EB-1: You must have been employed outside the United States in the 3 years preceding the petition for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation and you must be seeking to enter the United States to continue service to that firm or organization.
O-1A: very hard to get in business without either a letter from a senator/governor or a long history of speaking gigs (according to my immigration lawyer).
If you've studied O-1 recipients in non-business's categories, I think founders have it hard. I certainly know of some recipients in other industries and honestly the burden of proof was just not as difficult.
I was recently approved for an O-1 and have a less prestigious, let's call it, career than you. My O-1 was based largely off of open source contributions (several startups have started based around one of my projects) and funding raised for my own startup. Perhaps you need to talk to another lawyer.
The biggest issue is publicity. You need to be able to demonstrate public/peer recognition of your achievements, and I don't have anything which qualifies. I haven't heard of OS contributions being sufficient, but I can certainly see the argument.
The other (and apparently more common) way business folks get O-1 approval is an endorsement from a high-level government official. My lawyer was reasonably confident that if I could secure financing and demonstrate potential this would be possible, however I'm not comfortable working that hard for that long only to be held up on the whims of a senator in an election year, particularly since I couldn't incorporate without having status.
It's frustrating but understandable. The UCIS has no way to evaluate "Extraordinary Ability", so they can only go off your perceived position relative to your peers.
Yeah the publicity requirement is tough. In my case it's been a couple of projects I've started (one before was a finalist in TechCrunch Disrupt) and my current startup that have gotten press, but never me as an individual. Fortunately I was able to get founders from about 4 companies (both in the US and international) to write letters vouching for me, as well as a couple investors which helped. I'm considering whether or not it's worth it to try to get an EB-1 now, since it is stricter than O-1 and I would need to do some speaking engagements and get press naming me personally.
If was telling the truth that he has founded and exited several technology companies including one worth over a billion dollars, then there are any number of ways he could found a business in the US: E-2, EB-5, and yes the O-1A.
This girl is not lying, and has quite a good lawyer.
Being a founding engineer doesn't mean as much as you'd think to a non-technical audience, I have zero chance at an O1.
EB-5 requires me to be putting in 1MM$ of my own money. That's significant for me and more importantly not needed for the business.
E2 is the best bet, and I discussed this at length with counsel. The non-dual intent (same as TN) nature of the status though will put me in exactly the same situation in a few years. Expecting me to invest in the country, while not allowing me to put down roots, is ridiculous and not fair to my family.
Also, I do realize that it's technically possible to apply for citizenship while on TN/E2, but that prevents international travel. I need to be in Canada regularly to care for my parents.
edit: modifying original post to weaken "no legal way" to "no acceptable legal way". Anything is possible.
EB-5 you can do for $500k plus transactional costs and probably shouldn't go into the business anyway.
E2 absolutely agree it just feels like deferring the problem to a later date. A lot of exposure for not as much in return.
I think the bottom line is you don't need to be in the US as much as you needed to before, given your track record. Here the US should need/want you more than the other way round.
L-1A is probably quite doable though and it's dual intent. You need to wait a year, but that may have passed already anyway.
To get an EB-5 for 500K$ (which is more plausible) the jobs created and place of business must be in a “targeted employment area.” (high unemployment or rural).
An L-1A is an option a year from now (I've only recently incorporated), but it's hard to build a sufficiently large company to satisfy the requirements to sponsor without putting down enough roots that it's no longer worthwhile moving.
I think you've nailed it though with:
> I think the bottom line is you don't need to be in the US as much as you needed to before, given your track record. Here the US should need/want you more than the other way round.
It's just not worth it to go through the contortions and hassle required to stay and start a company in the US. In a connected economy I can get the full value of the education & networks I've picked up in the states from any first-world country, and create value there.
Though this ship has sailed (and I'm actually pretty happy to have been pushed into launching globally), I'm definitely curious. My linkedin id is on my HN page.
O-1A: very hard to get in business without either a letter from a senator/governor or a long history of speaking gigs (according to my immigration lawyer).