3 ms·

The main issue is you have to be working for the company for over a year to qualify individually. Secondly, it is supposed to be used in a situation where the

by dotBen 16y ago

The main issue is you have to be working for the company for over a year to qualify individually. Secondly, it is supposed to be used in a situation where the US parent company wants to transfer a member of staff from an international office. I'm not sure to what extent the DHS look for the nuance of it being a US based PARENT company (which is not the situation you are actually describing) but I know that when international companies want to open US offices they often go down the E2 route, especially as they can then obtain visas for other employees of the same nationality. But that wouldn't work for venture backed startups due to the >50% ownership requirements. On a personal level, this is also a crap visa route because you are locked to the L1 sponsor employer - meaning you would have to go home if you no longer were employed by the company (either by choice or by the company folding).

BerislavLopac 16y ago
From the Wikipedia article: "L-1 visas are available to employees of an international company with offices in both a home country and the United States, or which intend to open a new office in the United States while maintaining their home country interests." I agree it probably wouldn't be applicable in all cases, but it would cover a significant amount. And as for the last paragraph: is anything different proposed for the startup visa? We're talking visas for startup founders here, not immigration shortcuts.
- dotBen 16y ago
  Just to follow up: the wordage of the wikipedia article doesn't really match the legal advice I received. I don't think it's exactly clear what is being proposed with the startup visa but many other types of visa such as H1B contain a "porting" element which the L-1 specifically does not.
  - HistoryInAction 16y ago
    The policy that was proposed last year—and I don't have any say over changes despite now all-but running the political game supporting StartupVisa—was that if you had gotten $250k in VC or superangel funding (where superangel was defined as being a US citizen, aka not jeff clavier, that hit some bar of annual investing) or $100k per immigrant co-founder, you gained a two-year visa. If, at the end of those two years, your startup reached $1M in annual revenue, raised $1M in funding, or hired 5 people, you got a green card. As far as I know, that's still what the VC guys backing this are going for, though I do know that folks like Kauffman, Vivek Wadhwa, and a fair number of others think this policy doesn't go far enough as, quote, 9 out of 10 successful startups don't raise outside capital, unquote. Still, it's an improvement in my books and seems well worth passing. The biggest issue is making clear to the politicians that this is an issue well beyond Silicon Valley, as Pelosi said that she felt the Startup Visa was too narrowly focused geographically, which of course it isn't. I'm also collecting stories of affected entrepreneurs and the jobs at risk without Startup Visa to post on the new tumblr in preparation for a push during SXSW: startupvisa.tumblr.com
    - davemc500hats 16y ago
      we are planning to revise & expand the rqmts, prob lower the amounts as well... however, we still want to have a bill that will pass, and will not be subject to "gaming" for people that really aren't doing startups.

by dotBen 16y ago

BerislavLopac 16y ago

From the Wikipedia article: "L-1 visas are available to employees of an international company with offices in both a home country and the United States, or which intend to open a new office in the United States while maintaining their home country interests." I agree it probably wouldn't be applicable in all cases, but it would cover a significant amount. And as for the last paragraph: is anything different proposed for the startup visa? We're talking visas for startup founders here, not immigration shortcuts.

dotBen 16y ago
Just to follow up: the wordage of the wikipedia article doesn't really match the legal advice I received. I don't think it's exactly clear what is being proposed with the startup visa but many other types of visa such as H1B contain a "porting" element which the L-1 specifically does not.
- HistoryInAction 16y ago
  The policy that was proposed last year—and I don't have any say over changes despite now all-but running the political game supporting StartupVisa—was that if you had gotten $250k in VC or superangel funding (where superangel was defined as being a US citizen, aka not jeff clavier, that hit some bar of annual investing) or $100k per immigrant co-founder, you gained a two-year visa. If, at the end of those two years, your startup reached $1M in annual revenue, raised $1M in funding, or hired 5 people, you got a green card. As far as I know, that's still what the VC guys backing this are going for, though I do know that folks like Kauffman, Vivek Wadhwa, and a fair number of others think this policy doesn't go far enough as, quote, 9 out of 10 successful startups don't raise outside capital, unquote. Still, it's an improvement in my books and seems well worth passing. The biggest issue is making clear to the politicians that this is an issue well beyond Silicon Valley, as Pelosi said that she felt the Startup Visa was too narrowly focused geographically, which of course it isn't. I'm also collecting stories of affected entrepreneurs and the jobs at risk without Startup Visa to post on the new tumblr in preparation for a push during SXSW: startupvisa.tumblr.com
  - davemc500hats 16y ago
    we are planning to revise & expand the rqmts, prob lower the amounts as well... however, we still want to have a bill that will pass, and will not be subject to "gaming" for people that really aren't doing startups.