With the current political climate, there is no certainty whether this rule will remain. but it appears to have the green light for now (the Department of Homeland security will comply with the court order but is actively working to remove it).
This rule will be a good vehicle for entrepreneurs that can demonstrate the following:
- substantial ownership of start-up created within the past five years in the U.S. that has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation (please note the use of the word “substantial” – a subjective term)
- provide significant public benefit to the US based on their role as an entrepreneur of the start-up by showing that: (please note the use of the word “significant” – ta subjective term)
- significant investment capital from qualified US investors
- significant awards or grants
- partially meet either of the previous two or both and provide additional reliable and compelling evidence (please note the use of the word “reliable and compelling” – subjective terms)
- otherwise merit a favorable exercise of discretion (extremely subjective)
This seems like a great opportunity in theory, but it only applies to a very specific type of entrepreneur and the subjective nature of the application means that it will all boil down to two things: whether the application is excruciatingly detailed and if the officer reviewing the application sees the merit in it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since that is how most other petitions are being decided upon nowadays.
Please refer to https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/international-entrepreneur-parole for more information.