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

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 527 posts

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#161

Post by lurker919 »

miketery wrote: post #84
feelingsonice wrote: post #6

What’s the play for solo founders? I can’t establish a company and work towards funding without an H1B but then at the same time I can’t really afford an H1B without funding.

I did this for a bit. There has to be an employee employer relationship even if you have equity. You must establish that you can be fired by the board or an executive in the company. Also you need to be on payroll (W-2) at pulling a prevailing wage for your region and job description.

Curious what is the rationale for this rule. Not against or for it or anything, just interested in what historical precedent led to this logic.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#162

Post by junar »

komazawa12 wrote: post #98

Hi Peter, I'm an E3 holder. Thinking about marrying my partner who is a LPR and have a couple of questions: - I entered on the E3 status in January but went to Canada for 2 days in February, does the 90 day rule restart from when I came back in February or when I initially entered in Jan? - Can I continue working in my role after I apply to change my status after marriage to my LPR partner? - Typically how long would…

F2A (Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents) isn't current. Even after you marry and your spouse files I-130, you'll likely be in for a wait before you can file I-485 to adjust status. You can and should maintain your E-3 status in the meantime.

Since E-3 is not dual intent, the safest option is to avoid international travel until I-485 is approved. Re-entering on approved advance parole is allowed, but not if your I-485 is suddenly denied.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#163

Post by mc32 »

nashashmi wrote: post #139
mc32 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> essentially long term visas Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation. Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged. In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly…

That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#164

Post by cmrdporcupine »

walrus01 wrote: post #41
canucktrash669 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She crossed overland. Imagine you do pre-clearance out of a Canadian airport. Can they kidnap you out of country and ship you to a US detention center?

Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.

I rarely find the pre-clearance process to be all that nice when compared to internal clearance. When I traveled a lot to NYC I far preferred to fly out of Toronto island and do immigration at Newark vs flying out of Pearson. The tone was entirely different.

I personally am not sure that pre-clearance should even continue given current diplomatic tensions. Having an armed foreign police force from a country whose official head of state says it wants to occupy you... doesn't seem wise.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#165

Post by notavalleyman »

nashashmi wrote: post #145
jlawson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is easy to say when it's someone you like, not so much when it's someone you don't. Do you also think a foreigner should be allowed to openly advocate for Nazism while on a green card, without consequence?

There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.

Sorry if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I was curious and tried to search for this and wasn't successful, can you give more details?

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#166

Post by mc32 »

darksaints wrote: post #140
sigzero wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.

Could you show me where in those rules it says that you're not allowed to support Palestine? Or possibly somewhere in the rules where you forfeit your right to free speech?

[flagged]

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#167

Post by proberts »

factorymoo wrote: post #72

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this AMA! I’m a cofounder of a startup in the US. Two of us are here on green cards, but our third cofounder is based in Switzerland. He has a PhD from a top university, previously founded a company, and has raised over $30M in the past. At what stage would it be possible for us to bring him to the US on a visa? Would it be: - As soon as we incorporate a C Corp? - After raising funding? - O…

This should be an easy O-1 and you should kick off that process after you have incorporated the company (and done a few other easy company-related things).

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#168

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

sigzero wrote: post #134
darksaints wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green card holders have a right to free speech.

Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.

"Green cards come with rules to keep."

The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#169

Post by gist »

proberts wrote: post #116
darth_avocado wrote: post #76

Hi Peter, given that companies are constantly laying off employees, what options do people on H1B have in an event they are out of a job? One can find a job but a 60 day time restriction can be very challenging. It’s almost impossible to apply, schedule multiple rounds of interviews, get an offer AND file the immigration paperwork in that time. A lot of people have established lives and have been here for decades bec…

A few years ago when there were a lot of layoffs at big tech, USCIS published guidance on the options for those who lost their jobs. This guidance just validated what attorneys were advising anyway but it was reassuring. Whether USCIS will stick with this guidance is another question. But the main advice was to file an application to change status to B-2 or B-1 (if the terminated worker couldn't join his or her spous…

> after finding a new employer.

Obvious question then does the employer and the job have to be similar to the job that they had (and how similar and what is the test)?

Post reply on HN