I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
I'll be here for the next 6 hours. As usual, there are countless possible topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with but as much as possible I'd like to focus on the recent changes and potential changes in U.S. immigration law, policy, and practice. Please remember that I am limited in providing legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll try to do the same in my responses. Thank you!
This has been a very active and interesting AMA so thank you everyone. I will be stopping now and returning tomorrow morning to respond to all the unanswered questions and comments.
Can a TN classification denial result in immigration detention? If so, how can I mitigate that risk?
For context, a Canadian woman recently tried to enter into the USA from Mexico and get TN-1 status. Instead of refusing her entry, officials detained her and she's been stuck for 10 days waiting for deportation.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-woma...
It's unclear to me how big of a risk this actually is for the average "Canadian goes to the USA" story because of her specific factual scenario. Presumably I don't want to enter from Mexico, but is it advisable to take flights from a TSA preclearance airport in Canada so I'm not actually in the USA if the classification is denied?
That's extraordinarily unusual and in my experience has only happened when CBP believes that the applicant was lying or has a criminal record so I wouldn't base the decision on where/how to apply on this very low risk. Depending on the TN application, there are better and worse ways to apply for a TN and from an outcome standpoint, sometimes it's better to apply with CBP at the border or with CBP at a U.S. airport by flying directly to the U.S.
You don't think border processes are becoming uncertain now and relying less on precedence?
A land-border crossing in Mexico? 100%, yes.
With all respect, everything happening in the US at the moment is "extraordinarily unusual" today.
Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".
According to other sources, this was an unusual case. She was a Canadian trying to enter from Mexico, who had been told back in November that her visa was no longer valid.
According to this article, Canada rejected her entry as well. Maybe it's not just the US, but this person actually had a real issue with her visa and her travel plans were not prepared well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo
"...when she reached the border [Canada], Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally."
Different person. The person mentioned in the top-level comment is surnamed Mooney.
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.
It cuts both ways. Many American friends have told me that they were treated aggressively at the Canadian border as well.
If you get to chatting with a CBSA officer (Canadian version of CBP), they'll have plenty of stories for you about Americans who want to drive from WA to Alaska with all of their guns in their car and not declare it, or try to bring all kinds of absolutely ridiculous stuff into the country without declaring it. The people who cross the border on a regular basis, like a dozen times a year or more, know the system and policies.
It's the tourists and people who rarely cross that have never encountered CBSA that try to treat Canada like some kind of theme park. They're also often unprepared with appropriate ID, documents, receipts and stuff and get weird when CBSA starts asking them exactly the same nature of questions that CBP asks of people going southbound.
I would also emphasize that CBSA knows how often you cross, through a US-Canada data sharing agreement. An ALPR system takes a picture of your license plate on your car and very quickly queries a database, for information presented to the question-asking-person, as your vehicle approaches the window. This is assuming you're driving northbound of course. Even if that doesn't happen, they'll ask to see your drivers license along with your passport and immediately know you don't reside anywhere near the border.
They know immediately if the zip code where your car is registered is somewhere close to the border, or is very far away from the border. And if you have, or have not, crossed the border recently. It's people from very far away from the border that rarely if ever cross who also think they can take their guns, drugs, etc into Canada and won't get questioned about it.
I'm an American and I was annoyed at how aggressive and militarized the southern border is.
I was on a big road trip across the country visiting national parks. I went to Organ Pipe Nat. Monument in Arizona which literally touches the Mexican border.
On my way there I drove through a border patrol checkpoint 10 miles north of the border inside the US. They don't check southbound traffic, only northbound. I never entered Mexico. On the way back I had to stop at that border patrol checkpoint. The border patrol agent was basically yelling at me for my passport. I told him I didn't have it with me. He yelled to see my driver's license. I gave it to him and he yelled at me "Why do you have a North Carolina driver's license?" I replied that is where I live and that is my home address on the license. He then screamed at me "Don't you know this is a prime drug running area?!" I told him "I have no idea and I'm not interested in drugs. There is a national park area 5 miles away, don't you get a lot of tourists here going to see that?"
I then noticed in my rear view and side mirrors that another agent was going around my car with a dog sniffing around. After about 2 minutes I saw the dog agent give a thumbs up and the rude agent said "Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport"
I had less rude experiences in Texas and California but still overly suspicious border patrol agents. One guy asked me what all the stuff was in my car. I actually offered him granola bars and soda cans and then showed him landscape pictures on my cameras. He realized that I was really a tourist and not into drugs or helping immigrants cross.
> Okay, you can go but you should carry your passport
Funny, since half of U.S. citizens don't have a passport.
I thought you only need a passport if you're crossing international borders?
If you leave US mainland customs zone and go to saipan or Guam or something it will probably slow you down and they might claim you need it, even though you don't. Also Mexico never changed their law like US did, iirc you can still enter Mexico with a birth certificate.
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.
It varies. In recent years (last decade or so) YVR has been pretty good. Historically there were ups and downs.
I doubt a few immigration officers with handguns (can't say for sure they even carry them or carry them out of the airport) are going to take over BC.
It's not that I think they're some sort of potential foreign occupation force. It's just oddly symbolic and weird, and their powers to detain people, etc. seem entirely problematic in the current context.
US airports love Canada pre-clearance because it allows them to assign planes to any gate. Might be an easy way to gum up the works as retribution.
She crossed overland from Mexico for some reason, not from Canada. The linked article says: "Then they came back and told her that, because they were denying her, that they have to send her back to Canada."
Is there a policy that requires that people denied entry be returned to the country they are citizens of?
From what I read, the Canadian consulate can't do anything for her.
They have her in their system, and she has no rights.
I read that she was scheduled to be released (sent back to Canada) today, but I can't find any more recent news either way.
I've seen recent examples of the government targeting green card holders for their speech. As a naturalized citizen who wants to exercise my free speech rights, how concerned should I be about potentially having my citizenship challenged on technical grounds? Are there realistic scenarios where this could happen despite First Amendment protections?
Are you leading protests in support of designated terrorist organizations? Did you publish posts glorifying October 7th, in which Hamas performed mass murder, kidnappings, rapes, and torture against civilian, which was the largest terror attack since 9/11, and the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust?
I'm not exaggerating. That "green card holder" you are referring to literally published posts glorifying this attack and led protests in support of Hamas [1].
Assuming your question was honest (not just trying to make a political point), and you do not literally support designated terrorist organizations that shout "Death to America" or try to genocide Jewish people, you should be fine.
[1] https://x.com/CampusJewHate/status/1900001737014218888
Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by the current administration about expanding the grounds as well as increasing denaturalization efforts. The first Trump administration tried this but it was largely unsuccessful but it's a different administration and a different Supreme Court so I don't think concerns now are unjustified.
To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter....
8 USC 1451(a):
> a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation
According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).
Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No Years go by and the person gets a green card. The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable. The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member. Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder. Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org. Is the green card holder under threat?
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 arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."
The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.
As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:
> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.
Great points. The whole doc is vague and filled with trap doors.
Best to get a citizenship asap
Iirc not legal advice but there are reasons why some people may not want to apply for citizenship, if something has happened since they got their green card and they'd prefer not to have to have to put on an application.
[flagged]
Advocating for Palestinians isn’t advocating for a “terror group”. Which is itself a nebulous term that is used for political reasons.
Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.
> working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason
That sounds even more vague and broad than the definition given in the Constitution. But I'm pretty sure the one in the Constitution is talking about a clear and deliberate shift in allegiance from the United States to another group that is actively engaged in hostilities with the United States.
Are you denying that Hamas is a terrorist group? Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operations. Are you denying that October 7th was terrorism? Are you denying that launching thousands of rockets against Israel to kill as many Jewish people as possible is terrorism?
> Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operation
That is untrue
They are far deeper than that.
They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus
>They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus
That's...a new one. Are you sure you're talking about the same Hamas, aka the Islamic Resistance Movement? The one that, as of their 2017 charter, declares that "Hamas is a[...]national liberation and resistance movement"?
I'm not here to debate whether or not they're a terrorist organization, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to say that "education is their main focus".
Is calling out a right wing military state for bombing and killing over 14,000 Palestinian children terrorism? Just talking about it makes you the bad guy, huh?
Presenting it in those false terms makes you a bad guy, yes. Israel is not a "military state" and a left wing Israeli government would have carried out much the same military operations. "Children" were not bombed. Military targets were bombed. Many children died in consequence, not least because of Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way in an attempt to win over credulous fools, albeit some of them well-meaning.
There is no left wing in Israel, you are painting a false narrative. It is a fascist state run by thugs (much like ours, which is probably why they are so eager to sell out Americans to Israel).
Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals.
"Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.
The 2021 elections ended with a government of 61 seats, including 7 seats for Labor (left), 6 seats for Meretz (fairly hard left), 4 seats for Ra'am (Islamist), so 25% from what would be considered a "left bloc" from a Western viewpoint. Then Yesh Atid and Blue and White had 17 and 8 respectively, both centrists, so just short of 50%. So there most certainly is a left (albeit small) and a substantial centre. Israel has a pluralistic political sphere.
Israel's military operates according to the laws of war, which forbid targeting of civilians, but do not forbid civilian deaths.
In a sense you're right though. If by "left" you mean "peace movement", that was on life support after the second intifada, and Oct 7th pulled the plug. There will be no substantial peace movement in Israel for a generation. Many of those slaughtered on Oct 7th were from the hard left/peace movement bloc.
And to reiterate, yes, presenting things in those false terms makes you a bad guy.
Seats mean nothing. If there is a plurality and any kind of left movement there, what opposition have they given to the right? AFAICT, Yair's biggest criticism was that the war was managed poorly by Bibi.
80% of Israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. People are arrested for saying the oppressed have a right to defend themselves. You see videos of IDF troops calling for the death of all Arabs while they are on vacation. You see them doing crimes against humanity in Gaza war footage. That isn't a healthy society, it isn't a society with a leftist movement. It is a fascist bloodthirsty society, run by thugs like Bibi, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir.
Supporting them means you either naive or that you lack any morals. Which makes your "bad guy" accusation meaningless.
Yes, that's my point. Any plausible Israeli government, left, right or centre, would have conducted the war in roughly the same way, including the historical left governments of Ben Gurion, Meir, Rabin, Peres or Barak. Thus attempts to paint Israel as "right wing" due to its conduct of the war are fallacious.
I'm just pointing out that painting falsehoods about Israel and its people (as you have continued to do in your most recent post) does indeed make you a bad guy. I don't expect you to agree with me!
[dead]
Sigh...
Do the same people claim that arguing against Israel's interests in Gaza is treason against the US? Because I'm not sure what that makes the US government. Now imagine making this argument against a Russian immigrant criticizing Putin's regime.
You are deliberately ignoring the fact that Hamas, and their supporters chant “death to America” and hold AMERICAN CITIZENS under captivity. This is no the same
There's ample legal precedent in the federal system that a green card holder is a "US Person" for many things related to the federal government. For instance, a green card holder can form a corporation, own an FFL, register it with the ATF, become an FFL 02/07 (firearms manufacturer), and even become a SOT (special occupational taxpayer), to manufacture, buy and sell NFA items (silencers). The corporation owned by the permanent resident can even manufacture post-1986 full auto ATF-defined "machine guns", to be retained/owned by the company, as manufacturer samples for demos and sales to law enforcement within the USA.
Permanent Residents are also treated as a "US Person" for the purposes of FAA pilot licensing, up to the largest categories of multi-engine jet transport aircraft.
This doesn't address what recently happened with one specific Permanent Resident that's been in the news, but it's a very chilling effect if suddenly green card status people don't have the right to the 1st amendment.
This is patently false regarding firearms. In certain cases you may be allowed to purchase items, but FFLs and NFA items are only available to citizens not legal aliens.
You are absolutely incorrect.
Show me the law that says only citizens can own NFA items - there is no special regulation in the gun control act of 1934 which specifies permanent residents or citizens. If you can buy a regular 4473 FFL item (any serialized firearm post-1968) and silencers are legal in your state, a permanent resident can buy a silencer, most typically on an eForm4 from a local dealer.
Similarly, a permanent resident can buy an NFA item, short barrel rifle (SBR, sub 16" barrel, rifled barrel, serialized firearm) on an eform4 from their local dealer, as long as the category of SBR is legal in their state of residence. A permanent resident in a state with few or no firearm restrictions such as Idaho could buy an AR-15 or AK/AKM semiauto action based based SBR. If the permanent resident is in a state with restrictive new assault weapon laws, such as WA, they could still buy an SBR, but it has to meet the other requirements of their state of not being a state-prohibited assault weapon (such as a 10 inch barreled bolt action chambered in 8.6 blackout, as bolt and lever actions are exempted from the recent WA state assault weapons ban)
That same theoretical permanent resident can even own what's casually called a double stamp item, two NFA items attached together, such as putting a silencer on an SBR, if they have enough money to buy both, pay the $400 total in NFA item tax stamps, and pay their local FFL SOT dealer for the transfer. Exactly the same financial cost to them as for a US citizen.
If you buy it online, it will go on an eform3 shipped from the originating vendor/manufacturer/dealer to the inventory and books of your local FFL SOT, and then an eform4 to you.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-fir...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-ta...
You can see the "paper" version of the ATF form 4 there.
An alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa generally may not purchase firearms (except under certain exemptions) or NFA items. A permanent resident is an immigrant class status.
Quoting the ATF form 4:
Alien Admitted to the United States Under a Nonimmigrant Visa. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa includes, among others, persons visiting the United States temporarily for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a residence abroad, and certain temporary foreign workers. These aliens must answer “yes” to question 16.d.1 and provide the additional documentation required under question 16.d.2. Permanent resident aliens and aliens legally admitted to the United States pursuant either the Visa Waiver Program or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa requirements may answer “no” to this question and are not required to submit the additional documentation under 16.d.2. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is not prohibited from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm if the alien: (1) is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued by the Federal Government, a State, or local government, or an Indian tribe federally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is valid and unexpired; (2) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes; (3) is an official representative of a foreign government who is accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; (4) is an official representative of a foreign government who is enroute to or from another country to which that alien is accredited; (5) is an official of a foreign government or a distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State; (6) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business; (7) has received a waiver from the prohibition from the Attorney General of the United States.
----
You will note that the 4473 and the form 4 has a section for citizenship. Theoretically, a Canadian with permanent resident status typically provides their citizenship and alien number as part of the application.
See also, questions 35 through 38 on the FFL application form, which asks if you're an alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa. The FFL application form does not require you to be a US citizen. It does not allow for nonimmigrant class visa holders to be an FFL. Again, a PR is an immigrant class person.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license
https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download
Further reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick...
Green card holders are not citizens. Green card holders are essentially long term visas with citizenship grants for good behavior. They are subject to their terms (don’t break the law, commit crimes, etc.). These can be yanked.
Naturalized citizens are very seldom revoked. Usually it’s revoked when citizenship was determined to have been obtained fraudulently (foreigner or even attorney shenanigans)
> 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 by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.
> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.
CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc).
I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.
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.
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center - https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/ | https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... (page 12 of the pdf)
> The specific features of the constitutional guarantees of political freedom, due process, and equal protection further support their extension to foreign nationals living in the United States.
> Green card holders are essentially long term visas with citizenship grants for good behavior
No.
One of the major distinctions being – CBP cannot deny a green card holder to enter the country. They can try pressure tactics to 'convince' the person to 'voluntarily' give up their green card but, if they don't sign anything, they will still be let in. If there's something off about their case, they may be referred to an immigration judge, which is the only way to revoke a green card (barring some fraud detected by USCIS).
Contrast that with visas. They are entirely at immigration discretion and can be canceled at any time, including at the port of entry, for any reason. Visas which grant work authorization still have the SSN restricted and it's tied to whatever authorization the person has. A green card holder can remove the SSN restriction and their SSN is exactly the same as a citizen.
Really, the main differences are that a citizen can hold some offices a LPR cannot, the ability to vote, and no requirement to renew anything. And, most importantly, no residency requirements for a citizen.
As you point out, naturalization is more difficult to remove, but green cards aren't that easy either.
Actually they can.
For eg. Some green card holders live overseas. They are required to visit here periodically to keep status alive.
I know of cases where their green cards were revoked
That is a pre-indicated stipulation of the green card validity, not revocation based on the whim of an evaluating (non-immigration judicial) official -- ie CBP and DHS and ICE cannot (read: should not be able to) revoke green cards.
The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).
I see your point. Thank you.
I think most non legally inclined people (like me) would say CBP yanked my GC.
Your point being that - nope, they just enforced the law.
Right?
In cases such as mine, where I am no longer the citizen of any other country except the USA, what would revocation of naturalized citizenship mean?
I suppose deporting you to Guantanamo and detaining you there until your country of origin agrees to take you back would be consistent with the current administration's actions.
Green cards cannot be yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
That is true. What recently happened is that the Supreme court has determined that speech which benefits a foreign terrorist organization constitutes "material support" to that organization, and providing material support to a terrorist organization is a crime which can get a green card revoked.
Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.
But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.
Counterpoint: green cards are now being yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
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.
Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.
Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission.
Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
> Promoting a terrorist organization...
is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing.
He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.
I’m well aware. Read my other comments in this thread.
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?
On the I-485, which you file to get a GC, you have to answer several questions like this:
> Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States? > NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information
> Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e.
If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance.
That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings.
Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article:
> The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." > "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S."
Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.
[flagged]
January 6th protesters were all arrested with valid warrants and received full due process (until they were all pardoned).
Mahmoud Khalil was arrested solely on the discretion of Marco Rubio (the arresting agents thought they were revoking his visa when he is in fact a green card holder), he has not been criminally charged, he was been provided with little to no contact with his lawyers, as far as I've read he lead protests but there is no evidence he has provided material support to Hamas.
Comparing his situation to the January 6th protestors is the "falsest" of false equivalences.
Like most MAGAs, your ability to project false equivalence is unmatched. There were thousands of actual laws, passed by congress, on the books that prohibited the actions of January 6th protesters that were charged. Can you point to a single protestor that was charged that did not unlawfully enter the capitol building? There were thousands of people that were there protesting but never stepped foot in the capitol building. They were not charged. No MAGAts had their right to protest infringed on...they had unlawful entry, criminal tresspass, assault/battery, destruction of property, attempt to disrupt official proceedings, etc.
Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime.
That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.
Green card holders can have their GC stripped for committing crimes. If free speech becomes a crime then the GC is at risk.
Note - I don't agree with it but I think this is the logic the current administration is using.
Doesn't seem that this administration think they do. Pro free speech my ass.
Those rights have been evidently eroded and discarded as of recently
You got it wrong. GC holders are naturalised citizens because they went through a legal process to acquire it.
GC holders are permanent resident aliens, not naturalized citizens. Yes, thet went through a legal process, but citizenship is further down the road of that process.
Correct. One has to file an N-400 to get naturalized after obtaining LPR ("green card") status.
This is not correct. But I can't edit it :/ so I am just adding this comment here
> GC holders are naturalised citizens
Incorrect. GC holders are not "naturalized US citizens" and still need to apply for full US citizenship with the USCIS when they are eligible to do so.
Nope. Not at all. They put people on a path to citizenship, but they are not yet, till they are sworn in as a citizen. Residency can be revoked for criminal behavior, fraud, among other things.
[flagged]
Oh come on. Protesting for Palestine isn’t the same as protesting for Hamas and you fucking know it.
That distinction doesn't even matter. Someone can stand on Main St and shout "I love Hamas" all day and the government can (well, in theory) do nothing. This freedom applies to everyone on American soil regardless of their immigration status. The fact that people are being targeted and prosecuted by this adminstration is a complete breakdown of free speech and first amendment protections, supported by a republican congress and court system.
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.
Nothing prohibiting advocacy of nazis, from what I can tell, it's for affiliation with nazis. And its an entry/approval requirement, and there is a big difference though between entry/approval requirements and ongoing obligations. The government can deny entry/approval for a myriad of reasons related to unfavorable speech, but they can't infringe on the legal speech of a green card holder.
Regardless, the prohibition for entry/approval is against people who were associated with the nazi party or nazi-allied parties between 1933 and 1945, which is basically obsolete already. Anybody for whom that prohibition applies would be 98+ years old now.
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?
I agree with you, and I don’t know where on that line the Columbia student with a green card that was detained falls, but I will say there were plenty of protestors in the US who were supportive of Hamas. There was a group in Chicago, for example, that adopted the imagery of a hang glider on their protest posters, which were used in the Oct 7 terrorist attacks. So I would not be surprised if he did express support for Hamas, but I of course believe in innocent until proven guilty, and would like the government to have to show evidence of that if true.
Expressing support for Hamas is also protected speech, and that's not controversial in terms of 1A law/jurisprudence.
The government cannot and will not show evidence of that because they can’t. The guy has actual self-published records of his speech which contradict all of the hysterical hearsay claims that the right is making against him. The current government has no interest in the truth, which is why they moved him to a state where his immigration attorney cannot practice.
Yes, there were and are plenty of protestors that actually support Hamas. Fuck those guys. But automatically claiming that if you support Palestine that you must support Hamas is the exact sort of childish intellectual laziness that leads to and supports actual genocide.
[flagged]
I'm reading this link and don't see that in the post. Is this the correct link?
I do see in there a reference to Kymani James, so I did a search for him. I see that he posted incendiary comments online which he later recanted and were taken out of context when reported on. But, I don't see how your post indicates a connection to Mahmoud Khalil, and even if there was a connection, why this warrants detention and deportation?
Perhaps you didn't read the subsequent tweets? Parts 2 and 3 follow the link I posted and clearly say what they believe.
And I never said it warrants detention and deportation. I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas, and that he does not merely "protest for Palestine". It's well attested in the media that Khalil was a negotiator for the group but I can link a source below.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-s...
> I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas
The article that you linked says he was a negotiator for Columbia pro-Palestine protestors. Painting them as supporters of Hamas is a tired tactic intended to silence anyone who doesn't support Israel's actions. So much for the First Amendment.
[flagged]
Organizing an event that citizens choose to participate in is a clear example of benefitting the US, at least from someone's perspective. Someone who "encouraged," something can't be more guilty than the people who chose to do it - this is really about the rights and the conduct of Columbia students.
It's also important to remember that the government follows the public, not the other way around. The legitimacy of preferences among belligerents in foreign conflicts is determined through the equilibration of public opinion, and it's the end state of the protests and discussions (whatever it is) that legitimizes or overturns the lists, not the other way around.
From the perspective of someone asking about immigration law, this doesn't pose the question "to what degree should I do things that the people around me like," it raises the question, "to what degree does my perception of the preferences of the current administration take precedence, due to personal risk, over what the people around me would like me to do for them."
If my asylum application gets denied, what options do I have? I came to the U.S. as a minor and have little to no memory of my original country. I applied for asylum in 2016 and have been waiting for an interview ever since. Given my pending status, are there any other pathways to obtaining a Green Card or legal residency that would allow me to travel?
Edit Additional Question - Some of us like myself, came to the U.S. as children, following our parents after being forcibly removed from our home countries by authoritarian leaders who targeted us because of our "tribe". Despite this, the current climate often unfairly associates undocumented immigrants with criminal activity. How can someone in this situation avoid being wrongfully labeled as a “criminal immigrant,” especially in the event of an ICE raid?
Sometimes there are employment-based green card paths that can help for those seeking asylum but whether going down this path would allow you to travel would depend in part on your immigration history - what your status was when you came to the U.S., when you/your parents applied for asylum, etc. If you haven't already, you should speak with an immigration attorney to look at all options, including those based on employment.
That would be an employment visa, not green card. It can lead to a green card in some cases but it's complicated (depending on the country of origin it can take an extremely long time)
I am neither OP nor a lawyer at all, but I do have experience watching authoritarian regimes destroy a country in real-time. One of the most terrifying things to me is the breakdown in the rule of law, because you no longer have any expectations to plan against, and anything can happen.
I would never counsel against getting legal advice, because competent legal advice is going to be one of your best assets for planning every possible future outcome. But I would caution you that in this environment, you also need to plan for what to do when the legal advice can no longer predict or inform outcomes.
How do you protect people visiting or participating in YC from ICE? There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.
Given that the policy is in the very early stages of implementation we can expect those numbers to reach the hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands in the next few months.
> There have been two dozen stories of random tourists being disappeared for no good reason from all over the US.
Really?
That is frightening. I plan to be a tourist in the USA within a decade.
Can you expand on that?
It's BS. Random tourists aren't being "disappeared for no good reason". A "tourist" that overstayed by 2 years without applying for a Visa and/or started working here are being deported back to their home nation - in accordance with the law.
There's a tremendous amount of scaremongering, fearmongering, and misinformation being thrown about currently. Majority of it is very much over stated hyperbole.
> Canadian woman put in chains, detained by ICE after entering San Diego border
> She said the officer refused to allow her to go back to Mexico and ordered her to be detained. She was kept in a cold room at the border by CBP before being arrested by ICE, who placed her at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Mooney claimed in the middle of the night she, along with a group of 30 other women, was rounded up to get transferred to a facility in Arizona. CBP wouldn’t tell Team 10 the reason for Mooney’s detention, citing privacy restrictions.
https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/never-seen-anything-s...
> A German tourist detained by US immigration authorities is due to be deported back to Germany on Tuesday after spending more than six weeks in detention, including eight days in solitary confinement. Both Germans were held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, a prison in San Diego, California. Brösche and Lofving had attempted to enter the US from Tijuana in Mexico on 25 January.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/11/german-tourist...
The German tourist is a tattoo artist traveled with her gear. Based on another article (in German) she used a tourist visa but had clients lined up. She should've used a business visa.
[edit] Found an article with more info "[her US friend] told CNN that her German friend was joining her in Los Angeles to tattoo her. She speculated that immigration officials may have misinterpreted Brösche’s statements about the project as a declaration that she’d come to the US to work." https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/04/world/german-detained-ice...
As an IT worker I'm worried of cause because my 'gear' is a laptop and I usually travel with a laptop.
If you believe that's the entire story - walked across the border was arrested - then I have a bridge to sell you...
Well maybe not arrested. CBP has jailed me before but it wasn't an arrest since it is administrative. You can't even contact a lawyer like an arrested person can.
If you were right, they could easily clear the record by actually charging her. In several of the cases, they held people for extended periods rather than letting them leave the country which they really shouldn’t be doing if they don’t have enough evidence for at least one charge.
The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.
For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country. A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone - yet they were released back to their home country. Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?
Hi Peter, thanks for doing this over the years, when going through my own immigration journey reading through your past AMAs was a huge help.
For reference, I'm a Canadian who just moved to the US on a TN Visa and I've got a few questions:
- What would you say the percentage likelihood range is that the TN Visa is no longer an option for Software Engineers in 3 years time.
- With the news of USMCA talks reopening, is it advisable to switch to an H-1B visa?
- How long would it take for the government to eliminate the TN Visa, considering the complexity of the process?
- If the TN Visa is discontinued, is it safe to assume those already on it will be allowed to work in the US until their Visa expires?
I would never have thought that the TN would be at risk but if relations between the U.S. and Canada continue down the path that we're on, then I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. I'm not sure how long it would take for the U.S. to get out of the free trade agreement but if the U.S. were so motivated, it effectively could kill the TN very quickly, even if just by policy and practice. So yes, if you can, it probably makes sense to start looking at options to get off the TN, such as the H-1B (but subject to the annual lottery), the O-1, and the E-2.
Hi Peter, Thanks for doing this. I am a Canadian citizen born in India and ~ 6 months ago moved to work for a FAANG company on a TN visa from Canada.
The company applied for H1B visa lottery this year and awaiting the results for that.
My question is if I get through the H1B lottery
- How does it impact my options to switch employers in the future? Would I be able to work on H1B for future employers?
- My partner (Canadian citizen) is currently on a TD visa (which does not allow work) but actively searching for positions eligible under the TN categories. If my status changes to H1B, would she be ineligible for a TN visa?
Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)
In order of your questions:
1. The H-1B is easily transferrable to another company (as long as the position meets the H-1B requirements). 2. Yes, she still would eligible for the TN if you changed to H-1B. 3. That's the main reason; it's really impossible for Canadian citizens born in India (or China) to pursue a green card while in TN status (without jeopardizing that status). Also, under the current law, an H-4 spouse can apply for a work card if his or her spouse is in the green card process (specifically, has an approved I-140) and is from a backlogged category or country like India.
> Are there any obvious advantages of H1B other than eligibility for applying for a green card (which is a loooooong wait for people of Indian origin)
Was your partner also born in India? If not and you get married you can use their country of birth for the green card, even if the green card is being sponsored by your employer. Maybe you're aware of this but just to say if you're not.
ask company to bring you on a L visa. H visas are not a good option for transfers, only new hires.
Depends on how you look at this. L visas are not subject to lottery, but then that brings much more scrutiny from USCIS. Also, you are tied to your employer, you cannot change jobs easily. H visa, once you get it by lucky draw, gives you much more flexibility. And it's perfectly fine to use H-1B for intra-company transfer.
Thanks for doing this Peter!
I'm the founder of an early-stage company seeking to establish an office in Phoenix, Arizona. My situation has specific immigration complexities I hope you can maybe give some pointers on.
My spouse is currently subject to a 10-year bar from entering the United States due to an overstay....
We are exploring a hardship waiver (I-601/I-601A) but finding the process challenging while simultaneously managing my business responsibilities. I've been considering various visa pathways including TN, H-1B, and have begun the I-130 petition process for my spouse. Given these circumstances:
What strategies would you recommend for addressing my spouse's admissibility issues most effectively? Are there particular hardship waiver approaches that have proven successful in similar entrepreneurial situations? Could you advise on the comparative benefits of different visa pathways in our specific case? Are there any specialized resources or professionals with expertise in cases combining entrepreneurship with complex inadmissibility issues?
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 because of the green card backlog. How would one maintain presence legally in the US in such a case?
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 spouse's visa as a dependent). If the terminated worker was in H-1B status and filed such an application, then he or she would not have to go back into the lottery after finding a new employer. Because of the backlogs in most green card categories, a green card filing as a solution isn't a solution anymore.
> 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)?
Not at all; the job just needs to be related to the employee's education.
@proberts - not sure how that works, can you clarify? I know that normal B1/B2 visa in theory allows 6 months stay in the US, so is that what you are suggesting? If you are fired from your job then just pretend to be a tourist for the next 6 months? Isn't that obviously violating the stated purpose of B1/B2 visa, and asking for a ban to enter the US in future?
before the pandemic there were vans interviewing and hiring people from big layoffs. this last one was the only to ever do real damage to the employees.
Do Greencard holders have right to Social Security? What can you do if you are denied it?
Background: I was a GC holder and the expiration date on the GC was past due by the time they processed my application for social security. BUT I had also already applied for citizenship, and when doing that online the website informed me that my CG status was automatically extended a year or so because I had applied for citizenship.
I showed the Social Security Administration the printout of the document that showed my GC status had been automatically extended. But they denied my social security application with the reason "We have not been able to determine your age is > 64".
I had been to the SS offices several times showing them my actual greencard and my valid passport from my country of origin. The government issued GC showed my birthdate. Also I showed them the printed social security statement they used to mail me every year or so, showing my age.
So it seems to me I was denied social security on totally false premises. They surely were able to easily and reliably determine my age.
How can this happen in USA? Why would they do this? Do they have a standing order saying "Deny every application you can if it is an immigrant?"
What should I do? Sue the government? (I understand you cannot give an exact recommendation what to do in this case, but would that be a viable practical option?)
Thanks
To follow up a bit: I got my citizenship. Then I was approved for Medicare. Then I applied for Medicate part C and D with the healthcare provider Humana. Humana initially approved my application but then sent me a letter saying my part C and D was DENIED the reason being: "Illegally present in US".
I have never been in the USA illegally but always had a valid visa until I got my citizenship. So where did Humana come up with the claim I was illegal? I can only assume that Social Security Administration told them so, perhaps to cover up their mistake that they had wrongly denied me social security.
Should I sue Humana or Social Security Administration?
This isn't really an immigration question so I would recommend that you speak with a benefits lawyer but it's always a good practice when something like this happens to submit FOIA requests with the appropriate agencies to try to find out what's going on.
Hi Peter, I have a few questions:
1. I currently do consulting for US clients through a Canadian corporation. If I accept a full-time job in the U.S. (e.g., on a TN or H-1B visa), can I continue consulting for other clients?
2. Can I set up a corporation (LLC, S-Corp, or C-Corp) in the U.S. while on a work visa? 3. What legal structures allow me to maximize flexibility while working in the U.S.? 4. What are the best options if I want to move to the U.S. while keeping the ability to do high-paid consulting? Thank you for your help!I'm not Peter. IANAL so do your own homework. However, I have been on TN visas for almost a decade.
1. Once you enter the US on a work visa, you are only authorized to work under the restrictions of that visa which are normally tied to a single employer. The "I was working remotely for a Canadian corp" does not fly legally speaking. Wherever your feet are are "where" you are working. That being said, one little known thing about the TN visa is that you are allowed to have multiple of them issued for multiple employers. If you get one from all of your clients, you can continue working for those clients while you are in the US. Practically speaking, they cannot tell you are working remotely and your clients are sending payment to the Canadian corp. However, if audited, do not expect to ever be allowed back into the US.
2. Anyone can start an LLC. You do not need a work visa. However, if you do not have work authorization to work for that company, then you cannot legally work on that business.
3. This is going to be a matter of preference and what you classify as flexible. TN visas are very convenient and issued at the port-of-entry which makes them quick to process. They are also indefinitely renewable and multiple can be issued for multiple employers. The other visas you mention will take months to process. The rules to transition to E-2 are clear "If the treaty investor is currently in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status, they may file Form I-129 to request a change of status to E-2 classification."
4. Consulting is one of the most scrutinized jobs under the TN classification. I do not like being the bearer of bad news but obtaining a Green Card is now a 5+ year process unless you qualify for EB-1 or marry a US citizen which you can get right away. However, you probably do not qualify based on the fact you are focused on consulting. I am not an expert on E-2 visas so I don't know how consulting is treated under that visa but it may very well be your best bet.
Excellent responses. Thank you. I would add that the O-1 and the E-2 are probably the best fits to do consulting work for multiple companies in the U.S. but the O-1 requires a relatively high level of achievement and the E-2 requires a "substantial" investment by (in this case) Canadian citizens (which can include investments by you) or Canadian-owned companies and a business plan that shows the hiring of U.S. workers (citizens and permanent residents) over time.
When considering a candidate on an F-1 + OPT, what should be our expectation of their need for H1B sponsorship? What are O-1 and National Interest Waiver success rates for recent PhD grads (in computer science)?
Thanks for the AMA.
Recent changes to H1B allowing any organization that conduct research "as a fundamental activity" to be eligible for cap exemption status. What's your comment on this?
Based on your work experience with startup, do they ever fit this criteria?
Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process
The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions
For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No
Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No
Years go by and the person gets a green card.
The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable.
The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that
When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member.
Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder.
Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org.
Is the green card holder under threat?
You should read the actual questions on an I-485, they don't rely on declarations that any given organization is "terrorist" or anything like that.
Now, I think you're right that the statements are only required to be true at the time they were made. That said, if I can get you to look at the I-485 which one fills out to get a green card, and focus on the questions in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e, which cover what is essentially material support for a terrorist org, you will see that all of them relate to the group's actions. You can read the questions yourself here on p. 16 of the PDF for an I-485:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4...
So the only way the truth of someone's statements could change over time would be if the groups they had given material support to (e.g. money or recruitment) had only engaged in things like assassination, kidnapping, hijacking, sabotage, destroying people or property with weapons or dangerous devices, etc. after the person had already turned in their I-485 form.
This isn't very likely to be the case for various Palestine-related organizations that are doing armed resistance, since that armed resistance has been going on for a very long time now. But I suppose it's hypothetically possible in the abstract, and I presume one would argue this at an immigration hearing, since they have to establish immigration "fraud" and parts of that depend on what you knew and when you knew it.
Good points.
Thanks for sharing the link. Yikes! It looks like all of part 9 is in play. Ie one had better be absolutely truthful - or self decline, who would ever do that?
Also, the problem with the legal definition of “a disqualification requirement” is it can be vague and subject to change.
Would I be correct in saying that a strict adherence to USA law is mandatory?
IANAL, but if you've read all of the questions, they include some incredibly broad things like the one about having ever committed a crime, even if not charged, convicted, etc. that you can find on the I-485.
I've heard it said by lawyers that you're not qualified to know whether or not you've committed a federal crime and some of those are quite broad - see this illustration for a few ideas in that vein: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 - but even then, one "out" is that my understanding is that you have to actually commit fraud here.
So maybe if you violated some incredibly broad provision, but were never charged or convicted and literally didn't even know it was a law, you could defend yourself by pointing that out and arguing that because of that, you haven't committed actual "fraud" even if your answer was wrong.
But in general, yes, you should be honest on all the forms and engage with a legal professional if you're ever in trouble. I've heard that this area of law is all that well tested, so we'll have to see what the courts do with it. In fact, we suffered some significant delays in our immigration journey due to being honest, but I don't regret that one bit.
If a company issues a temporary visa for an overseas employee, and the employee overstays and cuts ties with the company to become an ilegal alien. Is the visa issuing company penalized or held liable in some way?
Hello Peter, I have a situation. I am on H1B and I am being forced out of my job. My wife is also on H1B. After consulting some attorneys, I have decided that I will move to H4 status under my wife, while I search for the new job. Will this protect me until I get a new H1B with new employer soon? What should I be cautious about? For what it is worth, I also have EAD through I-140 pending, but I am deciding not to use the EAD and move to H4 dependent as soon as my H1B expires when I terminate my job. Let me know if I have to be cautious or aware of any circumstances that can put me or my family situation in jeopardy.
That's probably the right advice, you don't have to be cautious, you can look for work while in H-4 status (or while an applicant for H-4 status). The issue is this: if you find a new H-1B employer before your H-4 change of status application has been approved, while the new H-1B employer can file an H-1B petition for you, upon approval you likely will have to depart the U.S. and reenter with a new visa (if your previous H-1B visa has expired) or reenter with your previous still-valid visa and new H-1B approval notice. The point is this: USCIS likely will consider you ineligible for a change of status to H-1B when your underlying status is not H-4 but an applicant for H-4 status.
Possibly too broad of a question but any insight you can provide on the definition of "work" in the context of being a digital nomad in the U.S. would be helpful. For example, if I am a European citizen who works for a European company and enters the U.S. on a B-2 for a 2 week vacation, is it reasonable to interpret the prohibition on "work" as meaning I am not allowed to participate in the U.S. labor market but does not prohibit taking a zoom call with my team back in Europe? The common sense application of immigration law is that it's not work for immigration purposes but I'm curious if you have a more nuanced take and/or any insight.
According to "International Digital Nomads: Immigration Law Options In The United States Abroad" published in The Georgetown Law Journal[1] some jurisdictions have specifically said that it is not work which is what I'm leaning on for my current (optimistic?) view.
"Directors of the CBP office in South Florida, a leading winter locale for visiting “snow birds,” recognize that “[w]orking remotely from the US for a foreign employer, by itself, is not a violation of B visitor status” so long as “the work is incidental to the primary purpose of the trip,” which is a permissible visit."
[1] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/immigration-law-journal/wp-co...
The last paragraph is correct and well said; as long as the trip is "brief" (that is, you haven't effectively moved to the U.S.) and your work-related activities for your European company are incidental to the primary purpose (that is, your primary purpose is not to somehow work for your European company), then you should be fine. Where digital nomads run into problems is when they're spending a lot of time in the U.S. and effectively have moved to the U.S. as a visitor.
That's interesting. I would have thought that any work, incidental or not, would be a violation of the visa. I've heard of people being harassed for e.g. doing work on their vacation property (e.g. Canadians owning US property) while they were vacationing even when it's something small/minor.
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?
- Once we have revenue?
Are there any specific visa pathways (O-1, L-1, E-2, etc.) that would be most relevant for him, given his background?
Appreciate any guidance on this!
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).
Hi Peter, suppose a Canadian founder got denied at the border for a B-2 visa and was asked to bring proof that they are not participating in the US labour market (ie. hiring in the US which they are not doing, they are just visiting their S/O). What kind of documents would constitute this proof?
Thank you for doing these AMAs, it's really appreciated and very helpful.
The standard documents are proof of employment abroad (in Canada) and Canadian bank account statements showing sufficient funds to support himself or herself while in the U.S. Also, something pulling this person back to Canada, such as a spouse or significant other or other ties and/or responsibilities.
Whats the best way for me to work as a Canadian citizen easily with not much legal hoops for the USA thanks. Math/Comp Sci degree with Physics backgroud.
There's plenty of remote US jobs that will hire Canadians, but most want you in country. Otherwise find a company willing to hire people on work visas and see if you qualify for a TN visa (an advanced degree related to the field is usually enough), then go to the border at an airport or similar with paperwork put together with the help of an immigration lawyer. They also might know where the best port of entries are to get TN visas approved. Sometimes (Canadian) land borders are better.
If you're looking for the harder but longer term route then try H1B.
Do you know if there is any specific order of processing for greencards? A friend of mine got their EB1a I-485 approved within a month, and I've been waiting for more than 6 months (mine was applied before theirs).
Peter, I'm a software engineer with a FAANG company, ~20 years experience and at the senior staff level. I lived in the US for a while with my family, and we all have green cards. Last year, we moved back to India (where we're from), with re-entry permits that are valid till July 2026. We'd like to continue living in India for a while (the next 8-10 years, till our kids finish school), but also keep our green cards so that we can move to the US afterwards without going through the Indian-citizen green card nightmare, especially for my kids. I go to the US every 3-4 months on work, my family less frequently. Been paying US taxes and no problems continuing to do so, but I don't own a house in the US. Is there a way I can keep my green card while living in India for 8-10 years? Or should I just give it up when my re-entry permit expires, and find a way to apply again?
8-10 years might be tough but definitely speak with an attorney to talk this through. Is this your first reentry permit because you can get reentry permits totaling 5 years?
Isn't the requirement 6 months per year in the USA minimum?
Sort of. You need to spend more time in the US than not, but even if you do 6 months every year, there's a high change you'll start to get tough questions when you try to reenter. Longer periods, it gets worse.
That said, the GC will only be taken away if (a) you give it up (you can be pressured into doing so though) or (b) an immigration judge takes it away (CBP can send your case to one if they think you are not living in the US)
This is why a reentry permit exists and that's what OP is talking about. It allows one to leave the country for two years and can be renewed (not guaranteed though).
[flagged]
Hi Peter - thanks for doing this.
I'm currently on a H1B and transitioning to an E3 visa. However, I did get married to a US Citizen and am also applying for my green card via marriage. I need to move to the E3 as my H1B maxes out before I can get a green card. I have a few questions:
* The E3 visa is a non-immigrant visa, but I assume getting married to a US citizen implies immigrant intent. My lawyers tell me it's not an issue as long as I wait 90 days after getting the E3 to apply for the green card. Does that sound right / any concerns?
* How long are you seeing current wait times for the marriage based green card end to end after applying? I'm mostly concerned about not being able to leave the country for 1-2 years (even with filing advanced parole)
* I'm also going for the employment based green card and we've filed my PERM (3 months ago). That doesn't really seem like it;s going to work out in time for it to matter. Does that sound right?
My responses in order: 1. The safest advice is to wait at least 90 days after entering the U.S. before applying for a green card; however, applying for an E-3 visa after getting married to a U.S. citizen involves some risk. If you are in the U.S. and just changing your status to E-3 from H-1B (and not applying for an E-3 visa), then you really don't have to wait the 90 days. 2. Until January 20th, less than 6 months typically although there was variation depending on place of residence. It appears, however, that USCIS is bringing back the in-person interview as part of the marriage-based green card application process and this will slow the process down considerably to what it was before, which was one to two years. 3. Absolutely; the marriage-based route should be much faster.
What citizenship will a naturalized citizen get if they lose their citizenship and where will they go?
Country of birth, if not a dual citizen
Not necessarily. People can and do get left stateless (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kateb_v_Godwin involves someone born in Kuwait but not a citizen); countries can and do reject deportations even of their own citizens (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/world/trumps-deportations...).
Nope! Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it. Middle Eastern countries have strict laws regarding citizenship; in that case, the person would have the citizenship of their parents. If one can prove legally their citizenship, that country is bound to take them back if deported.
#4 -> https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/38990/Sta...
> Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it.
That's great and all, but the problem still exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
> Middle Eastern countries have strict laws regarding citizenship; in that case, the person would have the citizenship of their parents.
Well, when Palestine gets international recognition as a sovereign state, that'll solve the problem. Until then, he's stateless.
"Kuwait's Nationality Law is based on the citizenship of the parents, jus sanguinis, (Article 2) and does not provide for citizenship based on place of birth, jus soli, except in the case of foundlings (Article 3). For this reason Al-Kateb did not acquire Kuwaiti citizenship at birth, and was thus considered a stateless person. Al-Kateb left his country of birth after Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. In December 2000, Al-Kateb, travelling by boat, arrived in Australia without a visa or passport, and was taken into immigration detention under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958."
> Nope! Citizenship is a basic human right. No one can be deprived of it.
Unfortunately not true. Yes, it's a human right. Yes, there's all sorts of international agreements trying to prevent it (because it's a real mess that nobody wants to deal with), but it still happens.
This is more likely for countries that force one to renounce their birth citizenship. Not all those regimes want to take them back even if the option is statelessness.
Any other remaining citizenship. If they had to renounce it as a part of becoming a US citizen (e.g. India requires it), they become a stateless person.
Stateless? Sounds new information
Scenario: A Canadian tech worker (software engineer) has been working in tech for 10-ish years, however, their University degree (general BA, BSc, etc) does not match the work that they've been doing. Would this person be SOL for a TN/H1B? To improve their chances would it be advisable to get a 1-year accelerated Master's in the field (CompSci, AI)?
There is a 3 years work experience = 1 year of degree study rule. You can probably use your experience (3.3 years of a degree) + actual degree to qualify.
That's right, for H-1B purposes, you can qualify based on a combination of education and experience (or even just experience) evaluated to be the equivalent of a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree (in a field related to the H-1B job). There also are a limited number of TN occupations where a bachelor's degree isn't required or an unrelated degree can work.
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.
Very curious about this as well. I've seen articles[1] that suggest that you canis engage in passive work, which includes activities such as:
- Conducting market research and customer discovery
- Discussing planned investments and purchases with prospective co-founders
- Attending and participating in business meetings
- Developing business relationships, such as meeting with investors and clients
- Negotiating contracts
- Incorporating a US company, applying for an EIN, establishing a mailing address, and applying for a business license
- Act as a passive shareholder or investor
However, my attempt to find the specific regulations or uscis policy memorandums that state these failed so I'm unsure.
[1] https://www.deel.com/blog/starting-your-own-business-h1b-vis...
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.
Would really like to know about this one as well
See my comment to OP
+1
In connection with trying to start a company, there are a lot of activities that can be undertaken as a visitor without a work visa. In fact, I would say that more often than not companies founded by foreign nationals are started when they are visitors. The line that can't be crossed is productive work for compensation but establishing the company, obtaining funding, meeting with potential clients, even hiring can all be done while in the U.S. as a visitor. That being said, the line between work and non-work sometimes is grey and nuanced so it's good to consult with an attorney to understand the limits. This is particularly important when traveling to the U.S. because it's at the port of entry where entrepreneurs are most likely to have issues particularly if they are traveling to the U.S. frequently. One form of protection so to speak is to establish the company with the goal of obtaining an E-2 or E-1 treaty visa; the visitor regulations are much more flexible regarding permissible activities as a visitor when the visitor is planning to get an E-2 or E-1 visa.
What if I have an H1B, but want to pursue starting my own Startup. What are the actions that I can undertake without jeopardizing my status or relationship with my current employer?
One of the main hurdle is I cant go an seek customers, as my profile would show an employee with my current employer?
The real issue in establishing a company while employed by another is that your current employer could have claims over the IP that you develop through your startup so while there are lots that one can do vis-a-vis a startup while currently employed by another company (or in the U.S. as a visitor) as noted in my comment above, I think the bigger issue is putting the company's IP and other assets in jeopardy by incorporating while still employed by another company. This is a corporate/IP law question so out of my area. As a foreign national seeking to start a business, I think it's as if not more important to consult a corporate law attorney than an immigration law attorney and it's also good to get them talking to each other.
Good point. A lot of people don’t know this.
If the company makes it - the venture can be in legal jeopardy.
With the rising tensions between USA and Canada, what is the second best route (after TN visa) for a Canadian citizen to work in USA?
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?
For a U.S. citizen who resides abroad (3 years, NRA spouse) with a single-member LLC doing consulting software work for U.S. clients, what U.S. address should be / can be used for the business address of the LLC? Registered agent?
Separately, I know many startup founders who have long-term software developers ("contractors", apparently...) in other countries like India, Brazil, etc. Paying them with whatever random popular money transfer service. It's common practice but is it legal or risky on the U.S. side?
This really isn't an immigration question but a corporate/employment/payroll/tax question.
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?
After reading this thread it’s apparent that our immigration laws and regulations are just as sordid and obtuse as our tax code.
Hi all
I have a general question that perhaps others can answer too. I am currently located in Switzerland but I plan to move to the US as my partner just got the medical license as a doctor in the state of New York.
My question is, as I am currently still located in Switzerland, does it make sense to already look/apply for jobs in the US from here? If yes, what's the best way to do so?
If there is a choice, does it make more sense for an immigrant visa to be sponsored by my partner or by an employer?
Hi Peter, thanks for always circling back to the YC community!
I'm curious about LLMs for the legal system that can reference the law and help to guide individuals on the process they need to navigate. How much of Immigration Law do you think can be navigated independently by people? Obviously, unauthorized practices of the law would be illegal *but if it was permissible*, how critical are lawyers in Immigration Law when people are cheap and want to DIY?
I think that the drafting of documents/forms, the development/drafting of arguments, and the creation of letters of reference are rapidly being taken over by AI and I think within a year, immigration practice will look totally different. There are a number of companies doing very interesting things who are offering this service to would-be immigrants/founders. The immigration lawyer's role probably will be reduced to determining the best immigration path, advising on job changes and international travel, and navigating criminal law issues but the execution of applications probably will be handled almost entirely by AI with double-checking by the lawyer of course.
Hi Peter, Thank you for doing this!
I'm on H-1B with an approved EB-2 via my current employer and an approved EB-1A (self-petition). I want to switch employers or take a break. I expected my priority date to become current in Q3 or Q4 2025.
Questions
1. If I switch to an H-4 status for a break, can that affect I-485 via EB-1A?
2. I need to visit family urgently and I have got a few offers in hand. Can I quit and travel internationally while the H-1B transfer is in progress and re-enter the US? My stamp expires in 6 months and my partner can mail the approved I-797. What are the general risks here apart from the mail getting lost?
3. Can a change of employment lead to issues with an AOS application in the future using EB-1A?
My responses in order: 1. Green card applications are prospective in nature, meaning they concern what the applicant will do after getting a green card so what an applicant is doing now, before getting a green card, shouldn't matter strictly speaking but switching to H-4 and stopping work could cause USCIS to question whether you intend to work in your EB-1A field after getting your green card. To be clear, however, the risk of this is low and USCIS's concern if raised easily rebutted. 2. Yes but you would need the original receipt or approval notice (combined with your existing visa) to get back in. Make sure to speak with the company's attorney about this/travel. 3. Unlikely, since the EB-1A isn't based on a specific offer of employment but as noted above, a change to a different field could raise questions about whether you will continue to work in your EB-1A field after getting your green card. To be clear, however, the risk is low that a job change in the EB-1A context would trigger an RFE by USCIS.
What are the pitfalls to watch out for when following the I-130 process? I’ve read a bunch about applying for a green card from within the US, but not as much good info for the I-130.
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 entering as a visitor and then applying for a green card when in the U.S.
Thanks. How much longer has this avenue taken, in your experience?
I have a Ukrainian refugee family under TPS, approved through 2027, staying in my guest house in Texas. There are rumors that the Trump administration will revoke the status of TPS peoples in the next month or two.
If this happens, my understanding is that this will immediately turn them into illegal aliens, subject to deportation.
Is my vague understanding true? Is there anything I can do to help them? I don't mind participating some civil disobedience if it means allowing them to stay in the country longer. Should I gate up my property? Any advice is appreciated.
It's super scary and awful. Although unlikely to help, it's always worthwhile to look at employment-based visas for those in TPS status or pursuing asylum. Sometimes there are solutions. But to answer your question, my understanding is that those whose TPS status has been revoked would have little time to leave and that would set forth in the revocation order.
Here's an article on it:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plans-revoke-legal-st...
> The planned rollback of protections for Ukrainians would be part of a broader Trump administration effort to strip legal status from more than 1.8 million migrants allowed to enter the U.S. under temporary humanitarian parole programs launched under the Biden administration, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
> A move to revoke the Ukrainians' status could come as soon as April, all four said. They said the plans to revoke their status got underway before Trump publicly feudedwith Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week.
> White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back on the Reuters report in a post on X, saying "no decision has been made at this time."
I have been calling every single person I know that has a Republican congress person and begging them to please call their congressperson on the matter. I have no idea if it has any effect. It certainly feels like shouting into the void, and there's about 1000 other things that everyone is angry about.
I feel so helpless in the face of so much chaos, incompetence and malice.
Even if it continues, there are many in the TPS community that will be stuck in odd situations that prevent them from daily life such as not being able to get drivers licenses.
The malice, the excuses for this nonsensical system, and more have permanently damaged some of my close relationships. It's times like this when people show who they truly are at heart.
I'm a citizen, but I work with folks who are from India and are in the Green Card system. They have application dates going back all the way to 2015. They constantly tell me stories of how the date for being able to get your GC changes and that some people think for Indians it's going to take 20 more years. Can you explain how that works and what's going on there?
Only about 7500 or so Green Cards are issued every year to Indians in each employment based category (capped due to the per-country cap that's applied to India, China, Mexico) in each of the few employment based categories. The number of people who have applied for these categories in the last 10-15 years is much more than 7500 a year, typically almost 10x, so the line moves at a glacial pace, usually moving a month every year.
The line for EB-2 and EB-3 (where most Indians are) is currently servicing those who applied in Summer 2012. So if your colleague got in the line in say Summer 2015, that's 36 months away. At the current pace it could easily be 20-40 years before their turn comes.
Also remember that there was a massive tech boom in the 2014 to 2019 period, so a LOT more people applied during that time so the movement of the line will slow down even beyond the current 1 month per year rate. If your colleagues applied in 2016 or beyond they are unlikely to get it in their lifetime unless the per-country caps are removed.
Finally, you'll sometimes hear the word "retrogression". That refers to the line actually moving "back". This happens because the date that the USCIS announces as the "pointer" to who is being issued cards is an estimate based on the recent green card issue rate.
Sometimes it can move back if they had to issue more green cards than they expected to (since people can apply for spouse and kids together when their turn comes).
Sometimes it moves forward faster if the number of people they expected to apply for the final processing stage turns out lower than their estimation.
Peter, I'm curious as to the easiest way for Australian founders to get a long stay visa and work permit for the US while working for their own (Delaware) company?
For Australians, even Australian founders, it's always worth looking at the E-3; this is even truer now that USCIS has said that under certain circumstances founders can get H-1B visas (and the E-3 is similar to the H-1B). The other options for Australian founders are the E-1 or E-2 treaty visa or the O-1 visa but these take a lot longer to prepare and are much more expensive than the E-3. But if you are inclined to explore the E-3 path as a founder, then absolutely consult with an attorney who has handled E-3s for founders (and there are lots of attorneys who handle visas for Australian founders).
thank you
My company is actively in the PERM process for me, but I'm worried that things will go wrong (for example, failed recruitment) and I'll need to start from scratch. Would it be advantageous to apply for NIW on my own, and could there be any problem with doing both at the same time?
Hey Peter! In the current climate, what steps would you suggest for foreign-origin workers to stay safe from being detained? I know some of my foreign-born friends are carrying their EADs with them in case they are stopped by ICE, but in some statuses (e.g. H1B) that is harder to do, as you'd have to carry around your passport.
Hi Peter,
What are the legal ways US graduates in F1-OPT and F1 STEM OPT start their startup in the form of LLC. I found conflicting information that F1 OPT holder can own/start a LLC but cannot actively work or mange it.
How do I even launch my startup if I legally cannot be the owner of it?
I always tell F-1 students that if they look at the guidance from 10 different schools, they will get 10 different answers on whether and how a student on OPT and STEM OPT can start their own/can work for their own business. But the law is clear, it's 100% fine while in OPT status and 100% fine in STEM OPT status under certain circumstances. My only advice is that before talking to your international student office, talk to an immigration attorney so that you don't misstep.
Thanks Peter for the response. School's DSO seem to be less knowledgeable on the subject matter they are advising on.
Hi Peter, Thanks for doing the AMA. I have a general question/request, but I understand if you think it is not a relevant topic for this AMA.
A lot of people tend to equate foreign workers on work visas with "cheap labor", especially in the so called "white collar" jobs; even though there are things like labor market tests and/or minimum salary requirements which have to be satisfied for many employment based visas. Can you please dispel/corroborate this based on your experience with employment based visas?
My experience like all lawyers is in the end limited and limited to my clients and cases but I can tell you that for my corporate clients looking for talent, salary is usually the least important factor, meaning that they are not looking to pay the least but to find the best employee or at least a highly qualified employee. The competition for talent seems so fierce that my clients do not seem interested in lowballing great candidates. Now this might be limited to the high-end/"white collar" H-1B jobs, as you note above, and not the entry-level/grinder jobs.
Hi Peter, thanks for doing this! I've heard from a couple of people that O-1a petitions are not as smooth as before. Many people getting RFEs even if the lawyers told them the case was strong. Is one article on a major newspaper normally enough to tick the coverage requirements? Having the agent type O-1 makes it easier to change companies? Some say yes, some say all the companies need to be listed when filing the petition. Thanks!
I haven't seen adjudications of O-1 petitions becoming more difficult but my experience, like everyone's experience, is anecdotal. The regulations are unclear/inconsistent on whether a singular instance of a criterion (media, publications, awards, etc.) is enough to meet that criterion but in my experience, yes (although multiple instances is always better). Once someone has obtained one O-1 visa, it's generally very easy to get the next O-1 (and much cheaper, easier, and faster than getting the first one). That applies whether the first O-1 was a company O-1 or an agent O-1.
Hi Peter Are there any legal ways to earn money outside of my employer on H1B, at all?
I am French, and I will incorporate in Delaware. Is the ESTA dangerous in this case, for example, if I go to SF in June?
That depends entirely on what you will be doing when in the U.S. While you can't work in the U.S. as a visitor, there are lots of activities that you can engage in as a founder while in the U.S. as a visitor. See one of my responses above regarding permissible activities as a visitor.
Could you please share your contact details so I can reach out to you for legal assistance if needed?
Hi Peter, I cofound a startup with my friend (US citizen). I am Canadian. What is possible path for me to work in US? TN1 visa requires not self-employment so my startup cannot sponsor me a letter. Thanks
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?
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?
Is it basically impossible to move to the US as a UK Citizen without a degree?
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 I be unable to travel abroad while waiting for parole/adjustment of status? Thanks so much!
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.
I think I qualify for EB-1C, but does one need to be present and already living in the US to apply for it, or can that happen from the current country of residence?
Or is the general path: L1 -> Move -> Apply for EB-1C once migrated.
Most people go the EB1C green card route after they are in the U.S. in L-1A status but that's not required; the entire green card process can be done while the applicant is outside the U.S. and not yet employed by the U.S. company.
Is it recommended or not? I've heard anecdotally that going through the Consular services to obtain EB1C is not recommended - because you can get denied easily without any protections you might get from being in the US.
You don't have protections in the US per se. If you are on a visa, your visa will remain valid and continue on its own terms. Your GC application is orthogonal.
If I have no bachelors degree and I'm trying to prove 12 years of experience, how does this affect if my changes, I do have the 12 years, but it seems arbitrary to define if they count or not.
Thank you very much for the feedback.
The 12 years of previous full-time experience has to be documented with employment verification letters and the experience needs to be at a professional level.
Hi Peter, thank you for your time.
On an L1-A visa, can my company file my perm while I return home to get a new L1 visa (my visa is expiring and the date on I-129s is the same as the visa expiration date)?
Hey Peter. Is there any way to confirm whether a request to USCIS to bump a case from F2A to IR was recevied or acknowledged? We haven’t received any 797-C or any other confirmation. Thanks!
Yu won't receive anything in writing; sometimes by calling USCIS and escalating to a supervisor, this can be confirmed.
Thank you Peter! (not just for this answer, but for doing these AMAs in a regular basis!)
Would it help to send all correspondence to them as certified or registered mail so you can prove they have received your application?
I want to make a paid internship with a US based startup (still need to find a company). What is the path of least resistance in terms of visa?
I am a founder for an early stage startup on H1B. The prevailing wage for a CEO is extremely high in California and will burn my companies runway. It it possible to just show on work part time 20hrs a week in order and get an hourly wage the meets the prevailing wage requirement?
If the Trump administration is successful in ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, what actually happens to those kids who were born here? Could they end up in a "The Terminal" situation where no country will claim them?
Don't most countries grant citizenship to children of parents from that country? I'm sure there's lots of bureaucratic issues if they were never recorded in the parent's country though.
What's your favorite taqueria?
How risky is the E-3 to Eb1 green card path for moderately successful founders in this current political environment?
Do you mean because the E-3 visa not a dual intent visa?
Can foreign streamers stream in the US on a tourist visa?
Can you open a business in USA without being there, living there? Greetings from Kosovo!
Not Peter but yes. The U.S. is pretty easy to incorporate in from overseas, many agents offer the service, such as Stripe Atlas and Firstbase. Keep in mind, the U.S. tax system is much more complicated than most other nations so unless you specifically need a U.S. entity, pick a country with friendlier tax laws.
Opening a business is easy but opening a legit bank account with brick and mortar presence seem to be difficult.
We are a group of 3 founders. One with J1 Visa, one with H1B and me (outside the US).
We would like to incorporate in Delaware and I know this is no problem for me, but we are trying to figure out how the other two founders can legally work on the company when established.
Any advice? Thanks Peters.
They would need work visas and (assuming that they don't qualify for a country-specific visa) the potential options are the H-1B and O-1 (and possibly the E-2 depending on their countries of citizenship and other factors). Because this analysis is so fact-specific, you will need to have a consultation with an attorney to explore the options.
Thanks! We'll consult one.
Quick follow-up: In principle, would it be possible for them to keep their current job while working on the startup, or would they need to leave it entirely?
Hi Peter, thanks for doing these AMA.
I was counted against the H1-B cap in 2017 and worked for about 3 months before I left the states.
Would I be able to use the rest of my time now if I were to get a job in the states?
It's not guaranteed but likely yes; we've done H-1Bs (without having to go through the lottery again) for foreign nationals who haven't been in H-1B status for nearly 10 years.
Why move at all when you have no tax or medicare liability signing w8ben?
How isn't ICE the American secret police?
does H-1B transfer need valid passport? Would pending asylum documents would suffice?
Not necessarily. Other documents can satisfy this requirements. What asylum documents are you referring to?
Hey, What is the best option for someone working in NL to immigrate to US.
Should I go via H1B route or ?
The answer will depend on your countries of citizenship and your qualifications and the work that you will be doing in the U.S. including whether you will be working for your own company or another company. Assuming that no country-specific visa is available, the standard options are the H-1B and the O-1 (and depending on a variety of factors, the E-1, E-2, and L-1).
As a Canadian Citizen with a extra serving of Melanin, what are the chances of my getting detained by ICE when visiting my family in USA for a week ?
https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...
Edit : fix typo Also added context.
If you cross into the US at a port-of-entry and are admitted as a visitor then you are good whether or not you took Melatonin supplements. If you enter illegally or associate with people who entered illegally, don't be surprised if you are caught up in a raid. However, even if you get detained, if you have no criminal history, you will get released after arrested because there are no more beds [1].
Seriously though, if you are going to make a cheeky reference to race, at least get the reference right. Melanin is responsible for darker skin [2].
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/ice-seeks-more-bed-space-detainee-n...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin
Love you AMAs been so helpful. Do you think did O1 get harder. How do you see changes through the Trump administration?
Other than national interest waiver petitions, which were getting harder before the change in administration, I haven't seen anything getting harder and in fact it seems that USCIS is more receptive now to EB1A filings.
If a transgender software engineer who is a US citizen applies for asylum in a non-US country, are they at risk of losing their US assets (e.g. a home) or having their US accounts frozen?
I can only respond about the potential U.S. immigration impact but there is nothing in the law at present that would allow the U.S. Government to take away your citizenship. It's unbelievably upsetting and shocking, to me at least, that a U.S. citizen would ever have to seek asylum in another country but that's the world we're living in now so it's a fair question.
hi I have a friend in a tricky situation wondering if you could help.
he and another founder are both technical cofounders.
he decided to be CTO and the other CEO but he is the only director in delaware c corp.
The CTO is Canadian and CEO is American.
However, CTO found out the CEO wasn't doing in his role. He wasn't committing code and also not contributing to executing, just sitting on his linked in private messages as some way to promise potential investor interest. So to protect the IP, CTO decides to block CEO from accessing github until he can explain and negotiate what to do next.
CEO used this as an excuse to terminate the CTO and acquire the IP by automatic buyback and claim ownership of the IP.
CTO is currently lawyering up and plans on filing injunction against CEO who acted in bad faith.
Will the CTO have trouble getting visas in the near future? It's clear the legal dispute will become public very soon.
Both Musk and Vivek initially supported H1B, and saw massive backlash in the conservative communities. So much so that Vivek left (was removed?) from DOGE and went to run for Gov now with a largely sour taste in MAGA people’s opinions. Pointing to me that H1B is advantageous for employers but deeply unpopular with the majority of voters this last election.
Do you see the Administration taking on H1B changes in a big way or letting this slide?
You can’t expect any sane policy decisions from this administration. They’ll target whatever gets them the clicks/votes/engagement. It’s like the bad clickbait but in governance.
It's so hard to say but looking at what they tried to do last go-round might provide some insight and this included dramatically changing the prevailing wage requirements (didn't happen) and tightening the adjudication of H-1B petitions (happened). But the U.S. economy relies on foreign workers in general and H-1B workers in particular so I think in the end, there will just be some tinkering around the edges.
The administration is mainly implementing project 2025. You can look up this tracker to see if they plan changes there: https://www.project2025.observer/
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
When have corporations cared for population? They exist to make money and they will try to abuse the outdated system as much as possible.
[flagged]