Ask HN: What visa do foreign YC founders use to stay in US beyond 3 months?

Post by SeoxyS » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

yurisagalov wrote: post #17

graeme wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hear that O-1 review has become less favourable to founders over the last 1-2 years. Is this because it wasn't intended for that purpose and the system is cracking down on founder's using it as such? I've looked into the O-1 based on the fact that I'm (legitimately) a top expert on a very niche field. If I ever move to the states I think it's my only possibility since I work for myself.

From what immigration lawyers have described to me, USCIS is cracking down and making the requirements for an O-1 (And EB-1, by proxy) more strict. What they want is "objectively verifiable" evidence in the form of press, recognition, awards, earnings, etc. What they value much less now than they used to is famous people telling them how awesome you are (e.g. getting your famous investor to write you a letter is less…

Post by seekingcharlie » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

goatforce5 wrote: post #48

zensavona wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (Australian) had never heard of the E3 visa until just now - Interesting that it defines "Speciality work" as anything that requires a degree in the job description. I don't have one, but have been working professionally in this field for 4 years (I'm 22), and thus would not be eligible. To qualify for experience in lieu of a degree you require 3 years of work for each one year of university, so when I've been work…

I obtained an E3 without a degree via the relevant experience path. Somewhere filed away I have a letter from an organization accredited by the US government proclaiming that I have degree-level experience. I value it almost as much as the certificate I obtained in/for Canada confirming I have conversational level English skills.

Post by petrbela » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

asmithmd1 wrote: post #32

will_brown wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not knowing what YC actually does, my first 2 thoughts were: O-1 and J-1 Visas (certainly there could be other solutions) O-1: Typically I would think of athletes/entertainers, in the US for competition/show/tour/etc... It may not apply to some young founder getting into YC who has no other track record of success; however, YC/Tech are politically connected so the mere fact one is accepted into YC, it might = extraor…

There are companies who are identified as providing J-1 visas and they charge $5k - $6k for the service http://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-se...

Post by cperciva » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #23

yurisagalov wrote: post #2

Regardless of whether you're a YC founder or not, in general unless you're Canadian/Mexican and can qualify for a TN, or Australian and can qualify for an E-3, your only viable real option is an O-1 (Alien of Extraordinary ability). It's not an unachievable visa, and there are many founders who use it, but the requirements to demonstrate extraordinary ability are onerous. From USCIS: * Receipt of nationally or intern…

Not knowing what YC actually does, my first 2 thoughts were: O-1 and J-1 Visas (certainly there could be other solutions) O-1: Typically I would think of athletes/entertainers, in the US for competition/show/tour/etc... It may not apply to some young founder getting into YC who has no other track record of success; however, YC/Tech are politically connected so the mere fact one is accepted into YC, it might = extraor…

Post by brazzledazzle » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 10:56 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #47

anigbrowl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd advise tempering your sense of humor on this topic, since attempts to do more-or-less what you're talking about above tend to culminate in long prison sentences for both operators and customers of such a service, unless it's based in a jurisdiction that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. since 'securing the border' is one of those fundamentally unattainable political goals prosecutors tend to throw t…

> since 'securing the border' is one of those fundamentally unattainable political goals prosecutors tend to throw the book at anyone they find engaged in this kind of activity because it plays well at oversight hearings. It's not a political ploy. If you try to make an end-run around the law, they're going to go after you to defend the rule of law. The law isn't a computer program that you can find a bug in and circ…