Because he is lying when he said the wait time is only 8-10 years. It is actually more than 100 years.
But, no immigration attorney will ever say that truth to the H1B visa holders from India. I had asked this exact same question to my company attorney 10 years ago and the answer was exact same, wait for 5-10 years.
There are around ~70k software engineer coming to US from India, and everyone of them is told the same lie by their attorneys.
While most of these folks from India wait for their green card for rest of their life, attorneys make a fortune renewing their H1B every year.
> Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time.
Lol. This reminds me of their highly publicized welcoming of undocumented immigrants after Trump was elected. But, once that count crossed thousand, they just shut their border.
Here is the detailed comment by "Immigration Voice" on why the rule is bad for everyone except special interest:
"...The new immigrant entrepreneur parole program will create a yet another class of immigrants, albeit minority partners and working resources in the start-up entity, who will be beholden and entirely dependent on the hand-picked venture capital firms to maintain their status in United States in the parole period and beyond as immigrant entrepreneur will have no clear pathway to permanent residency. The proposed rule does not present a clear and fair system in which immigrants will have the same rights as U.S. workers or U.S. entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Therefore, the immigrant entrepreneur will have no leverage to negotiate the terms of the contract and relationship with and they will be susceptible to exploitation in a novel way as proposed in this regulation. Even if a path to U.S. permanent residency is proposed, it will in all likelihood, be at the expense of the current backlog of employment based immigrants in the permanent residency process.
In essence, the new immigrant would pay (in the form of hefty investment in the firm) for his or her travels to the United States only to remain in bondage relationship to the hand-picked VC firm. If this is not a definition of indentured servitude, then what is? Worse yet, the paroled immigrant has no defined wage requirement as a worker in the firm and has very lenient “income threshold” (400 percent of Federal Poverty Level for family size - irrespective of the prevailing wages of the entrepreneur’s job functions) as outlined in the proposed rule. It is well known that such system only increases the demand for new immigrants because of their lower leverage and bargaining power in such relationships, while the American workers and entrepreneurs are discriminated against in the talent ecosystem.
In justifying the rule, DHS presents “significant public benefit” such as entrepreneurship and job creation by immigrant founders. This reference to various studies is grossly misleading in that DHS uses contributions of immigrant founders without crediting the fact that most of these immigrant founders had gained sufficient certainty in their immigration process by obtaining a Green Card prior to making a significant investment in the companies they founded.
The H-1B and L-1B programs were also created under the pretext of “job creation and innovation in the United States” and 25 years after the inception of these programs, the American high-skilled workforce consists of an estimated 1.5 million high-skilled law-abiding immigrants who are captive to their employers and cannot start their businesses and create jobs. This is clearly detrimental to the prospects of our fellow American workers who compete against the captive workforce of skilled immigrants who are favored by bad employers for their lack of job mobility.
For the purpose of bringing in more immigrants from outside, DHS uses the disguise of “significant public benefit” only to pile up fresh immigrants in the Green Card backlogs in which the new immigrants have fewer rights (as will clearly be the case with the proposed class of Entrepreneur parolees). It is ironic that DHS did not use the same “significant public benefit” arguments for providing rights such as job mobility and ability to start their own companies by high skilled immigrants, who already have approved immigrant petitions (I-140), understand the business environment in US, have great ideas (and hold patents in many cases) and have investments to start their businesses. But somehow DHS and Administration is very selective in applying the same “significant public benefit” argument for NOT letting people with approved immigrant petitions to start their companies. This clearly raises doubts as to whether any economic argument by the DHS in the rule making process is trustworthy. The proposed regulation ensures that there will be absolutely zero “significant public benefit”. Instead, the proposed regulation is only designed for “significant benefit of hand-picked Venture Capitalists”...."
The last 4 companies I joined (all fortune) allowed this. In fact they were pressing for me to start. As OP said, all you need is the application receipt.
I'm an H1-B visa holder living and working in USA for past 10+ years. I cannot express how much happier I'm to see the Tech industry being on the wrong side of the presidential election. The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.
Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.
[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]
P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.
>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.
The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.
The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.
>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.
That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.
> Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.
This is probably what suryacom meant.
Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.
Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.
The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.
Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:
> Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.
It was not. Please see my sibling comment.
Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.
In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:
As you know, our employment-based immigration system is
afflicted with extremely long waits for immigrant visas, or
"green cards," due to relatively low green card numerical limits
established by Congress 24 years ago in 1990.
...
The resulting backlogs for green cards prevent U.S. employers
from attracting and retaining highly skilled workers critical to
their businesses. U.S. businesses have historically relied on
temporary visas- such as H-1B, L-1B, or 0-1 visas-to retain
individuals with needed skills as they work their way through
these backlogs. But as the backlogs for green cards grow longer,
it is increasingly the case that temporary visas fail to fill
the gap.
...
To correct this problem, I hereby direct USCIS to take several
steps to modernize and improve the immigrant visa process.
After 2 years of dragging its feet on the issue, USCIS recently published its rule. It goes into 95 pages of legalese, but the TL;DR is that USCIS has not done pretty much nothing to address issues pointed out in Johnson's memo. The only good thing to have come out of it is what you said:
> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs
Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.
Thank you for sharing this. I don't assume you're a lawyer or anything, but does this mean that after leaving a job on an H1B visa, a worker has 60 days to potentially find another job?
It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.
Nonimmigrants in certain high-skilled, nonimmigrant classifications may
be granted grace periods of up to 10 days before and after their validity
period, and a grace period upon cessation of employment on which the
foreign national’s classification was based, for up to 60 days or until the
end of their authorized validity period, whichever is shorter, during each
authorized validity period.
The President is not a dictator (fortunately). Almost any attempt at immigration reform in the last eight years has been shot down by the House, Senate or usually both. There is only so much he was able to do without them on-side.
The problem with this reasoning is that "Immigration reform" is tied directly to some way of providing relief to millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants in the US. It seems like the legal immigrants facing the brunt of the current arcane immigration policy (mostly legal immigrants from India/China) are neither politically active nor have the required numbers to influence the Legislature/White House to reform these policies.
It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
> if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it
When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.
"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."
> I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
The original poster did not care about "immigration reform" at large (which in the US is a euphemism for green card / citizenship path for undocumented immigrants), just his/her specific scenario.
Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".
It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".
Do you know of Republican plans to improve this aspect of immigration? My impression is that their intentions are every bit the opposite. Trump has spoken against H1-B visas, so it's hard for me to picture him working to make the situation better for this category of visa-holder.
He has spoken against H1-B visa abuse versus H1-B visas per se, which is an attempt to arbitrage on Department of Labor requirement on "prevailing wage" by establishing headquarters in the boonies of New Jersey / Georgia, filing H1 applications with local (extremely low) prevailing wages, and then sending the workers on the "business trips" that amount to full-time employment to California, NY and Washington.
The prevention mechanism is fairly obvious, and it's to rank the H1 applications by salary instead of the current lottery system. Genuine employers like Google or Facebook don't need to game the system, it's the outsourcing shops employ this tactic to boost the margins. They're welcome to join the game by boosting their salaries, though.
From the US government point of view a US salary paid in the US is a net win over a salary paid in Ireland or Switzerland, as it's still subject to federal income taxes, so net win on revenue.
I have no idea. If Republican's tries to make the system better with the interest of American workers as priority, then there is a chance, it could help legal immigrants like me too.
With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.
There's always a chance, but, again, I think all the prevailing signals are that life will get much worse for immigrants, legal and illegal, over the next few years. Nationalism applies against all foreigners, not just those here illegally. Hopefully I'm wrong.
> I have no idea.
Also, respectfully, I think that you should have an idea how things are likely to effect you before you form a preference for one alternative over another.
But he does have an idea: that the Democrats don't care about this problem. Taking the chance to see if the other side does care seems like the reasonable thing to do.
If the other side hadn't explicitly stated their antipathy, corroborated by all external signals, I'd be right there with you. As for him having an idea, it seems like his own statement directly indicates that he's not very informed on this issue. I'll take his word for it.
English wasn't my first language and I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your analogy, would you mind explaining it in a bit more detail?
Irrespective of were one falls on the illegal/undocumented immigration debate, and what the possible solutions could be, what does your post have to do with immigrants who spend considerable time, money and energy navigating the US immigration system that may feel it a tiny bit unfair when others don't have to abide by the same set of immigration rules?
I would add that for many immigrants to the US, especially those who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the US immigration system isn't just a minor bureaucratic announce, it can be a significant source of financial and familial stress.
The story goes that when you throw crabs in to a pot of boiling water, the crabs on the bottom of the pot will drag down the crabs above them.
The cook doesn't even need to put a lid on the pot to keep the crabs from escaping, since as soon as any crab tries to escape, the crabs below it will drag it down with them.
Similarly, in the immigration debate (and in many other situations in life) those who are worse off often resent others who are doing better, and instead of helping to improve everyone's life, or at least focus on improving their own, will try to worsen the lot of those who are doing better.
This is an unproductive analogy, because it may be trotted out any time people complain about any unfairness they've suffered. "They're not really complaining about being boiled to death; they're really just jealous of the superior crabs who have been talented and hardworking enough to crawl out of the pot. Jealousy is bad so don't listen to these bad crabs bitching about being boiled."
I appreciate the explanation, although I'm still not entirely sure I agree with the analogy.
I saw both the financial and personal toll that navigating the immigration system took on my parents, it was a constant source of stress in the family. I'm sympathetic to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, and believe that immigration reform should include amnesty for those in the US illegally, along with a path to citizenship.
With that being said, I would find it problematic to apply a different set of rules and expectations for different kinds of immigrants. As I said, I do support a path to full legalization and citizenship, even though I would personally still find it somewhat unfair. I don't think that this feeling of unfairness is resentment though, and I certainly wouldn't wish for any immigrant's life to be made harder or worse off than my own.
I knew you were the poster from the other thread ranting about this system being rigged by immigration attorneys who are apparently making a "killing."
You are misguided on this matter and the criticism of immigration lawyers is misplaced
Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE. In it you see Rahul Reddy, an immigration attorney, discussing with a group of "body shop" owners how immigration reform can be bad for business and what can be done to lobby against it.
Immigration attorneys have much to gain by trapping more people in GC backlogs.
That is the sense I got from the Legal Immigrant Advocacy groups who directly worked with DC Immigration Officials.
There should be good companies and attorneys (for e.g., Murthy, etc.) probably they are out numbered?
P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify
I'm sorry for the hassle you've had to face in pursuit of a better life (assuming that's why you're on a visa here).
Unfortunately, immigration reform in the eyes of the ruling class isn't how the issue is presented in the press (shocker I know). One must question why an issue that seemingly has both party establishments blessing doesn't make it through congress and to the President's desk? The answer is the fringe of both parties thwart reform. Given they are a minority in the system, the only way they manage to keep the never-ending status-quo is due to the fact both establishments insist on passing all of these items on their laundry list at the same time.
The conservative establishment wants cheap labor (increased visa cap w/restrictive rules) and the liberal establishment wants votes via a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, w/the belief these voters will break overwhelmingly for democratic candidate if they were to participate in the political process.
The downward pressure on the wages of U.S. citizens which the increased visas (w/restrictions) would cause is antithetical to a liberal populist. A visa w/o restrictions would mostly remedy this grievance (with an appropriate cap), but you have a better chance of seeing a human land on Pluto in this century than that passing Congress.
On the other side, republicans who identify with the tea party or freedom caucus (or both) care more about their ideology than corporate profits, and their entrenchment in the political system would be threatened if a sudden influx of undocumented immigrants began participating in the U.S. elections. It's also worth pointing out that some of the backlash towards a pathway to citizenship stems from raw xenophobia; but I'd argue the former reason as the "primary" one.
The upper echelons of SV are no different than any other American industry, being that they will be apolitical with the contributions, and have press releases/tweets which they think will get the most positive receptions, which may or may not be congruent with the aforementioned lobbying. The giant tech cos would love for it to be easy for you to come work for them, on the condition they can pay you below market or at market rates (which they've manipulated substantially) w/limited or no mobility between employers.
On one talks about the actual issue with the H1B. I'm a H1B holder from India, living and working in USA for past 10 years. The actual incentive for companies is that, an H1B holder from India has less rights, they cannot change job or even travel freely outside USA (for decades). That gives the employers full control of the employee. Any guess why companies only recruit from India and China? Because, the country based wait time -- to become a US citizen -- is decades for these countries. So, consultancies will have no problem paying higher salary for someone from India or China.
Immigration Attorneys are making a fortune of this broken system; for e.g., every year my company has to pay attorney fee to renew my visa. Any time I change my job, green card process has to be restarted from square one..more cash to attorneys.
P.S. I remember when I first came here 10 years back I was told by the attorney to wait for 5 years to be a resident. Last year, in 2016, when I went to another attorney he too tells me to wait for another 5 years. So, they never tells the actual wait time is 50 to 70 years. Even the USCIS don't disclose the actual wait time. So, hundreds of thousands highs killed immigrants place all their bets based on the words of Immigration Attorney and get into a mess from where they find hard to get out.
[Edit]: In my opinion, a possible fix shall be to give H1B holder job mobility. I.e., if TCS/Infosys brings in H1B holders to replace American workers; and those H1B holders leave TCS/Infosys the next day; then that business model will not work to begin with.
Correction: You can change jobs, but the green card process needs to start again but you keep your priority date.
EDIT: You can change jobs to another "similar" position i.e. the job responsibilities should be similar. You can't move from an individual contributer to a manager position for example. In this case, the green card application will have to be done again.
> That gives the employers full control of the employee
Only if you let them. You are free to leave to another job, but many are risk averse. The employers expolit this; personally I am a risk taker so I don't see this as a hindrance.
> So, hundreds of thousands highs killed immigrants
Calling each and everyone highly skilled is questionable. A lot of H1B employees (and local employees for that matter) do not do highly skilled work, relatively speaking. I know this is controversial statement, but please be honest and avoid hyperbole.
What you mean by you are a risk taker? You have no idea what you are comparing here.
Will you risk your family getting deported due to a clerical error? Once H1B lose his job, he and his family has to leave the country in 15 days. Sell his house, pull kids out from school, etc. All this arises whenever H1B tries to change the job.
I've switched jobs on H-1B three times. All it takes is waiting for the replacement visa to come through before you resign. In each case I trusted my current employer and told them I was waiting for a visa for a new job, but I didn't have to.
Lucky. Every time I've switched on H-1B, I've been advised by immigration lawyers to not tell my current employer for fear of retaliation, along with anecdotes to convince me that the retaliation risk is real and happens in the bay area.
It's extremely painful secret to keep -- it's unfair to be unable to talk to coworkers about your future plans (as instructed by legal council), and one that detriments career growth (you're forbidden from discussing early on that you are likely to quit, at a time when it may be reconcilable with your current employer, and lead to better things: new positions, pay rises, etc.).
You're right about that. But sometimes the only way to get a pay raise is to get a competing offer. It is a risk to ask your new employer to file for a H1 transfer and then back off (at the risk of pissing them off). I haven't done it personally, but I know a lot people do it.
I usually drop hints about a pay raise or change of responsibilities and if my manager doesn't oblige within a reasonable amount of time, then I know it's time to leave. It's nothing personal, but if someone else values me more than my own employer I'd rather seek greener pastures.
If you are on H1B past 6 years, then you will need the copy of approved I-140 petition to get the H1B transferred to the new employer. But, H1B visa holder does not have access to I-140 petition; it is employer's property.
> H1B visa holder does not have access to I-140 petition
I have the I140 petitions from the two employers that I had applied with. This sounds like you are talking about consulting companies who hold their employees hostage. No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.
I expect the language of Rep Issa's bill for this session Congress to be largely unchanged.
"Exempt" H-1B employees are not counted when determining whether or not an employer is H-1B dependent. Generally, an employer is H-1B dependent if over 15% of their employees are nonexempt H-1Bs.
The old criteria for exempt status were:
(a) at least $60k annual salary
OR
(b) Master's degree
The new criterion proposed in the bill is:
(a) at least $100k annual salary
This explicitly targets companies like Infosys, Tata, etc. who use hordes of H-1Bs but pay them just over $60k or ensure that they have Master's degrees.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, et. al. will still be able to employ hordes of H-1Bs but they will be unaffected due to the high paying nature of the work.
Isn't that part of the mandatory public record that all H1B employers are required to maintain? Anyone can walk in off the street at your work location or company headquarters and ask to see it, including you. You might have to bring your own battery-powered scanner with you, though.
About the risk taking, I spoke for myself and not for anyone else. Life is not a bed of roses, I've accepted that. When I got my H1B visa, I was aware of all the risks it involves. I've said this in previous posts as well, nobody forces you to take an H1B, you chose to take it. It's like buying an expensive car and complaining that you have to fill premium gas. Well, no one asked you to buy one, did they?
Secondly, you are asserting that clerical errors are commonplace, where is the data for this? Anecdotal data doesn't count, since I don't know of anyone who was denied an H1B due to a clerical error. You might claim that you know a bunch who lost their visa. This discussion then degrades to a moot point without actual data.
I mean, it's the same argument for indentured service, which today is considered morally reprehensible. The point is not that the people who took that choice knew the risks they were taking. The point that the kind of situation H1B puts you into in its current form is not one that should exist, even if by choice.
But it is also true that many folks are not aware of these risks. I have many friends in the States on H1B, many are completely unaware of this. Most have good employers so I doubt this will be a problem, but there's not as much awareness as there should be.
> I mean, it's the same argument for indentured service
Everytime there is an article about H1B, people start flinging "slavery" and "indentured servants". Please be honest and don't analogize H1B hurdles (which I agree exist) to situations where people were actually killed.
Making an analogy does not mean equating the two. I'm specifically making an analogy between the "hey, you chose to do it" arguments that historically supported indenture and are currently supporting the unsavory bits of H1B. These arguments are similar. They share the fallacy of avoiding nuance in the choice (some people aren't fully aware of the choice. Some people may want to change their minds once they've settled in but can't do so easily), and they also share the fallacy of making choice matter in the first place -- people aren't saying that H1B workers don't choose this, people are saying that it's bad to make them choose it in the first place.
If you don't like the indentured servitude example, take minimum wage. If it didn't exist, many people would still be ok with being paid less. We have collectively decided that that is a bad thing. We have collectively decided that underpaying people is bad even if they choose to be okay with it. We don't say "hey, you chose an underpaying job over no job at all, you can't complain about it".
Choice is a red herring in these discussions. Nobody is saying that H1B workers were forced into this. Folks are well aware they made a choice. That does not affect the argument that part of the "con" side of the choice is something that shouldn't exist in our society. You're free to disagree with that argument, but the "folks chose it" is not a rebuttal because that was never the premise.
Actually, there's threats and downsides to the H-1B that AFAIK are not documented, so there is no way an employee can learn about them and make a rational choice -- other than hiring their own immigration lawyer and having them step through the bad scenarios.
A lot of people on this thread sound like they've come nowhere near close to one of the bad scenarios, and have no awareness of them.
We respectfully disagree on this. You make valid points and thankfully it's not hyperbole.
I see the practical side of things, which is either I take it or leave it, as I have no vote in this matter. And if I'm taking it, I'm making sure that I develop my skill set so that I make myself invaluable in future employment or if I venture on my own (and this doesn't have to be in the US), rather than wasting my brain cycles and waiting for this elusive piece of paper from the US government.
> I see the practical side of things, which is either I take it or leave it
I think you're seeing it from a personal POV, where you have a tradeoff where you've made a valid choice with what you have found to be a net gain. And you did explicitly mention that you're speaking for yourself initially. This is all a fine POV to have and I mostly agree with it; I know many people who have made a similar analysis and come to similar resolutions.
My point is about "I've said this in previous posts as well, nobody forces you to take an H1B, you chose to take it", which is a more general statement about all H1B takers. I find it a bad precedent to set to accept that kind of argument; because like I said the discussion isn't about choice in the first place (and accepting such arguments distracts the decision). Like I said, it's fine to disagree with "H1B putting employees on a leash should be stopped", just don't use choice as an argument there :)
How were you aware of all the risks involved? Did you hire your own immigration lawyer (NOT the company-retained one) and have them go through it with you? If so, then that's very wise. If you didn't, I very much doubt you knew of all the risks, since some I've never seen documented. I really think if you had one of the rough times on the H-1B, you wouldn't be so caviler.
I spoke to my older brother (who left once his H1B was over, as he never wanted to stay here long term) and my seniors in grad school who explained all the intricacies; of course I never understood every single detail. But what I understood was getting a GC for an Indian citizen is a long wait. Frankly, I am okay leaving the US if I have to if I fall into any of the pitfalls. I don't have sleepless nights over it.
And BTW, I got my H1B in the 2008 lottery and had to go through lean times during the recession. So it's not as if I've had a smooth ride all along.
You weren't aware of the risks. There's much worse than that.
I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice: get your own (experienced) immigration lawyer, and ask them about what I've heard one lawyer call "cost-effective employee retention plans". It can include threatening to unfairly ruin an employee's chances of ever getting another US visa if they leave the company. As in, you may never set foot in the US again. I'm not sure people can relate to how horrible this is unless you've unfortunately lived through it.
That's the reason in my posts I always made a distinction between legitimate company vs shady consultants.
Unless you do something nefarious (spying, stealing etc.) no legitimate company would go after someone. And thinking about it logically, the company has to spend a lot of resources to prove this in the first place. "Innocent until proven guilty"
I believe there are some legitimate companies that treat visa workers well (like the company I work for), but I'd still be a bit careful. You can join what you think is a legitimate company, and then they are sold to someone else. When I joined Sun Microsystems, it seemed like a solid company that would be around forever. Sold in 2010.
> And thinking about it logically
Oh no.
My #1 advice to potential visa workers would be to get your own immigration lawyer. My #2 advice would probably be to stop reasoning about things logically. What matters is the law.
You're implying that it's illogical a company would go after someone like this. I know for a fact they do. And, it's illogical. Knowing it's illogical is little comfort for those visa workers hurt by it.
> the company has to spend a lot of resources
Not necessarily. In one situation (I don't want to describe in detail here), it requires almost zero effort from the employer. And I know for a fact it happens.
> Sun Microsystems, it seemed like a solid company that would be around forever. Sold in 2010
I don't understand, what's the issue when the company gets sold? What bearing does that have on your visa apart from the change of employer filing?
If Oracle bought Sun (two legitimate companies), it would be a change of employer which is a straightforward process, or am I missing something?
You were making the point of choosing a legitimate company vs a shady company, as a way to mitigate risk. Which is a good idea. But it's also worth noting that -- especially in the tech industry -- a good company one day can be bought by a shady company the next. (Although I'm not saying Oracle is shady, I didn't stick around long enough to find out.)
Also, if a company doesn't purchase all assets and liabilities (happened to one company I know of last month), and instead acquires pieces, then it may not be a straightforward change of employer.
> All this arises whenever H1B tries to change the job
Yes, getting fired sucks if you're on an H1B but your comment doesn't apply to job changers generally. H1B visas are transferable (with a little paperwork) so an employee looking to move jobs just needs to ensure that they have their ducks lined up and that any required paper work is filed - usually that means lighting a fire under the HR team of the new employer to make sure it doesn't slip through the cracks.
1. You can start working for the new employer as soon as the petition has been sent out. For example, as soon as you have a FedEx/UPS tracking number for the petition, you can start the new job (even before receiving a Notice of Receipt).
2. You get a Notice of Receipt (form I-797C) usually in less than a week (and usually in about 3 days), if the petition was mailed in with overnight shipping.
3. Now receiving a Notice of Approval (form I-797A or I-797B) -- i.e. the actual adjudication of the petition, typically takes a couple of months with regular processing, but only 15 business days with premium processing.
You are actually wrong about the 15 days. It's actually zero (0) days, according to USCIS: "There is no automatic 10-day or other grace period for terminated employees holding H-1B status, so once the individual is no longer in a lawful nonimmigrant status, he/she usually must depart from the United States." See: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/ombudsman-liaison/practical-immi...
However, if your I-94 is still valid, being out-of-status on H-1B isn't really that big of a deal. All you need to do is fly out of the country and return, in order to fix your immigration status. The new employer can file an H-1B and request consular processing. The only problem with being out-of-status is that Adjustment Of Status (AOS) is no longer possible, so you have to fly out and fly back in, before you can start your new job. (You'll get an I-797A consular processing approval instead of the I-797B AOS approval.)
USCIS does not deny petitions for being out of status, and in general, if any lack of legal status is for a period of less than 6 months. You don't need to get a new visa stamp either, if your current stamp is still valid. But if/when you renew your visa at a consulate, just make sure to disclose that you were out of status on the DS-160, as failing to do so could get you denied for lying. But if your upfront about it and disclose it, they most likely won't even ask you a question about it.
And yes, you are illegal in the country, but if your I-94 is valid, you have "lawful presence" but you do not have "legal status" (I know it sounds contradictory) and you are still within your "period of authorized stay". But fundamentally, you are consider to be illegal despite a valid I-94 due to being out-of-status, and you can be deported, but it is very unlikely that DHS will send ICE agents to your home to arrest you and forcibly throw you out of the country.
I've quit a job while I was on the H-1B, and I stayed while being out-of-status in the United States for 4 months after that. I was feeling a bit burned out, and didn't even look for a job for 3 months. In the fourth month, I created a profile on Hired.com, got several interview offers, did a full onsite in the first week, and had an offer by the end of the week. My H1B visa stamp in my passport was still valid, but I decided to get it renewed anyways, just to be sure, so there wouldn't be any trouble at the port-of-entry.
I have crossed 6 years on H1B. So, if I change my job, maximum visa extension I can get is for 3 years (provided my employer was kind enough to give me a copy of the I-140 petition).
This is where it gets tricky. Within this 3 years I need to get a new PERM approved by the new employer. So, say I set aside 1 year for the new employer to get all the internal budgeting approvals and initiate my GC process. Then it takes at least another 6 months (no attorney's file PERM within 6 months these days) to file the PERM. And, then say another 1 year to get the PERM result. So, this will take me 2.5 years into my 3 years limit. Now, god forbid, if the PERM gets denied due to clerical error. There is not time left for another try. Pretty much pack-up and leave.
Yes it is based on an assumption you work for a _legitimate_ employer and not some shady consultant. I'll use your statement to prove that it's a fair assumption in the average case.
> So, say I set aside 1 year for the new employer to get all the internal budgeting approvals and initiate my GC process
On one hand, you claim that it takes a year for the employer to get your GC going. And now to withdraw it (which will include the same filing fee + lawyer fees - time spent= thousands of dollars) it takes them less than a month (or few months) to budget this?
No proper company would want to spend another penny on an outgoing employee. And this is a completely sane assumption. You can choose to disagree, in which case I'm sorry to say, you're paranoid.
>On one hand, you claim that it takes a year for the employer to get your GC going. And now to withdraw it (which will include the same filing fee + lawyer fees - time spent= thousands of dollars) it takes them less than a month (or few months) to budget this?
Why do you say withdrawal need to be done in a month? To pack-up an H1-B visa holder, withdrawal only has to be done within the 2.5 years.
Also, withdrawing I-140 is more about sending a message to the other H1-B employees to not leave. Companies are glad to cough up few hundred bucks to send that message.
Ok. So this is how a conversation between an HR and the finance department in a _legitimate_ company goes: "We need to send a message to the rest of the H1B employees, so please budget $X thousand for withdrawing an old employee's I140"
Yeah right.
You make it sound like this witch hunt is normal course of action. It clearly is not in a legitimate company.
The relevant paragraphs regarding this new 60-day grace period from the Federal Register:
"Under the final rule, DHS may also authorize a grace period of up to 60 days in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, and TN classifications during the period of petition validity (or other authorized validity period). See final 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). In response to public comments, DHS is retaining this provision while adding the O-1 visa classification to the list of nonimmigrant classifications eligible for the 60-day grace period. To enhance job portability for these high-skilled nonimmigrants, this rule establishes a grace period for up to 60 consecutive days, or until the existing validity period ends, whichever is shorter, whenever employment ends for these individuals. The individual may not work during the grace period. An individual may benefit from the 60-day grace period multiple times during his or her total time in the United States; however, this grace period may only apply one time per authorized nonimmigrant validity period. DHS believes that limiting this grace period to one instance during each authorized validity period balances the interests of nonimmigrant flexibility with the need to prevent abuse of this provision.
This 60-day grace period further supports AC21's goals of providing improved certainty and stability to nonimmigrants who need to change jobs or employers. The 60-day grace period would provide needed flexibility to qualifying nonimmigrants who face termination of employment prior to the end of their petition validity periods. The grace period, for example, allows such nonimmigrants to remain in the United States without violating their status and potentially obtain new job offers from employers that seek to file new nonimmigrant petitions, and requests for an extension of stay, on their behalf. In such cases, even though prior employment may have terminated several weeks prior to the filing of the new petition, DHS may consider such an individual to have not violated his or her nonimmigrant status and allow that individual to extend his or her stay with a new petitioner, if otherwise eligible. If the new petition is granted, the individual may be eligible for an additional grace period of up to 60 days in connection with the new authorized validity period."
Finally, the final rule at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(3) makes clear that the nonimmigrant worker, during either a 10-day or 60-day grace period, may apply for and, if otherwise eligible, be granted an extension of stay or change of status. The beneficiary may also commence employment under H-1B portability per § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), discussed in some detail below, if otherwise eligible. To further effectuate the intended purpose of these provisions, DHS is also making clarifying edits to the regulatory text at § 214.1(l)(2), and (l)(3)."
> Once H1B lose his job, he and his family has to leave the country in 15 days
This is not true in practice. There is a rule saying that, but it has never been enforced. As long as you don't leave the country, you'll have no problem looking for a new job for however long that takes.
At least that's what my immigration lawyer told me many years ago.
Would you really be able to sleep well every night on the premise "it's okay, it hasn't been enforced yet" if you are unemployed on an H1B? I know I would not be able to. In fact, it's not something you can really rely on and make part of your plans. All you need is getting caught by some mad traffic cop and in court it turns out you are out of status and you will be deported.
> Would you really be able to sleep well every night on the premise "it's okay, it hasn't been enforced yet" if you are unemployed on an H1B?
I actually have done that.
ICE is very slow to deport even the categories they actually prioritize. Millions keep living here for decades. They're not monitoring traffic court for unemployed engineers.
Sure, anything can happen, but the risk of dying in traffic or a crime is far more real than this.
That has been true for many years that is _technically_ you would loose your status the day you lost your job and leave the country. However, there were ways around this.
This has been recently changed though giving a grace period of 60 days and goes into effect from Jan 17:
Isn't betting on it risky? I'm afraid that you may get rejected reentry next time if USCIS notices your overstay, unless you never leave the country, of course, but you never know, don't you (family emergency etc.)?
I agree with your corrections, to an extent. However, it is also important to note that an H1B holder is limited in the kind of jobs he or she can take. An H1B holder would have a very difficult time changing fields or entering a very different kind of employment. Becoming a private consultant, or leaving the tech field for other, perhaps better, opportunities is not really an option.
So while I certainly agree with you that "they cannot change job" is inaccurate I also believe the statement "you are free to leave to another job" is misleading. You have some very limited mobility rights, but nothing approaching what a free member of the labor market would have (sadly, this is a big part of the appeal of these visas to many employers).
So there's un-needed friction on the H-1B process that serves only to lower wages.
Remove the link between H-1B visa holders and their employers and suddenly all that wage depression disappears!
In Japan, while an employer can sponsor your work visa, after you obtain the visa you can change jobs at will (so long as its still within the broad category of visa you were given). You just need to signal the change of employer to the immigration office.
You SHOULD be free to quit, you're right about that. But some companies have figured out ways to stop it. If anyone is ever in that situation -- you have to get your own immigration lawyers to represent you, and not the company.
have you ever thought about yourself as a "risk taker", about getting a greencard ? in 70 years ? Maybe you might have already got it through the L1A loophole fake experience method or future GC abuse method. Do not measure everyone else with the same cup.
Again, stop taking things personally, I spoke only about myself. I don't care if I get a green card or not (I know I'm in the minority as far as Indians are concerned). I'm happy to go back to India if the occasion arises. I'd rather concentrate on my career and do challenging work, instead of wasting my productive years doing donkey work for years on end, while waiting for some piece of paper.
Everyone has their priorities, and in my mind I'm clear about mine.
>Immigration Attorneys are making a fortune of this broken system
Those same law firms hire lobbyists to make sure the system remains complicated and inefficient. Also, all the law firms that service tech companies have almost 100% of the work done by recent college grads for very low pay. Ever wondered why your L-1/H-1/I-140 support letter has so many errors? It's because it was a generic template that some recent college grad spent an hour on and you paid $3000 for an attorney to sign the G-28 form. Oh, and many immigration lawyers haven't even passed the Bar exam for the state they practice in--they can practice having passed the Bar in any state. These are the bottom of the barrel law jobs, IMHO.
Green cards too. My family moved out of America a few months after my dads work had secured us greecards at a total of $350,000 (iirc - for the family of 7). These were voided as we didn't stay in the country long enough to validate them - what a waste.
Not sure this was over 10 years ago. A quick search shows that you used to be able to get a greencard through an 'investment' of $50k to the US. It's now risen to $1m but that may very well be how they secured them.
I guess it depends on your perspective. Is it the older workers who rake in enormous paychecks for incrementally far less work or is it younger workers who work for much less to make a name for themselves and establish their career?
The root of the problem with H1B is that despite a bunch of laws meant to make sure that these workers are paid and treated the same as US citizens, that isn't happening at a lot of companies. This is creating a huge demand for visa workers as a kind of indentured servitude. This isn't a good situation for US citizens or visa workers.
If the laws are fixed by, for instance, making it far easier to switch jobs on a visa, H1B workers will be treated a lot better. Demand for visa workers will probably drop somewhat but it will be more in line with what the visa program was made for: to hire talent not slaves.
It's not that hard to switch jobs once you have an H1B: The hard part is to do so while trying to get a green card.
Ultimately, the tremendous wait times for everyone in the 00s, and now the tremendous lines only for a few countries, come down to the maximum number of green card numbers being vastly inferior to the number of people that qualify for said visas and are already living and working in the US.
Even in cases where your employer isn't trying to actively exploit you, the difficulty at changing jobs during the green card process depresses wages. I come from Europe, but I came in as an EB3 in 2000, so I had to wait a good 7 years. I was the highest paid engineer in our small department, and the only foreigner, but I was worth a lot more in the open market than what my employer paid. My salary tripled in the next three years afterwards, as I was paid an entry level salary while being qualified for being a principal engineer at a far bigger shop.
But everyone talks about the H1B program, instead of just opening permanent residency to people that are, in practice, already permanent residents, just with less rights.
There is no per-country quota for permanent residency, instead there is a worldwide quota of 120,000 employment-based green cards per year, and a law that says "no more than 7% immigrants with the same country of birth" (Note: country of birth, not citizenship).
The only countries that hit this limit are India, China, Philippines, and Mexico. The 120,000 global quota still applies to the rest of the World. Hence, there still are these potential long-ish delays, even if you're not from one of those four countries.
This is something that I've long suspected was going on with the H1B system.
In essence, we have a limited "guest worker" program that allocates most of the economic benefits to the company (in terms of a compliant workforce that has little incentive or ability to take their skills to a competing company that might offer a better salary or career options) while allocating most of the costs to the actual H1B workers AND the US Citizens and permanent residents who have to compete with a pool of workers that will accept lower pay with little in the way of bargaining power. Great deal for companies. Terrible deal for individual workers (on both sides).
I can sympathize with a company having trouble hiring talent. There is an acute shortage of capable, knowledgeable workers trained in the skills that industry needs. I just happen to think that the H1B program is a poor solution to it.
The better option would be for us to offer a form of permanent legal residency to workers who have critical skills that make them attractive to industry. Once they are here, permanent residency along with all of the benefits that entails (freedom to travel, freedom to change jobs) should be part of the package.
I know we do something like this using a scoring system but frankly I think it's administered very poorly based on what I've heard from others. We can do better.
I don't like the idea of a permanent underclass with fewer rights than others. We should encourage emigration and settlement from cultures that integrate well with ours and have the best possible chance of success in our social and economic systems.
Too little is written about the cadre of interests that benefit from illegal immigration of low-status individuals. It may seem cruel, but we do nobody a favor by allowing illegal immigrants to hide in the shadows and subject themselves to abuse at the hands of those that would profit from their lack of power or ability to go to the government for help.
> There is an acute shortage of capable, knowledgeable workers trained in the skills that industry needs.
Just like there is an acute shortage of NFL Quarterbacks that are capable of leading a team to a super bowl championship.
The problem with this skills gap myth is that we are looking for people who are better than most of their peers in the industry. The will always be a shortage of top 10% performers in the industry because the top 10% of the industry will always be the same amount.
EDIT: I should just clarify that I'm absolutely in favor of people coming from other countries to work in the US. That said, the H1B in its current form is often just indentured servitude and definitely needs to be adjusted. My statement is specifically addressing the skills gap myth.
There's also, by definition, a shortage of talent willing to work for far-below-market wages. It's in employers' best interest to address this "shortage".
This would only be true if companies needed better employees than their competitors. If you merely need someone capable of doing a job, there's no such limitation: it's logically-possible for 100% of software developers to be able to put a script in cron that runs a SQL query to generate a report.
Given enough time almost any very junior software developer from any amount of training could successfully complete that task. What you consider capable is that they can do it within a certain time frame and with a certain level of quality. That quality being higher than others and the time frame being faster than others.
Also, that expectation of time frame and quality level has increased significantly since 1985. The reason that has increased is because the average level software developer in 2017 can do that task quite a bit faster and of higher quality than the average software developer could do in 1985.
The definition of acceptable in any market changes with the pool of options available.
> allocating most of the costs to the actual H1B workers
If it were not a good option for them, they wouldn't sign up for it, so it has more benefits than costs for them.
In terms of competition.... IT is a very globalized industry already.
> permanent legal residency to workers who have critical skills that make them attractive to industry. Once they are here, permanent residency along with all of the benefits that entails (freedom to travel, freedom to change jobs)
And I'm sure there are children out there for whom closing of a local factory (because it breaks the child labor ban) would be a tragedy. IMO ban on child labor should be imposed only if the state is equipped to provide adequate material help to children who would lose jobs this way.
"Good" must be put into relative terms. "Better" works better - "if it were not a better option (than working/living conditions in their current country), they wouldn't sign up for it."
There is the opportunity for a significant gap between the effectively indentured servitude that H-1B may provide and the opportunities in other countries.
> Any guess why companies only recruit from India and China?
There are loads of Canadians [0] on TNs and H1Bs in the US and most don't particularly care about ever getting a green card. How do you explain their presence if you believe companies only recruit foreigners from poor countries in order to exploit their desire for US residency?
What is unsaid is when a Canadian worker in US gets laid off or just decide to leave (s)he is just moving in first world. Apart from less pay, living standards are pretty much same in US and Canada. But if Indian worker gets laid off it will be drastic change in living standard by going back.
Even very high Indian salary would not buy that US lifestyle. Of course many people will like to couch that fact as having friends' circle in US, kids schooling etc makes it difficult to relocate.
You missed my point. It is not about poor countries. Indian's and Chinese will not have job mobility for decades. That is the reason, last year, 80%+ of H1B visas went to Indian/Chinese nationals.
I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it.
I suspect 80%+ of H1B visas go to Indian/Chinese nationals simply because they represent a similarly large proportion of STEM graduates interested in emigrating from their home countries.
TN visa restrictions are much less onerous to an employer and employee than an H1B. Similar culture and less restrictive language barriers are also benefits that might lead an employer to hire a Canadian. I would suggest that the first point is the likely culprit for the number of Canadians employed in the US.
It's not dual intent for one thing. I have a TN but my company put in for H-1B for me so that I could switch and then have the option to get sponsored more easily if I decide I want a green card.
Its very obvious USCIS prays on the fact that most immigrants do not make enough money to actually hire (expensive) lawyer and take them to the court and fight this outrageous fee down to something reasonable. Obviously US citizens have no standing in such lawsuit cause one thing USC can never get is a Green Card :)
If you are poor, you can ask USCIS to waive the replacement fee - agency is actually quite accommodating. Obviously it won't work for 99.99% software engineer who actually has money to pay.
Also suing for $450 is ridiculous whether you have money or not. It is a cost of average traffic ticket and most people just pay it without involving any lawyer.
On the base of what, though? It's well known that the USCIS is mostly self sustained (e.g. minimal government funding) so that money has to come from somewhere. I believe the thought is that getting a visa/permanent residency is considered a privilege, not a right.
If they were only the first to be taken to the court for outrages fees.
> It's well known that the USCIS is mostly self sustained
They are part of DHS; therefore founded through DHS that is government founded.
> I believe the thought is that getting a visa/permanent residency is considered a privilege, not a right.
What does this have to do with losing or getting your GC stolen? As long as they can prove it costs around $450 to product a piece of plastic, they are fine in my book.
"Any time I change my job, green card process has to be restarted from square one"
The most time-consuming part of the process is waiting for your priority date to be current. Once you have your priority date, restarting the process through another company shouldn't really make a difference, since you can just reuse the existing priority date instead of getting a new one.
Theoretically, you can lose your priority date if the previous company cancels your I140. But since it costs thousands of dollars to do that, most companies don't bother.
If TCS/Infosys brings in H1B folks to replace American workers; and those H1B folks leave TCS/Infosys the next day; then that business model will not work to begin with.
>[Edit]: In my opinion, a possible fix shall be to give H1B holder job mobility. I.e., if TCS/Infosys brings in H1B holders to replace American workers; and those H1B holders leave TCS/Infosys the next day; then that business model will not work to begin with.
That, and to switch to a simple points system like most other Anglo countries use. If you have enough points, your residency clock starts ticking as soon as you start working and living in the USA, and doesn't reset or stop unless you commit a serious crime. If the clock counts all the way down, bam, Green Card.
https://fromthelandofgandhifilm.com/ is a great documentary about the hardships faced by people on H-1B from India or China waiting for their Green Cards.
A bit different topic - for somebody who spent last 10 years in US, your English is pretty bad. If staying in US is such a high priority to you, I suggest working on that part
While the visa can be transferred over in a short span, I believe OP is talking about the GC process, which does have to be restarted. It can be ported over depending on the application status and if the new position matches in role to the original application.
From personal experience I can say that this takes up to two years or longer to get back to status quo in the GC process after switching jobs and reapplying. This is a major disincentive for switching even if there's better pay and position on offer. It also makes talented H1B workers stay away from startups as the GC application process is safer when sponsored by established companies.
> Green Card process has to be restarted from the square one
That's not fully true AFAIK. The green card (GC) is a 3-step process - PERM, I-140 and GC itself.
If you already have your I-140, unless your previous employer cancels your I-140 (which cost them a few thousand dollars), your new employer can just start over the third step of the process. This is not optimal, sure, but it is not square one either.
If you have an approved I-140 and your I-485 has been filed and pending for more than 180 days (or if you filed I-140 and I-485 concurrently and both have been pending for more than 180 days), you may switch to a same or similar job under the AC21 portability rule. Also, starting 17 January 2017, employer withdrawal of an I-140 pending for more than 180 days will no longer cancel the petition.
So if you can get as far as the I-140/I-485 filing, you should be good to go, though IANAL (and you should retain your own to guide you through this process).
Yeah, but it's not like the employee is paying for the green card. I have loads of friends on H-1Bs (I'm on one as well) and no one I know has paid for the green card application. That's on the employer and they know what they're getting into when they hire a foreigner.
[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.
