As somebody who fought for a year to get an O-1 visa.

Image result for o-1 to green card


As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves.
I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hundred engineers and generates tens of millions in tax revenue. By any definition of the phrase "individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics," I am the kind of person that this visa was meant to attract: talent that results in a net gain for the country.
The problem isn't with the government employees who review the cases; the problem is with the criteria for the visa. It's stuck in a world where 40-year old academics were the innovators. Where instead of showing product traction, revenue, and ability to create businesses, you're expected to show published papers, academic awards, or inclusion in conference panels. Sure, these are still very valid reasons to want somebody to enter the US; but they shouldn't be considered the only reasons.
Quite a few very valuable companies were founded by mavericks, dropouts, or just people who stayed away from academia and instead worked on products. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Zuck, the WhatsApp guys, the Airbnb guys. None of these guys were academics. Some dropped out of college. None received nobel prizes, but many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give this no consideration.
--
The full list of requirements, of which you have to demonstrably meet at least three:
1. Documentation of the individual's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
2. Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the individual, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation;
4. Evidence of the individual's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought;
5. Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
6. Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media;
7. Evidence that the individual has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
8. Evidence that the individual has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.
I hate to break it to you, but you clearly did not have a top-notch immigration attorney if they advised you that a O1 visa was the best visa for your circumstances.
The O1 is intended for people who are the top of their fields; not just those that are good. It's for people like Yao Ming (sports) or Lupita_Nyong'o (arts) that we want to steal from other countries.
There were other visas that were more appropriate for your circumstances, (meaning easier to obtain) but generally simply being the first employee at a business doesn't amount to much, which is why you had to fight for it. (These other visa types are no longer available.) If you had been a founder or a C-suite officer, you might have been able to squeak in on a O1 [edit]without any hassle[/edit], but even that is doubtful--the EB series would have been a better path [edit] since EB review was more objective than the O1 review.[/edit]
The EB visas are basically identical to the O visas, except for two differences: 1) the requirements are slightly more stringent, and 2) they are considered immigrant visas, as opposed to non-immigrant. ie., they are green cards.
That said, I agree with you that the O1 was not a perfect fit for my situation, though I did end up receiving it, while being denied the EB-1. But I would challenge you to name another visa which would be more appropriate and give me a better shot. Consider the fact that while I was critical in creating a large business, I also did not have a completed college degree, or any capital of my own to invest in the US.
In some cases it might make sense to do H-1b -> EB2 to get things done faster. You don't even need a visa to get your employment based green card actually, so you can start both processes at the same time. Of course each case is unique, I hope your lawyer made the right choice given the circumstances.
Sorry, but H1b is so broken and horrible that many people won't even consider it. It puts you in a very bad and stressful situation to practically put your destiny in the hands of one employer/person for a couple of years.
If H1B is the only realistic option for you, then just forget about USA and go to any European country with sane immigration system.
Are you sure about that? I got my H1B in 2012, it was almost completely painless. I was straight out of university, we applied in October '11, and I received my visa in January. It's fairly straightforward to move to a new employer on a H1B, it just has to be the same level of job. You can start working for your new employer on the date you file, and it takes 4-8 weeks to complete.
I'm now close to an EB2 GC which, when complete, will have taken a total of about 18 months from me saying to my employer "I'd like a green card", to me and my wife having one. I'm an engineer at a <20 employee start up, 24 years old.
There are aspects of the immigration system that I have found pretty backwards; mostly that a H1B spouse (H4) cannot work. But in general, it's treated me pretty well.
I've read plenty of H1B border horror stories online. But having flown from Europe to the US over 20 times in the past 3 years, I haven't had more than a polite 90 second conversation with a CBP officer on the way in.
This is all speaking from someone who came from the UK. I know there are separate queueing systems for some visas for residents of certain countries, so I can't speak for that.
Yes, the exact thing you described here as an easy ride is what I would call brokeness. You say you'll get your GC in 18 months, I wish you good luck on that, but that's completely arbitrary time frame. You can't know in advance how long does it take to get permanent residence. Almost everywhere in Europe you have a clearly defined timeframe. Then, your wife can't work there, not sure even if you have tax deductions on her. To me, that's unacceptable. My wife has more education than me, and she should be able to work in the same way as me. In Europe, Blue Card holders wives have no work restriction at all. Then, although in theory you can change a job when you want, can you do it when you must? If your employer fire you, can you have another job in 15 days before you are doported from the US, together with wife and children? Though some employers treat you ok, many know that situation and are ready to take advantage of that, just because the system allows them. That's not a risk I would personally want to make, but I can see how someone else would.
(Sorry, I just checked this for a response).
I completely agree about the spousal issue, I mentioned it above. I do think it's ridiculous.
But the rest; I'm not sure if you've been through the system yourself, or you have Googled a lot of it. If you search for information relating to GC application lengths, it varies wildly, and the details are sketchy.
Fact is, you can readily find the current "priority dates" from UCSIS. It's updated every month and broken down by your preference category, country, and visa type. You can make a pretty accurate assumption from seeing how the quickly the dates move along, combined with the advice of your immigration lawyer, as to how long it will be until your application
You can track the DOL applications in (almost) real time. Right now I can see exactly which cases the DOL processed yesterday; the company, the state, the job position, and when the case was opened. There are several aggregation sites, this[1] being my personal favorite. Again, you can make a reasonable estimate of time from this.
The "you will be deported if you lose your job" argument, is one you find all over the internet. I've read people reporting that it is even "you must leave within 24 hours". It simply isn't true. You must apply for a change of status as quickly as possible (this isn't too difficult), to switch to a different visa (B1 or B2, and the appropriate visa for your spouse). These will allow you to stay in the country for several months.
Then, you have until your I-94 date (on a H-1B this is normally the date your visa expires) to find another employer who will sponsor you for a H-1B transfer. This transfer is exactly the same as a transfer from a current employer; you can begin work immediately, and the cap does not apply.
It's these sorts of tales that make me thankful that I have a very good, honest immigration professional. If I lost my job, then just Googled what I should do next, I would have a heart attack.
the applications for cap limited H1B are in april, and you'll have it in october if you are one of the 60,000 lucky ones. If you get it in any other time of the year, is because you work for an university or no-profit. Here, H1b is broken refers to the cap-limit one. H1 from the university/no-profit is a joke, since the visas are not counted towards the cap, and I feel they damage the game for everyone else.
Btw I do envy your good luck.
Don't go for EB-1, go for EB-2. It's a lot easier in terms of the documented requirements. Also, unless you are from China/India/Philippines there is no difference in wait time between the two.
There is also the National Interest Waiver for entrepreneurship for the EB-2 to further make the process easier: http://www.uscis.gov/news/public-releases-topic/business-imm...
> Also, unless you are from China/India/Philippines there is no difference in wait time between the two.
Not really, EB2 generally requires a labor certification which takes about an additional year to process. You're right this is better than the multi-year wait Indians and Chinese face though.
Sorry, should have clarified that O1 wasn't the best fit because they're the hardest to obtain because they have the most subjective requirements. Other visas, no longer available, would have been easier to obtain.
Could you share more? Basically what key tips would you give to a person trying to get it? Which 3/more of the 8 requirements did you base your application on?
My key tips would be as follow, in order of importance:
1. Get a good lawyer who puts your interests first. (Not your investor's or your employer's.)
2. Make yourself as visible as your can, even if it's not necessarily your comfort zone. Get on conference panels. Get into print newspapers as much as possible. Aim for old-style print newspapers: WSJ, NYTimes, and other national papers are great. Get into the print edition, not just on their websites.
3. If your company employs a PR firm, make sure they work for you. Have them prepare statements where you're the name attributed to the quote. Have them fight to get into conference panels. It's all bullshit, but it looks impressive when printed as documentation on a case file.
Strong underline for the old-style print newspapers.
But look to Brian X. Chen at NYT, Evelyn Rusli at WSJ who cover tech, even if it's just online.
Keep in mind that the reviewing bureaucrats at USCIS have NEVER heard of TechCrunch, just like most of us have probably never heard of Politico (or read it often if you have).
Don't shoot yourself in the face by mocking the process in the process: To get the visa, Mr. Vine and his co-founders at Zirtual, a business that connects people with personal assistants through the Internet, invented the position of corporate wellness director, suited to Mr. Vine's bachelor's degree in kinesiology.
"My application for the H-1B is different from my actual role at the company," Mr. Vine said. "We've actually had to spin a tall tale because of the difficulty of applying."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020470710... (might be behind paywall but search "Startup Visas Get New Push" and the closing quote from Collin Vine of Zirtual)
I'm not sure if I agree with you. I'm not an immigration lawyer nor an immigration expert, so this is all anecdotal: I know a handful of startup founders, who were most certainly not at the top of their fields get O1 visas with the help of their top-top-tier investors / other things I'm not aware of (maybe speaking at second-rate conferences?). These were early stage startups that did not have much traction yet. While these founders would certainly be impressive to the HN crowd (open source contributions, cool things they've built), they were certainly not names you would have heard of even in technology circles.
Quite true. I am not a lawyer, but I help founders hack immigration while pursuing the general solution through passing immigration reform that includes a startup visa.
For the O-1, you need to make the case that you're in the top 2-3% of your field. I often have founders make the case that if they can raise funding, then they are in the top 2-3% of startups—coming from a top ranked VC matters less than you'd think because the bureaucrats have never heard of most of these VCs or angels. On the other hand, the top ranked VCs are more likely to know about the O-1 and ways to make use of it.
They can do it using O-3 visa, its the same classification as an O-1 but of a different type. Assuming they incorporated the startup, and then immediately received funding and started visa process (in that order) they can use percentage points (from zero to +++ whatever investment they received) as part of their case. USCIS is more interested in profit/revenue than any other metric.
O-3 visas are issued to the spouse and children of O-1 visa holders. Did you mean something else?
I remember O-1 visas had several types, it's the O-1B visa
Perhaps you're referring to the E-2 treaty investor visa rather than one of the EB green cards?
> None received nobel prizes, but many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give this no consideration.
3, 7 & 8 can be directly shown from prior entrepreneurial successes. 4 is also very possible for such a person (think hackathons, Startup Weekends, angel beauty pageants, etc.)
It's someone without a prior record of success that this visa is not appropriate for. For an entrepreneur with a successful exit already under his belt it works fine (though there are many other options for such a person as well.)
Your lawyer chose the wrong visa for you
O-1 visas were specifically created for entertainers and athletes at first. It wasn't meant for business. It was later extended to include Nobel prize winners and other academics during Cold War to compete with Russia's science program (and collect refugees from those able to escape) aka. O-2.
And then finally, it was opened to include business and finance individuals aka. O-3. However, the original intent of the visa was never for that case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please tell me about your situation with the USCIS and any business related immigration problems or success stories.