benmarten 10y ago

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 ;)

runesoerensen 10y ago
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-workers/e-2-treaty-investors 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).

ones_and_zeros 10y ago

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.

runesoerensen 10y ago
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.

e15ctr0n 10y ago

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: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Articles/FR_2016-20663_793250_OFR.pdf 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)

Sophie_Alcorn 10y ago
I extracted the text of the proposed rule from the 155 page pdf and posted it here: http://bit.ly/2bXrguq http://bit.ly/2bXrguq

sethbannon 10y ago

"Give me your tired, your overworked, your entrepreneurs yearning to innovate."

vthallam 10y ago

A great start for sure. >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?

a13n 10y ago
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
- vthallam 10y ago
  Guess this should be the case.
_delirium 10y ago
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.

randall 10y ago

Wow!!! So great. I have two international cofounders. So stoked.

titomc 10y ago

What will happen after the 5 years stay ? Should the entrepreneur pack up and leave ? Why should an entrepreneur startup something when he/she is not sure about their residency in US. This rule says 'parole' & self petition, the residency path is not clear. And when it comes to residency, US immigration for skilled immigrants is so broken that you will regret applying for one.

OmarIsmail 10y ago
5 years is more than enough time in startup land to either be a failure or at least modest success - startups are designed to grow quickly after all. If you're on the success path then getting an O1 should be very straight forward, and then a EB1 greencard should also be easy. If you're a failure, well - this isn't supposed to be a path to citizenship for people with failed businesses.

tostitos1979 10y ago

I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a list of top international schools. How about something like that for people with Masters/PhDs (in STEM) from top-50 schools in the world. That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily. The limited term and renewals do raise some flags. But I guess if you are successful with your startup in the given time period, you can apply for a green card through other categories like Extraordinary Ability, etc.

dineshp2 10y ago
> I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. A few years ago, I noticed that Britain would give a blanket visa to anyone with an MBA from a list of top international schools. Care to explain the reasoning? It seems shortsighted to limit this proposal to people with advanced degrees, and why only from the top 50 schools in the world? How does this make sense in the context of startups? > That said, the proposed rule might mean if one gets into YC/techstars, etc. they would be able to get a visa for the US easily. The article mentions that this is not a visa, but parole. And with the requirement of $345K in funding, getting into YC/Techstars would not be sufficient. Startups would need to raise additional money, unless they receive $100k from the Government.
- tostitos1979 10y ago
  I make a value judgement that the economy needs startups that work on deep, meaningful technologies. While they are certainly instances where people without advanced education are able to innovate in deep technology disciplines, there are many cases where education is the key barrier to entry. If someone spent a decade getting specialized education in an area like FPGA, MEMS design, etc. I do think they should have an easier path into the country than someone with no specialized education. Canada is trying the "we'll give you a visa if your startup is funded by recognized investors". I think that stops people who have bootstrapped ventures or funding from their own savings/family savings. I'm also not saying advanced education is THE requirement. I'm saying, it should be one of the possible options. That's just my opinion :) With convertible notes that are sometimes given to member companies of distinguished seed funds, I think getting to 345K isn't a stretch.

xenosapien 10y ago

My startup will focus on building walls. I believe this is a burgeoning market.

runesoerensen 10y ago

Relevant essay: http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html http://paulgraham.com/foundervisa.html In 3-5 years we'll probably hear founders tell stories about how this new rule allowed them to establish very successful companies in the US. That should help prove the value of a proper founder visa and (assuming the immigration system is still broken at that time) pass legislation to fix it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Animats 10y ago

There's already a visa deal for foreign investors, the EB-5 visa. You have to invest at least $1M ($0.5M if you're willing to invest in a bad area of the US) and create 10 jobs. That's why downtown Palo Alto has all those rug stores.

nojvek 10y ago
Anyone here who came down the EB-5 visa that can tell us their experience?
- chrisper 10y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/realestate/want-a-green-card-invest-in-real-estate.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/realestate/want-a-green-ca...
gorkemyurt 10y ago
http://thesfshipyard.com http://thesfshipyard.com and http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com are both eb-5 eligible projects, I wouldn't call them bad areas..
arcticbull 10y ago
There's also E-2 visas you can get (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_visa) to run your own business with a much smaller investment (15-100K) assuming you're a citizen of a treaty country.
- stringlytyped 10y ago
  The problem with the E-2 visa is that you never become eligible to apply for a green card.

beagle3 10y ago

Anyone here aware of tax implications of the parole status? Usually, "us taxpayer" status is only triggered with a proper visa (H1B, L1, O1, etc.) or permanent resident status (green card). I've never met any mention of tax status on parole. To someone who has any non-trivial financial life outside the US (which I expect to be true for most people who would apply for this), a us taxpayer status is a horrible curse: You might get a call from your bank/broker/insurer back home, telling you that they have to close all of your accounts except perhaps a checking and 1 simple saving (and perhaps those too). If you accrued any benefits in your pension plan, you have to report them each year _and_ plan to pay yearly and/or dearly (because it is a PFIC[0]) for any profit made in that account, even though you cannot touch it for 30 years. Also, if you own another business outside the US -- e.g. you had a previous startup, or operated through some kind of personal LLC providing services -- the "us taxpayer" status means that you have to start filing financial reports to the IRS as if those business were operated in the US (that is, according to US financial standards, regardless of where it operated - and that might mean double taxation despite any treaties in place). Sure, you can just ignore it, and if your startup fails, no one will come after you. But of course, you plan to succeed, so be sure to read on PFICs, FATCAs, FBARs, and consult a US accountant that specializes in international taxation. As a general rule, the US tax system assumes any financial dealings you have outside the US are an attempt to evade taxes, and penalizes that (whether by forms or by actual tax). Once it is assumed you plan to make the US the center of your life (green card, H1B, L1), those assumptions, through the "us taxpayer" status, affect you. If it is assumed you won't stay (e.g. F1 visa for studying), they don't. So, what taxpayer status will parole put you in? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_foreign_investment_com...

vmarsy 10y ago
You're right, that's an important thing to consider! Usually you just have the "substantial presence test" to determine if you are a us taxpayer. which is : If you spent >180 days in the US this year, you are considered resident for tax purposes. Otherwise you're non resident. Visa like the Student visa give you a 5 year exemption, where during that time you only have to report money made in the US, it would be great if that entrepreneur parole status had the same rules. I tried quickly looking for keywords (IRS, tax, substantial, resident, non-resident) in those 155 pages of proposal but couldn't find anything. People writing comments to the DHS docket should discuss this.

fmp 10y ago

There are six billion people in shitty countries, and one billion people in rich countries. If you move the population of Somalia to Connecticut, what do you think happens?

xyzzy4 10y ago
> If you move the population of Somalia to Connecticut, what do you think happens? Cheap Ubers, house cleaning, haircuts, home repair, and yard work
dang 10y ago
> shitty countries This is the kind of name-calling that the site guidelines ask you not to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It's particularly shameful that you put down a specific country as "shitty". We don't need that on HN. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12367643 and marked it off-topic.
- fmp 10y ago
  Oh, fucking come on. Somalia is shitty. I don't think that's controversial. Everyone knows Somalia is shitty, including Somalis, which is why they're so keen to get out.
  - dang 10y ago
    You can't comment like this here. If you do it again, we will ban you again.

pyb 10y ago

This sounds like the holy grail for international founders, but how likely is it to pass ? Anyone here in the know ?

pyb 10y ago
Reading further, it looks like it's getting fast-tracked, which is great news.
winter_blue 10y ago
This is administrative action, and does not need congressional (or other) approval.

chx 10y ago

Who knows what happens. The Canadian startup visa in three years managed to bring in 100 people including dependents http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-disappointment-laywer-says-1.3443956 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/start-up-program-disap...

qaq 10y ago
For Canada there are so many options it's hard to compare to US
- chx 10y ago
  Are there? Express Entry, family unification (and that's a very limited one!) and some provincial programs. I managed to immigrate a few years ago and now I am a citizen but doesn't look like "so many".
  - qaq 10y ago
    If you go to study you can work half time. If your spouse goes to study you can work full time. That's pretty much opens the door for pretty much anyone.

rrecuero 10y ago

As another international founder, it is definitely a great step in the right direction. I am still missing an easier way to bridge the transition gap into a Green Card, maybe a different EB?

graeme 10y ago

Can anyone see if this applies to bootstrappers or solo founders? It doesn't look like it. Referring to the type of business that can have significant revenue, but doesn't need investment or even necessarily employees.

vadym909 10y ago

This is great for the US and many foreign entrepreneurs, but would suck for other country's startup efforts. Its like the Golden State Warriors getting Kevin Durant.

xbeta 10y ago

Is it really required to found a startup inside US to have a greater chance of success? Or more specifically in the bay? I have seen many successful startups found in other countries (such as China) Alibaba, Tencent, etc. Is this a push that all talented software engineers HAVE TO move to the bay to become successful? I'm very doubtful on that claim.

outworlder 10y ago
No, they dont' have to. However, if you are startup, then startup == growth, which means having access to lots of capital, fast. Therefore, you should move to where there's an abundance of money, harboring people with just the right mindset to invest.
- contingencies 10y ago
  where there's an abundance of money, harboring people with just the right mindset to invest. Right now it's the best time in the last 15 years in mainland China to seek VC.
jpatokal 10y ago
"Required", no, but being in the US gets you access to the world's largest truly single market#, the world's largest IT talent pool and the world's largest startup ecosystem. Put another way, if you had the choice, why not do it in the US? # Thanks for trying, EU, but you're nowhere near there yet, and those language barriers aren't going anywhere anytime soon either.
aianus 10y ago
> Is this a push that all talented software engineers HAVE TO move to the bay to become successful? A fresh grad in the Bay earns more than a 40-year-old director of engineering in Toronto.

known 10y ago

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2199rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

1993USAFAgrad 10y ago

I am inviting foreign nationals in a nonimmigrant F-1 Post Completion OPT (EAD) status to meet in San Francisco and discuss their thoughts about the proposed rule. I am drafting a response from a nonprofit research organization and H-1B cap-exempt employer perspective: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-by-uscis-to-welcome-international-entrepreneurs-tickets-27393876823 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/lets-discuss-proposed-rule-by-u... or SMS text WHOMENTORSDOTCOM to 50500 to obtain my contact information. This year, my organization endeavors to maintain a relationship with startup founders of a startup that would not otherwise be a qualifying institution to work part-time on-site at the non-profit research organization anywhere in the USA.