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

471–480 of 527 posts

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

#471

Post by mmustapic »

tome wrote: post #454
mmustapic wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t give them independence, but if Israel has administrative control of the area, it must respect the human rights of the people that live there. If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting: I can buy land wherever I want, move freely, work freely, travel abroad. Palestinians can’t. So it’s one or the other, either you consider them a nation with whom you…

> If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting Certainly not in general! That very much depends on the country and the immigration status under which you are in that country. Most visas strongly restrict the right to work. If you leave, you may not be allowed back in, unless you can obtain fresh clearance. Under the Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the PLO, the…

So are Palestinians immigrants in Israel, without a visa? Even immigrants have freedom of movement and are subject to the same laws as nationals.

They are of course not illegals immigrants, because they were already there.

So what are they? When it’s convenient, they are a nation that doesn’t want peace. When it’s convenient, Palestine was never a country. So what is it?

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

#472

Post by proberts »

ahussain wrote: post #295
redelvis wrote: post #63

Hey Peter, thank you for doing this! Is it possible to build a successful o1 case for a founder, who's been digital nomading for years and can't build his case based on achievements from one specific country? Any tips?

IANAL but I don't think there's a need for O-1 evidence to be from a specific country. The evidence just needs to credibly show that you're extraordinary. You can try https://o1pathways.com/ to evaluate your profile.

That's right, there's no need for the O-1 achievements to be from a specific country; the achievements just must meet the O-1 criteria and be documented wherever they occurred.

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

#473

Post by proberts »

CactusBlue wrote: post #82

I have an E-3 visa sponsored by my company. I know that it doesn't have a direct path to green card; so anything that I should be doing now at this point for permanent residency?

Underlying status has no bearing on green card options. Those in E-3 status can pursue green cards. The issues, which can be managed, involve traveling on an E-3 visa when in the green card process, extending E-3 status when in the green card process, and renewing an E-3 visa when in the green card process. But our clients sponsor E-3 Australians all the time.

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

#474

Post by proberts »

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…

My responses in order: 1. When did you actually decide to marry your partner (if you've even decided)? If this decision occurred after you returned from Canada, then there's no requirement to wait 90 days. 2. Yes. 3. This is changing but now it seems to be taking at least 6 months and creeping to 9 months and even longer to an advance parole.

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

#475

Post by proberts »

pcl wrote: post #77
proberts wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are applying for a family-based green card while outside the U.S., then the main challenges are timing - these take longer than U.S.-based applications - and travel to the U.S. - while travel to the U.S. is fine while in the I-130 process abroad, you should expect to be questioned when you enter the U.S. about your plans; CBP will want to make sure that you are not trying to circumvent the process abroad while…

Thanks. How much longer has this avenue taken, in your experience?

It's all over the place but depends in part on how busy the particular Consulate is. For example, there are huge delays in Canada because the volume is so high.

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

#476

Post by proberts »

gradtemp1122 wrote: post #146

Hey Peter, Thanks for doing this. For someone on F1 visa, can they work as a cofounder of a company through CPT. What are the options for this situation?

Theoretically, yes under certain circumstances, but in the end, this is the school's decision and some simply won't allow it.

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

#477

Post by proberts »

tsthe wrote: post #151

Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. If the recent trend continues, the May 2025 visa bulletin might have my priority date (May 30, 2013) current for EB-3. Originally, I am on EB-2. I have two questions: Is it worth downgrading to EB-3, or should I wait for my EB-2 date to become current? If my date becomes current, what are the next steps to getting a Green Card (GC)? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process?

That's always a tough question because sometimes downgrading can actually slow down the process while USCIS gets around to reviewing the downgrading request. If the EB2 date isn't too far off, then it might make sense to wait. There have been times when USCIS encouraged people to downgrade and reviewed them quickly but I don't expect that to happen again any time soon.

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

#478

Post by aprilthird2021 »

trollbridge wrote: post #412
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a green card holder said "I can see why people support Hamas" should he be expelled? When does just talking about a situation turn into "endorsement" or "support"?

That’s part of the problem here. The federal government can decide by fiat that you did a bad thing before you applied for a green card and then deport you based on that. They can also say you did a bad thing after and revoke your green card, although it’s a bit more paperwork to do so and requires a higher up to sign off on it (in this recent case, the Secretary of State himself). I’m not aware of any country that p…

We used to be a unique country when it came to free speech. No reason why it shouldn't be provided to noncitizens too, imo. We let our enemies pump news and media into our country because we believe the people actually run the country.

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

#479

Post by darksaints »

blindriver wrote: post #434
darksaints wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conditions for admissibility are one thing, and you can be denied entry for any thought crime that the government wants to impose. Once you are in , you have the same rights to free speech as any citizen, and the same rights to due process as well. In fact, the only thing they can do to curb your free speech is prove in court that you lied on your application. Which is likely how this case will play out after judges…

No you do not have the same rights as any citizen. You are wrong. You cannot endorse terrorism. If you come into the US on a visa and say "Death to America!" then you will be deported. This has been the case for decades upon decades and in my opinion it is correct. It's called biting the hand that feeds you and that person is taking a spot from someone else who would be grateful for being in the US.

Your opinion doesn’t matter dude. Decades of jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedent has already conclusively determined that green card holders have the same rights to free speech as citizens. It would take overturning the existing Supreme Court precedent, and destroying the 1st amendment along with it, for that to go away.

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

#480

Post by rayiner »

calmbell wrote: post #422
rayiner wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it. The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which…

I am also not an immigration lawyer. In Maslenjak v. United States ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf ), eight justices disagreed with the expansive interpretation of the statute you describe. From the majority opinion, "The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when tha…

So that case involves 28 USC 1425, which doesn’t have an expressly-stated materiality requirement. The holding of the case is that, nonetheless, the statute requires an omission or misrepresentation to be material, which the Court defines as information “that would have mattered to an immigration official.”

8 USC 1451(a) has an express materiality requirement, which I addressed in my comment. The standard of what “would have mattered to an immigration official” can be seen extremely broadly in view of 8 USC 1427(a). In the context of the false statements statute, 18 USC 1001, material facts are those that have the “tendency” to influence the decision maker, but need not actually influence the decision. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995).

The materiality requirement provides some protection. It’s doubtful revocation could be premised on someone having illegally parked their car when going into a USCIS interview. But the standard for materiality is still quite expansive and leaves a lot of room for aggressive prosecutors.

Post reply on HN