Assuming you are on F1 visa without OPT, you can be a co-founder, but you can not 'work' for this company you found. The key is not about making money or not, you can receive passive income like dividend. You are not allowed to 'work', even volunteering will violate your status.
IANAL, or even an immigrant, but I am almost sure that the US legal system will never take away your stock (or any other property you may come to own in the US) because US law protects property rights very well. If there are adverse legal consequences, they will almost certainly be restricted to two things: (1) your ability to remain a legal resident of the US or to become a citizen of the US and (2) whether you will have to pay a higher tax rate on your capital gains from the startup than you would have if you were a citizen or if you held a green card.
A minor consideration is that the bureaucrats in the U.S. government earn lower incomes than most mangerial-class Americans (although they are much less likely to lose their job) and that about 90% of the employees of the U.S. government have left-of-center political beliefs, which usually include some amount of resentment towards successful capitalists and high-income earners. Consequently, an immigration bureaucrat will probably envy the income or assets of a successful technology cofounder. Usually the rules dictate the bureaucrat's decision, but in a case where the rules are silent, envy might make the difference between a favorable immigration decision and an unfavorable one. But like I said, most of the time the bureaucrat's choice will be forced by the rules, and if the rules dictate a favorable decision, then the bureaucrat will have to make a favorable decision no matter how envious he is (or you will be able to force a favorable outcome by spending a moderate amount of legal costs).
Yes, F-1 students can be co-founders. (I personally did this.) The only restriction is that you cannot earn any money personally from the company (via dividends or by selling stock) unless you have a work visa or an OPT.
Actually, from what I know, you can sell, and buy, you can pay dividends to yourself (though you doubletax your own behind). What you can't do is be hired if you are on F-1 visa, which means that you can't get a regular paycheck or have a position in the company (owner/shareholder is not a position).
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I quickly got on to an OPT in 15 days after founding the company, and became an employee of the company, so none of that mattered, but it's certainly good to know!
Interesting...I got my cofounder position because the previous technical cofounder was on a student visa, and his immigration lawyer advised him that "It's probably not a good idea." I don't know the specifics of his case, but he gave up a cofounder position at a startup he thought promising based on it.
I'd consult an immigration lawyer. It sounds like there're a lot of thorny issues that depend a lot on the specifics of the case.
We did consult a couple immigration lawyers and all of them said it is possible. The foreign student advisors in our school were a little more circumspect, probably because it is very very uncommon. I don't understand the "probably" clause though -- either it is lawful or it is not :-)
not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a business. considering the complexity of immigration law, "probably" and "maybe" are good answers until a judge gives an official "yes" or "no".
It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system).
Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it.
Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings.
This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway.
After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on.
Hmm, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "disadvantage," it is a difference however.
Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.
I acutally have numbers of good lawyers, but they are based in New York. B/n $200/h and $500/h. I haven't talked to them since i never had the money, but got their numbers from a good source. Email me if interested.
Sure, as long as you are not making money from it :)
Technically, you are not allowed to earn income from anything besides an on-campus job (unless you get a waiver from INS, which is very rare... they must be convinced of your "extenuating circumstances" to approve such a waiver)
But I could be wrong, I'm no professional. Your university might know about any loopholes and stuff and would probably know some immigration lawyers in the area.
