5 ms·

Yes, F-1 students can be co-founders. (I personally did this.) The only restriction is that you cannot earn any money personally from the company (via dividends

by ashu 19y ago

Yes, F-1 students can be co-founders. (I personally did this.) The only restriction is that you cannot earn any money personally from the company (via dividends or by selling stock) unless you have a work visa or an OPT.

pepeto 19y ago
Actually, from what I know, you can sell, and buy, you can pay dividends to yourself (though you doubletax your own behind). What you can't do is be hired if you are on F-1 visa, which means that you can't get a regular paycheck or have a position in the company (owner/shareholder is not a position).
- ashu 19y ago
  Ah, thanks for the clarification. I quickly got on to an OPT in 15 days after founding the company, and became an employee of the company, so none of that mattered, but it's certainly good to know!
nostrademons 19y ago
Interesting...I got my cofounder position because the previous technical cofounder was on a student visa, and his immigration lawyer advised him that "It's probably not a good idea." I don't know the specifics of his case, but he gave up a cofounder position at a startup he thought promising based on it. I'd consult an immigration lawyer. It sounds like there're a lot of thorny issues that depend a lot on the specifics of the case.
- ashu 19y ago
  We did consult a couple immigration lawyers and all of them said it is possible. The foreign student advisors in our school were a little more circumspect, probably because it is very very uncommon. I don't understand the "probably" clause though -- either it is lawful or it is not :-)
  - donal 19y ago
    "either it is lawful or it is not" not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a business. considering the complexity of immigration law, "probably" and "maybe" are good answers until a judge gives an official "yes" or "no".
    - notauser 19y ago
      It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it. Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings. This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway. After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on. Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'. IANAL etc.
      - donal 19y ago
        Hmm, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "disadvantage," it is a difference however. Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.
    - kirubakaran 19y ago
      Also, officials tend to enforce the letter of the law and judges are expected to rule per the spirit of the law.
pepeto 19y ago
I acutally have numbers of good lawyers, but they are based in New York. B/n $200/h and $500/h. I haven't talked to them since i never had the money, but got their numbers from a good source. Email me if interested.

by ashu 19y ago

pepeto 19y ago

Actually, from what I know, you can sell, and buy, you can pay dividends to yourself (though you doubletax your own behind). What you can't do is be hired if you are on F-1 visa, which means that you can't get a regular paycheck or have a position in the company (owner/shareholder is not a position).

ashu 19y ago
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I quickly got on to an OPT in 15 days after founding the company, and became an employee of the company, so none of that mattered, but it's certainly good to know!

nostrademons 19y ago

Interesting...I got my cofounder position because the previous technical cofounder was on a student visa, and his immigration lawyer advised him that "It's probably not a good idea." I don't know the specifics of his case, but he gave up a cofounder position at a startup he thought promising based on it. I'd consult an immigration lawyer. It sounds like there're a lot of thorny issues that depend a lot on the specifics of the case.

ashu 19y ago
We did consult a couple immigration lawyers and all of them said it is possible. The foreign student advisors in our school were a little more circumspect, probably because it is very very uncommon. I don't understand the "probably" clause though -- either it is lawful or it is not :-)
- donal 19y ago
  "either it is lawful or it is not" not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a business. considering the complexity of immigration law, "probably" and "maybe" are good answers until a judge gives an official "yes" or "no".
  - notauser 19y ago
    It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it. Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings. This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway. After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on. Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'. IANAL etc.
    - donal 19y ago
      Hmm, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "disadvantage," it is a difference however. Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.
  - kirubakaran 19y ago
    Also, officials tend to enforce the letter of the law and judges are expected to rule per the spirit of the law.

pepeto 19y ago

I acutally have numbers of good lawyers, but they are based in New York. B/n $200/h and $500/h. I haven't talked to them since i never had the money, but got their numbers from a good source. Email me if interested.