Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

uscis.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#101

Post by balls187 »

no1youknowz wrote: post #92
tostitos1979 wrote: post #41

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 l…

> I wish having an advanced degree was a criteria here. I don't. I didn't do very well at school. Wasn't for me. As soon as I left and I started work at 16, I excelled. Now, I could choose to work for a company in London @ +£120k a year or even apply to the US. But I choose to launch my own start-up instead where my passion and technical ability can potentially lead to 7/8+ figures salary. With this, I am definitely…

Why would you feel being penalized? You wouldn't meet these hypothetical requirements, but you wouldn't be penalized no more than I was penalized because my parents income disqualified me from Pell Grants.

Your underlying point is valid--a founder having an advanced degree in STEM has little bearing on the success of a startup. So if the goal of the US is to encourage entrepreneurship, and small business growth, focus requirements on those traits that are tied to success.

Addressing the lack of STEM in the US should be a separate visa program that is appropriately prioritized for that purpose.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#103

Post by duckypaw »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #68
NhanH wrote: post #7

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…

> 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?

Yes, you have. He was referring to people of the entire U.S., not just the southern part.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#104

Post by beagle3 »

winter_blue wrote: post #99
beagle3 wrote: post #83

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: Y…

With a few exceptions, immigration status is irrelevant to US tax status. US tax status is determined by the Substantial Presence Test: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/subs... Certain visas (specifically A, G, F, J, M, Q) are exceptions to the general rule. For example, the F (student) visa allows you to treat yourself as a non-resident for tax purposes for up to 5 years. But everyone else, in…

Thanks, but IIRC that is not the whole story:

Once you receive a green card, tax days retroactively go back to the first day in which you were legally in the country that year in the status that switched you to a green card - even if you fail the substantial presence test; e.g., you get married to an american citizen outside the US, you both move into the US on 1-Apr, apply for a marriage-based green card, move out of the US a month later*, come back december 20th and receive the green card -- at that point, even though you only spent 40 days in the US (thus failing the substantial presence test), your "us tax payer date" goes back to 1-Apr, which would make you a (partial year) US tax payer for 8 months.

How that interacts with visas or parole, I have no idea, but I know someone whose tax issues were very complicated because of such an issue.

I guess you are right in that the substantial presence test is the default, and some visas have exceptions one way, and green card the other - but I would urge anyone who might be affected by these issues to be very very diligent with respect to tax laws.

And .. we haven't touched state tax laws, which are similar but not exactly the same as federal laws (and vary between states). And there's also the concept of domicile, which makes everything even crazier.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#105

Post by beagle3 »

vmarsy wrote: post #98
arcticbull wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how substantial presence test works exactly. SPT only counts time spent on a qualifying visa type (TN, O1, H1B, L1, etc) and not time spent on F/J/M/Q/A/G, which is I think what OP was alluding to. It's also not >180 days, it's if: QualifyingDaysThisYear > 31 AND QualifyingDaysThisYear + 1/3(LastYear) + 1/6(YearBefore) > 183 For further information: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/s…

you're right, I was making the assumption of a simple case: you're coming as an Entrepreneur, you spend the full year in the US, so 365 > 183 , there's no need to even count further 1/3 and 1/6 as you weren't in the US before this. Running a start-up by spending only a few hundred days a year in the US could be challenging, but if the law allows you to, why not. F/J (Idk anything about M/Q/A/G) are only exempt 5 year…

Optimizing start day and end day could make a huge difference:

Starting on 1/jan and finishing on 31/dec would make you a taxpayer each of the 2..5 years.

Starting on 1/jul and finishing on 30/jun, taking strategically timed trips outside the US could easily make the first year, and in some cases the last year, fail the substantial presence test.

I always find it surprising that people rarely optimize tax when moving between countries (or for that matter, even when starting a business in their country). Some do, of course, but as a general rule most don't -- even though to a person in technology, taxes are by far the largest expense, often 30-50% of the take home.

Especially when being a business owner (much less so as a salaried employee), changing your tax jurisdiction is likely to result in much worse taxation than you'd expect unless you optimize for it. Even when there are tax treaties, you can easily get doubly taxed by differing classification -- e.g. something that is regarded as a capital gains in one jurisdiction but ordinary income in the other, or e.g. preferential treatment to 401K-equiv in one jurisdiction causes PFIC-equiv treatment in the other.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#106

Post by vkat »

throwawayIndian wrote: post #97
vmarsy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It appears, it has the same issue as H-1B visas. At least in my opinion. For India/China natives on EB-2 or EB-3 categories, I agree. For all the others, being able to self-petition for the green card as an entrepreneur means you won't need a company to sponsor you. (or your own start-up is sponsoring you?), and the full process could be done in less than 5 years. The downside here would be the legal costs and hass…

Thanks to the unquestionable red tape and annoyingly ( really annoying ) slow and sloppy work-culture at the USCIS it is a privilege here to share with you that even the EB1 categories of both India & China are now s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶l̶o̶g̶g̶e̶d̶ frozen [1]. Yes, welcome to 2016. A significant portion of talent that used to earlier fall in H1B->(Eb2/Eb3) category has now grown up in life and also gon…

It is just temporary until fiscal year starts again, much better than EB2/EB3 who have to wait more than a decade.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#108

Post by graeme »

vmarsy wrote: post #9

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…

Where does it say bootstrappers can use this method?

I'd love it to be the case. My market is almost entirely based in the USA. I'm in Canada, but have no legal method to do any work in the US. So it's all remote now.

Re: USCIS Proposes Rule to Welcome International Entrepreneurs

#109

Post by mkolodny »

yurisagalov wrote: post #2

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-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.

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/Article...

Post reply on HN