Hmm, that's a tough one.
This can take from 2 up to 10 years or who knows how many... Can't do that on a Tourist visa, it's a "half measure".
You are right to reject the tourist visa option: it might work for a few quick visits to network and meet people, but it is not the best way to go if you are serious. And I have seen that when I behave in a serious and business-like way, I get serious and business-like results. (Off-topic: when I started being rigorous about claiming business expenses only for real business expenses and stopped telling half-truths on my tax returns, then I started making a lot more money. Correlation, not causation? Maybe. I put it down to an attitude adjustment.)
Back on topic. Did you prepare the E-2 visa application yourself or did you hire a U.S. immigration lawyer to do the work for you? Immigration work is 80% technical knowledge, 80% procedural skills, and 80% immaculate paperwork. That's why getting someone with deep experience counts.
(Disclosure: I have a vested interest in selling the concept of "hire an extremely experienced professional").
(Disclosure: I am not an immigration lawyer; that stuff scares me.)
Think about the category "L" visa. Executive of foreign corporation transferred to work at the U.S. branch. Set up a Swedish corporation. Create a U.S. subsidiary corporation. Decide to assign yourself to the USA to work.
Devil. Details. Etc.
These visa applications can be completed in 6 weeks or so -- this is what my immigration lawyer friends tell me.
However as you say, if you are looking for funding then it might be a problem, they don't say it but you can perceive it.
I'm wondering if getting the investor money helps to get your visa.
Does anyone know cases like that?
I had such a long waiting period, that all my energy and momentum was drained. A man with no face, trapped, with no freedom to move or express, waiting for a (seemingly at the time) life-scale type of decision to be made for him.
Really? As an entrepreneur, one shouldn't be so disheartened by the outcome of a process that is totally outside your control. Entrepreneurship is about taking risks, suffering setbacks, and getting up quickly after these setbacks. Not getting a visa isn't something I would consider a huge setback; in this day and age, it is possible to start Internet-based companies almost anywhere. And Europe isn't some backwaters area.
I don't want to sound mean, but to the OP: getting your visa denied isn't a big deal. Just start your company there, and when it becomes big, open an office in the US and stroll in like a boss.
While there are always exceptions that prove the rule, there is the rule. And the rule says that the internet industry lies in the SF Bay area.
Examine it under any metric you wish, quantitative or qualitative and you will end up in the same conclusion.
I have gotten more into this matter in a past post of mine: http://20minus.com/wp/2011/03/20/how-lean-startup-forced-me-...
cheers
And the way the USA is acting right now trying to pass draconian laws and police the internet for everyone, every sane company will/should be moving their operations to a progressive thinking nation.
I also don't understand why you are so upset. Just because someone else got the visa is no guarantee you would. You know that saying, "don't count your chickens before they've hatched"...
I have entrepreneurial friends in Sweden. Sweden is very progressive in terms of adopting technologies and you have a very strong set of techies and designers to boot. See Spotify, Klarna, etc.
What's the major drawback? Taxes. So, start your company in Sweden, progress it slowly, and then move it somewhere else (SF for example) if you really want to expand quickly.
http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad...
You wouldn't find it insane if colleges or employers made the same decisions. The decision of his visa isn't made in a vacuum--it's made with regard to everybody else who applied for visas, too. And that's a lot of people.
The problem is that there's a major disconnect with what the comfortable middle and upper-class people who make decisions about the immigration system think of as a "valuable asset to society" and the actual economic incentives for most people who want to immigrate to the United States. To use your corporate analogy, it's as if the hiring committee of a major corporation decided that there were so many applicants for jobs that everyone the company would hire should have the same skills and credentials that the people on the hiring committee have -- master's degrees and continuing education credits -- even though what the company needs to hire is janitors and security guards.
You don't think that people who come here illegally (or, best case scenario, who come here under agricultural visas that give them temporary residence and no stake in the country) to work in the fields or construction are contributing anything? Well, enjoy it when your food doubles in price, then. Or, more likely, enjoy your food staying the same price but the people who grew it don't have any labor protection laws or real roots in this country.
My point is not that we should just open the borders willy-nilly. But we need to have some kind of process for people who want to live here that doesn't result in decades of limbo, and doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's going to take up a minimum-wage agricultural job. And the process should help them become Americans. You know, like the process did for most of this country's history up until the 1930s or. That process did all right, as near as I can tell.
Going back decades, centuries or millennia, every American is an immigrant. It would just appear that it was good for you (in general), but not the newcomers.
Also not shown in the chart is just how second class green card holders are. You get a lot less due process for things. Also it expires after 10 years and you have to renew. Your renewal can be denied, they don't have to tell you why and you have no right of appeal.
Disclaimer: I am one of those dirty foreigners taking your jobs.
(12) Investment . An investment is the treaty investor's placing of capital, including funds and other assets (which have not been obtained, directly or indirectly, through criminal activity), at risk in the commercial sense with the objective of generating a profit. The treaty investor must be in possession of and have control over the capital invested or being invested. The capital must be subject to partial or total loss if investment fortunes reverse. Such investment capital must be the investor's unsecured personal business capital or capital secured by personal assets. Capital in the process of being invested or that has been invested must be irrevocably committed to the enterprise. The alien has the burden of establishing such irrevocable commitment. The alien may use any legal mechanism available, such as the placement of invested funds in escrow pending admission in, or approval of, E classification, that would not only irrevocably commit funds to the enterprise, but might also extend personal liability protection t o the treaty investor in the event the application for E classification is denied.
(13) Bona fide enterprise . The enterprise must be a real, active, and operating commercial or entrepreneurial undertaking which produces services or goods for profit. The enterprise must meet applicable legal requirements for doing business in the particular jurisdiction in the United States.
(14) Substantial amount of capital . A substantial amount of capital constitutes an amount which is:
(i) Substantial in relationship to the total cost of either purchasing an established enterprise or creating the type of enterprise under consideration;
(ii) Sufficient to ensure the treaty investor's financial commitment to the successful operation of the enterprise; and
(iii) Of a magnitude to support the likelihood that the treaty investor will successfully develop and direct the enterprise. Generally, the lower the cost of the enterprise, the higher, proportionately, the investment must be to be considered a substantial amount of capital.
(15) Marginal enterprise . For purposes of this section, an enterprise may not be marginal. A marginal enterprise is an enterprise that does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living for the treaty investor and his or her family. An enterprise that does not have the capacity to generate such income, but that has a present or future capacity to make a significant economic contribution is not a marginal enterprise. The projected future income-generating capacity should gen erally be realizable within 5 years from the date the alien commences the normal business activity of the enterprise.
I can understand the desire for a start up visa (I would support one) but it doesn't currently exist. Just because you have a friend in France who slipped one by the USCIS doesn't mean that anyone else will be able to.
If you can get $1,000,000 together, check out the EB-5 visa. Another common tactic is to get a business started in your own country and then use an L to open a branch in the United States.
Initially, I talked to a lawyer about 'doing it right' - but concluded that I would have spent as much time describing it to the lawyer as writing the application myself.
One key point : You must be planning to create a company, not 'do a startup'. Have a business plan, with milestones. Quantify the investment, and project how it will pay back. Rent some office space, and have a contract. The embassy isn't in the business of understanding the Lean Startup experimentation process. They are interested in definite plans to grow a business (and employ Americans, too).
Of course, some of these points in the business plan may have a large 'error bar' on them. But you need to show to the Embassy that you're not crazy - and that they could not be labelled a 'soft touch' for granting the visa. There's no point trying to "slip one by the USCIS" : If that's the way you're thinking about it, that's the way it will appear.
To get the visa, you have to satisfy the regs. To satisfy the regs, you must have documentation that proves that each point, and subpoint, is satisfied. Each of these pieces of evidence needs at least 1 official piece of paper or a whole bunch of other justification.
Hope this makes sense.
They don't want someone coming in to go to San Francisco and network, pitch to investors, rapidly iterate till you find market fit, etc.
I think they should allow educated, motivated people to come into the country and give it a shot, but that's just not how the law is right now.
Further to the idea of coming over to SF and couch-surfing while iterating : The UCSIS wants to see 'CEOs' coming over. So that's what you need to give them. Your friends/fellow hackers may be surprised at the suit and distinguished haircut : But the picture you have to present at the Embassy (and through the documents) is one of business success being a forgone conclusion.
It goes beyond what you might do to impress a VC-like investor (who may also take a casual approach as some kind of signalling too). The UCSIS person is also getting 'invested' in your company. And they want to know that they're going to get their money back for sure. There's no equity upside for the UCSIS : They're much more like a debt investor/bank manager.
As an european I sadly see everyone from this side of the world trying desperately be part of the new startup gold rush in the US. Fund startup, get VC money, sell it, ???, profit.
Not very long time ago, I was like you too. I wanted so much to move to SF and build my startup or be part of one. But now, I don't care. Why ?
1 - I can incorporate my company in Delaware right from my living room.
2 - I can have hire good professionals from around the world to work with me (looking at 37signals as a role model)
3 - And quite frankly, the position of the US regarding european citizens that want to live and work in the US is too restrictive and amazingly elitist. Not even Mordor is that hard travel to. I just wished other countries had the same mesures/restrictions as they do for US citizens that want to live and work abroad. Europe (although lots of americans couldn't even put it on the map) isn't made of third world countries.
4 - Also, lots of good startups are operating in this side of the world.
So, why are you giving the US all the credits for your work ? If they don't want you, screw it. It's not the end of the world, and your can pretty much do the same thing here as you would over there.
As a developer and founder of a new born company, I feel like we need to show the world that europe is a good place to fund a startup, we might not have the YC or other popular investors, but if more and more startups got created here, maybe they would start looking for us.
http://gigaom.com/2011/12/27/why-berlin-is-poised-to-be-euro...
I hope this helps!
Greg
I suppose that the things that matters are mostly monetary and boil down to "how much money do I need to pony up in the beginning stages?". On the other hand, if I had to move, I'd move only to a country where I know that I will not refused medical care for any reason and it is unlikely that I can end up in jail or being detained for wearing the wrong t-shirt. Oz?
PS: the website has a .com domain. Ah, irony of being refused a visa from the US while still being somehow under their legal reach.
How might accepting a US citizen co-founder impact such a visa process? Does ti improve the the chances for success and if so why?
