I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
287 comments
·March 14, 2025proberts
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.
jjmarr
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?
proberts
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.
wahnfrieden
You don't think border processes are becoming uncertain now and relying less on precedence?
dmix
A land-border crossing in Mexico? 100%, yes.
radicalbyte
With all respect, everything happening in the US at the moment is "extraordinarily unusual" today.
Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".
leereeves
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 She was a Canadian trying to enter from Mexico, who had been told back in November that her visa was no longer valid.
RobertRoberts
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."
canucktrash669
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?
walrus01
Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.
blast
It cuts both ways. Many American friends have told me that they were treated aggressively at the Canadian border as well.
lizknope
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.
cmrdporcupine
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.
leereeves
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?
cmrdporcupine
From what I read, the Canadian consulate can't do anything for her.
They have her in their system, and she has no rights.
fuzztail
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?
yes_really
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.
proberts
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.
rayiner
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).
grahamgooch
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?
ggernov
[flagged]
dttze
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.
thinkingtoilet
Sigh...
goatlover
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.
walrus01
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.
ggernov
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.
walrus01
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...
mc32
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)
nashashmi
> 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.
walrus01
> 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.
mc32
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.
toomuchtodo
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.
outworlder
> 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.
grahamgooch
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
groos
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?
xpl
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.
whats_a_quasar
Green cards cannot be yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
hyeonwho4
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.
velcrovan
Counterpoint: green cards are now being yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
darksaints
Green card holders have a right to free speech.
sigzero
Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.
MVissers
Doesn't seem that this administration think they do. Pro free speech my ass.
wahnfrieden
Those rights have been evidently eroded and discarded as of recently
netdevphoenix
You got it wrong. GC holders are naturalised citizens because they went through a legal process to acquire it.
dragonwriter
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.
netdevphoenix
This is not correct. But I can't edit it :/ so I am just adding this comment here
rvz
> 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.
mc32
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.
SV_BubbleTime
[flagged]
darksaints
Oh come on. Protesting for Palestine isn’t the same as protesting for Hamas and you fucking know it.
paxys
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.
orionsbelt
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.
derektank
[flagged]
null
efitz
[flagged]
whatshisface
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."
abaymado
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?
proberts
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.
nartho
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)
darksaints
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.
radicalbyte
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.
worik
> 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?
Alupis
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.
gm678
> 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...
rectangleguru
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?
proberts
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.
alwaysanoob
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)
proberts
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.
returningfory2
> 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.
1oooqooq
ask company to bring you on a L visa. H visas are not a good option for transfers, only new hires.
Detrytus
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.
legohorizons
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?
darth_avocado
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?
proberts
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.
gist
> 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)?
proberts
Not at all; the job just needs to be related to the employee's education.
Detrytus
@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?
1oooqooq
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.
galaxyLogic
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
galaxyLogic
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?
proberts
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.
abrichr
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?
- Does the answer depend on the visa type?
- Are there any restrictions on self-employment or side income?
- Can I be a shareholder?
- Can I take dividends?
- Can I actively work in the business?
- Would an O-1 visa allow for more flexibility?
- If I move under a TN visa, can I later transition to an E-2 investor visa to run my own business?
- Should I aim for a Green Card as soon as possible?
- Is there a specific visa category that would allow this?
hervature
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.
proberts
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.
null
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!