[proberts]

An H-1B might still be an option. Ownership is not a bar unless it rises to a controlling interest.

[mehta]

Thanks for the answer! A followup question:

So would something like this work?

Owner 1 (<50% ownership, say 49%) on H1b

Owner 2 (<50% ownership, say 49%) on H1b

Investor 1,2 (>0% ownership, say 2%)

(I understand that things vary from case to case but trying to get general idea here)

[proberts]

That's the general idea but USCIS also will want to see a board of directors that neither you nor your co-founder can control so if the two of you are on the board, there needs to be a third board member at a minimum.

[suryacom]

Then it is a non-starter, right? If you are starting a company, then you do have controlling stake.

[mattieuga]

Just needs to be <50%

[mehta]

yeah, this is my line of thought as well. But it gets complicated when there are two co-founds in the same boat :)

[MacsHeadroom]

[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am especially not your lawyer, or anyone else's. This is not legal advise. I recommend anyone in this situation retain an attorney and ask them for legal advise on this subject.]

Get an angel check. One share in a billion leaves neither cofounder with a controlling interest.

For what it's worth, I recommend giving more like 2% for a sole angel, assuming their contribution runs little further than satisfying this control problem. But technically speaking, whatever somebody agrees to should solve the control problem.

[mehta]

not if there are multiple co-founders and possibly some investors involved.

[suryacom]

The fact that you are suggesting this itself is a joke. I would never suggest any one with a family from India on H1B to start a company.

Because failure is not an option. If then, `he` will have to find another job in 10 days or leave the country.

[argonaut]

Failure never happens instantly. You know exactly when you are going to run out of investment or personal savings, and can plan accordingly.