3 ms·

I didn't say you needed to. I used the B-1 to point out that a visa is required even for things that could be considered "top level management work". No visa, t

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

einhverfr 13y ago
But the B-1 allows you to consult with business associates according to the link you provided. For a salaried worker whose work can be easily considered to be nothing more than "consulting with business associates" (i.e. a CEO, CTO, and the like), it seems you can: * Show up * Attend meetings * Tell people what they should do * Conduct business That's what a B-1 is for. Now, my question is why that suddenly applies differently for a director who may be offering such services without direct compensation other than travel expenses than it would, say, the CTO? And if the government were to admit the director doesn't need anything more than a B1 to attend the directors' meetings, they had better be able to say what makes that different from the CEO other than pay. Now, none of these address residency which is where I think you'd have to draw the line since there is no relocation involved. Now, I suppose you might say "should != must" but that ends up being really weird. Here's my hypo. Suppose a US company ends up having a CEO in Canada. The Canadian CEO travels to the US once every year for the director's meeting and a meeting with top-level employees. My contention is that a B-1 (or VWP entry) would be sufficient.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  Yes the B-1 would be sufficient for a director, board member, significant stockholder, etc to do such work legally. The thing is, B-1 visas expire, you can only be in the country for 3 months at a time, maximum 6 months a year. The lady in the article is not covered by the B-1 immigration status since whatever visa or authorization (if any) she had has long since expired. By law she supposed to remove herself immediately from the country, get deported, etc.

einhverfr 13y ago

But the B-1 allows you to consult with business associates according to the link you provided. For a salaried worker whose work can be easily considered to be nothing more than "consulting with business associates" (i.e. a CEO, CTO, and the like), it seems you can: * Show up * Attend meetings * Tell people what they should do * Conduct business That's what a B-1 is for. Now, my question is why that suddenly applies differently for a director who may be offering such services without direct compensation other than travel expenses than it would, say, the CTO? And if the government were to admit the director doesn't need anything more than a B1 to attend the directors' meetings, they had better be able to say what makes that different from the CEO other than pay. Now, none of these address residency which is where I think you'd have to draw the line since there is no relocation involved. Now, I suppose you might say "should != must" but that ends up being really weird. Here's my hypo. Suppose a US company ends up having a CEO in Canada. The Canadian CEO travels to the US once every year for the director's meeting and a meeting with top-level employees. My contention is that a B-1 (or VWP entry) would be sufficient.

mahyarm 13y ago
Yes the B-1 would be sufficient for a director, board member, significant stockholder, etc to do such work legally. The thing is, B-1 visas expire, you can only be in the country for 3 months at a time, maximum 6 months a year. The lady in the article is not covered by the B-1 immigration status since whatever visa or authorization (if any) she had has long since expired. By law she supposed to remove herself immediately from the country, get deported, etc.