As an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is incredibly welcome news.
"The proposed rule is open for public comment for 45 days, allowing stakeholders to provide valuable feedback to DHS before the final rule is ultimately published. (We encourage you to read the details and submit your comments.)"
And from the proposal [0]:
"You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by e-mail at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS docket number USCIS-2015-0006 in the subject line of the message."
Hi, I'm doing research on this topic to draft a public comment for USCIS and I'd like to request everybody's input:
-Is it reasonable to limit this to only 3 founders per company, or should it be 4?
-Reasonable for a successful founder to own at least 10% at the end of the 2 year period (which could be 5 years after founding the startup)?
-Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
-Is $500k annual revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20% a good minimum requirement for proving "substantial and rapidly increasing revenue"?
-Will certain industries like biotech or medical devices be harmed if there is a requirement that the investor funding and application must occur within the first 3 years after founding? Are there some types of companies that take longer to get traction?
-Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
-Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
> Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
An international founder probably wants to come to the states for funding and scaling. Having pre-conditions on both scale and funding seems like a chicken and egg. Requiring funding rules out all bootstrapped businesses which are likely candidates.
> $500k annual revenue
The conditions feel like they select for small businesses like restaurants but filter out the potentially massive ones e.g. pre-revenue consumer facing like Facebook / WhatsApp or R&D heavy businesses like Biotech. Neither of these may see revenue in the first few years but have evidence potential in user growth, engagement or scientific achievement.
> Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
> Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
If a founder is wanting to relocate from a non-startup friendly region then neither of these are may have been available. IMHO both competitions and second-rate incubators are "playing at business" and distractions from the truly necessary steps.
As an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is incredibly welcome news.