A handful of YC participants have mentioned they came on O-1 visas, which are for "extraordinary ability". But for that one, you have to prove that you are already a prominent person in your field to qualify (have published influential papers, have won major awards, have been invited to selective panels/membership bodies in your field, etc.).
Keep in mind this is a government agency that does the screening here. I knew someone who was not a "prominent person" in their field who got an O-1 visa with the help of their VC investors / angel investors.
On official US Govt site, it says you need an award, e.g. nobel prize for O1. But that is a complete exaggeration as many people have rather average creditentials getting the O1. Having a good degree is enough for several people. Everything in addition helps.
Plus if you think about it, if you're in YC, getting PG or Vinod Khosla or Ron Conway (the YC VC people) to sign a letter talking about your "genius" will probably go a long way.
Also, many in government are entirely aware that the visa system is broken and do all they can to change it without legislation. Changing the criteria for the O1 is a simple way of freeing up more visas.
YC will try to help on this as much as possible. We have a YC-International mailing list for international founders who have to deal with visa problem. In most cases, one or more founders who were from the previous batches will be able to help because they were in the same situation before.
There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for this. Once you are accepted, it helps to reach out to the mailing list(or other sources) to figure this out as soon as possible.
I was in the summer 09 batch, thing may have changed since then.
I guess many foreign founders will be from countries that are part of the visa waiver program, but my understanding is that it doesn't strictly allow working (as opposed to business meetings) within the US, which would seem to rule out being actively involved in a YC startup.
Most of them probably just cheat. I've known half a dozen people in the country illegally working on startups. (With values of illegal from "left company sponsoring them but didn't leave the US" to "founded company on visitor visa and stayed in country for ten years without getting the visa updated.")
This might be a little harsh, but I feel like this kind of risk-aversion is actually a negative signal/filter for YC and other investors. The fact that someone would let a small risk (<1% chance of getting caught if you're smart about it) deter them from applying in the first place. That's just the illegal route. I know founder who have found ways to make the legal route work (O1, finding a co-founder who will stay in the US while the other co-founder travels back and forth, etc. etc.)
It's not about risk, it's about overcoming obstacles. Dealing with US visas is a pain, but it's nowhere near as painful as everything else you need to do to make a startup succeed. If you're going to give up because of a visa obstacle, you're not cut out to be a founder.
I meant that since you have to eventually legalize your stay (say, you have a big exit for the company), how much would being illegal affect everything afterward?
The government wouldn't know you were illegal, that's the point. Is it that hard of a stretch to think of answers to your questions before asking them?
I misinterpreted your answers. My question was under the assumption that the government wouldn't know about you being illegal until you tried to do something related to immigration. At which point the USCIS would know after doing their due diligence. I guess that was a bad assumption to make.
Under that assumption, trying to think of answers isn't any better than a random guess. And I was asking the question for that specific situation, even if it's unlikely, just to know how things could potential be. Furthermore, in the case the government doesn't know about your staying illegally, you would be the same as any random non-citizen trying to immigrate to the US, and it's fairly safe to say that the task is non-trivial (paperwork-wise). In that case, it would still be helpful to know if a founder-but-can't-tell-government would have any advantage at all.
Not every question can be answered by just thinking hard enough, especially those related to laws - that's why there is a whole profession dedicated to it. And it will serve you well to be more careful before going passive-aggressive.
I'm curious about this too, because once the visa is up do they have to go back? How hard is it to get a permanent or semi-permanent status? I'm assuming an H1 B or similar would not apply here since the founders would be immigrants..
actually new H1-b rules allow you to get a visa using a company you founded as long as there is another party that you "report to" or has a controlling share like a board or a cofounder. But this would apply more if you were already in the country.
If you mean you think this article was the work of a PR firm, no, it wasn't. The reporter emailed me after he saw a tweet of mine about how many different countries the founders in the latest batch were from.
