Ask Sophie: Is International Entrepreneur Parole Still Alive—and What’s the Best Path for Startup Founders Today?

Sophie Alcorn is a renowned immigration attorney and founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley, California. An award-winning Certified Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law by the State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, she champions borderless opportunity through compassionate, visionary, expert immigration work. This comprehensive explainer delves into the International Entrepreneur Parole (IEP) program—its current status, how founders qualify, and how it stacks up against faster alternatives like the O-1A visa and the H-1B. It also explores recent policy shifts aimed at accelerating startup immigration, practical funding considerations, and a structured plan for founders seeking to establish or expand a U.S. operation. The goal is to provide founders with a clear, in-depth roadmap for navigating startup immigration, backed by detailed criteria, real-world considerations, and actionable steps for planning ahead.

What is IEP?

International Entrepreneur Parole (IEP) is an interim immigration option designed to support certain startup founders as they establish and grow innovative ventures in the United States. Although it is not technically a visa, IEP provides up to 30 months of parole status, allowing founders to live in the U.S. with their families and to scale their startup within the country. The parole status is paired with work authorization for the founder and, in most cases, for eligible family members, including a work permit for the founder’s spouse. The practical effect is similar to a visa in that it enables residency in the United States for business purposes and family stability, but it is distinct in its legal mechanics and branding—parole rather than a visa.

IEP is particularly salient for founders whose companies have secured U.S. investments or government grants, because such funding generally strengthens eligibility and proof of business viability. The program is not a guaranteed pathway to a permanent green card; rather, it offers a defined temporary window during which a founder can develop the business environment and growth trajectory needed to pursue other, potentially more permanent immigration options. The 30-month initial period is designed to provide a runway for founders to demonstrate traction, create jobs, and expand in an environment conducive to scale. Importantly, IEP status can also extend for an additional 30 months under specific conditions, enabling a potential total stay of up to five years. However, extensions are contingent upon meeting criteria that attest to ongoing business growth and impact.

Critically, IEP does not replace the need for a thorough, forward-looking immigration plan. It complements a broader strategy that a founder might pursue, including other non-immigrant or immigrant pathways such as the O-1A extraordinary ability visa or the H-1B visa, and, potentially, future startup visa legislation. The practical reality highlighted by experienced immigration practitioners is that adjudication times for IEP can be lengthy. Recent developments indicate that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can take more than two years to adjudicate IEP cases, and the overall application and activation processes can be more time-consuming and less predictable than traditional work visas like the O-1A or H-1B. This reality has shaped a dual approach for many founders: consider IEP as a long-term, strategic option while also pursuing faster, more predictable alternatives where eligibility and circumstance permit.

In parallel with IEP, U.S. government policy has started to emphasize improvements for startup founders working in AI and other critical and emerging technologies. A presidential executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees USCIS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to streamline and enhance the IEP process for qualifying founders. This broader policy impetus reflects a recognition that startups in high-impact tech sectors need clearer, faster, and more predictable pathways to operate in the United States, particularly when public-private partnerships and government funding are involved. The practical takeaway for founders is that IEP remains a viable option, but its alignment with other routes and the evolving policy landscape should be part of any strategic immigration plan.

To illustrate a practical pathway within IEP, consider the experience of immigration professionals who work with startup founders. One expert in New York City emphasizes that IEP often makes more sense for founders who have received government funding or grants rather than those who rely solely on private venture capital. This emphasis does not negate the value of venture capital; it highlights the evidentiary dynamics and privacy complexities involved when investors must disclose track records and investment performance. For founders who have secured government grants or other public sector funding, the IEP route can be comparatively straightforward, provided the other eligibility criteria are met. In all cases, the IEP process requires careful documentation, strategic planning, and a clear demonstration of how the startup will contribute to job creation, innovation, and economic growth in the United States.

IEP is an interim construct, designed to bridge the gap until a more permanent solution—such as a startup visa or other immigrant pathway—becomes available (or until other status becomes feasible). Because Congress has not yet enacted a formal startup visa, IEP remains one of the few practical options for certain founders who meet its thresholds. It is essential to understand that, despite its name and branding, IEP represents a parole framework and not an ordinary visa. The practical effect is that founders obtain permission to reside and work in the United States for a defined period, with the possibility of extension, subject to ongoing compliance with program requirements and evolving policy rules.

In summary, IEP is an established, non-visa mechanism that enables eligible international startup founders to establish and grow a U.S.-based venture for up to 30 months initially, with a potential extension to a total of 60 months under specified conditions. It is particularly favored by founders who have secured government funding or other publicly supported sources of capital or grants, which help satisfy the program’s evidentiary and investment criteria. While not a guaranteed pathway to permanent residency, IEP represents a meaningful, time-bound option that can align with a broader immigration strategy, especially when complemented by faster alternatives and careful financial planning.

Eligibility for Initial 30 Months: Core Requirements and Practical Considerations

IEP eligibility hinges on several core criteria designed to ensure that the program serves founders who can meaningfully contribute to the U.S. economy through startup activity. The following requirements are central to qualifying for the initial 30-month period of IEP. Each criterion is intended to demonstrate the founder’s central role, the startup’s viability, and the financial or strategic support that underpins the venture’s growth trajectory.

• Your startup is a U.S. company. The enterprise must be legally organized and operating within the United States. It should have a legitimate business plan with a scalable model, and it should be situated in a U.S. jurisdiction that provides a conducive operating environment for regulatory compliance, market access, and workforce development. The enterprise cannot be a merely conceptual project; it must show operational existence and a plan for sustainable growth within the U.S. market. This criterion underscores the alignment between the founder’s activities and the local economic ecosystem and ensures that the venture’s presence in the United States is substantive rather than prospective.

• You founded your startup in the last five years. The IEP framework targets relatively early-stage founders who have demonstrated initiative and entrepreneurial capacity within a recent window. The five-year look-back is intended to ensure that the founder’s track record reflects recent entrepreneurial activity and practical progress rather than a long, unproven concept. This timeframe allows USCIS to assess the founder’s demonstrated capacity to build, operate, and scale a company in a dynamic market environment and to gauge the alignment of the founder’s vision with the venture’s actual performance metrics.

• You hold at least a 10% ownership interest in your startup. The program seeks to ensure that the founder has meaningful stakes and incentives that align with the company’s long-term success. A 10% stake is typically regarded as sufficient to demonstrate significant influence and commitment to the enterprise. Higher ownership levels can strengthen the narrative that the founder is central to the company’s strategy and day-to-day operations, which is critical for establishing the credibility of the business venture in the eyes of immigration authorities.

• You’re central to the startup and actively operate it. The founder must be actively engaged in the company, taking a leadership role and performing essential operational duties. This criterion emphasizes hands-on involvement, rather than passive or ceremonial ownership. Demonstrating active management—such as product development leadership, strategic decision-making, and day-to-day oversight—helps establish that the founder’s presence in the United States is essential to the startup’s growth trajectory and job creation potential.

• Your startup has received at least $265,000 from qualified U.S. investors or at least $106,000 in government awards or grants. This funding threshold reflects a combination of private investment and public support that signals credible external backing. For investors, the private funding must come from entities recognized as qualified U.S. investors. For government funding, the awards or grants may be nondilutive, serving as a partial validation of market potential and public sector endorsement. If the monetary requirement cannot be fully met, applicants may still demonstrate growth and job creation potential through alternative evidence, though the evaluation will weigh these factors carefully in the overall eligibility assessment.

• If the monetary requirement cannot be fully met, you can show growth and job creation potential through other means. This clause provides some flexibility for founders who may not reach the precise funding thresholds but can present a compelling narrative supported by metrics such as early customer acquisition, a defined product-market fit trajectory, strategic partnerships, pilot programs, or other concrete indicators of scalable growth. In practice, the adjudicators will look for a robust plan that demonstrates the project’s economic viability and potential for significant employment generation consistent with U.S. economic goals.

Key considerations for qualifying for IEP include the following: the source and nature of funding, the founder’s ownership and active role, and the startup’s demonstrable progress toward growth and job creation. The program’s design recognizes that credible funding streams—whether from government grants or qualified investors—provide a foundation for the founder to establish residence in the United States while building a scalable business. However, this framework also acknowledges the sensitivity around private capital disclosures. For example, the statement from a New York-based immigration attorney notes that private venture capital firms’ track records and investments contain highly sensitive information that many investors prefer to keep confidential. This reality can influence how evidence is gathered and presented to USCIS and underscores the importance of carefully structuring documentary materials, including nondisclosure considerations and strategic redaction where appropriate.

In addition to those core eligibility elements, prospective IEP applicants should consider the practical implications of aligning their business plans with U.S. economic priorities, including sectors where government grants, research funding, and public-private partnerships are prevalent. Founders with projects in AI and other critical technologies may face evaluative emphasis on national security, competitive advantage, and potential for job creation in the United States. Understanding these dynamics can help founders craft a stronger IEP petition, particularly when government support forms a meaningful portion of the funding narrative.

Conceptually, the IEP framework is designed to enable founders to establish legal residence and work authorization so they can devote themselves to building their businesses in the United States, with the prospect of broader immigration pathways in the future. That intent guides the evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of the petition: the more credible and verifiable the funding, ownership, and leadership elements are, the stronger the case for initial parole. Because IEP is a status rather than a traditional visa, the adjudicatory focus centers on whether the venture has a solid, demonstrated potential for growth, whether the founder is actively shaping that growth, and whether the U.S. ecosystem stands to benefit from the company’s activities.

• Key requirements to extend your IEP status for another 30 months include the following:

• You must hold at least a 5% ownership stake in your startup. The extension criteria recognize that the founder continues to have a meaningful stake and ongoing influence over the company’s direction and performance. A smaller ownership threshold can still reflect a central role if accompanied by evidence of ongoing leadership and active contribution to value creation and strategic execution. The critical point is that the founder remains sufficiently engaged and essential to the enterprise’s continued growth.

• You continue to play a central and active role in your startup. Demonstrating ongoing leadership and day-to-day involvement is essential for a successful extension. The narrative should emphasize continued product development, market expansion efforts, partnerships, fundraising, and hiring activities that reflect sustained commitment to the venture’s trajectory. The extension review will assess whether the founder’s contributions remain pivotal to achieving the next phase of growth.

• Your startup has achieved one or more of the following during your initial IEP period:

  • Has received at least $529,000 in additional qualifying funding.
  • Generates at least $529,000 in annual revenue with at least 20% average annual revenue growth.
  • Created at least five full-time jobs for U.S. workers.

These extension benchmarks are designed to ensure that the enterprise has progressed beyond the initial seed stage and has demonstrated tangible, scalable impact in the U.S. economy. Each criterion is anchored in measurable outcomes—additional funding, revenue growth with a defined rate, or direct job creation—that can be evidenced through financial statements, payroll records, investor communications, and other documentation. The existence of any one of these outcomes can be a strong driver for an extension, but many applicants pursue all three where feasible to present a robust extension case. The emphasis is squarely on sustained momentum, not merely initial success, and on continued alignment with U.S. economic objectives such as innovation, job creation, and export potential.

After reaching the five-year maximum stay under IEP, the founder and family must depart the United States. If the founder wishes to pursue a visa or green card, the process must occur from the home country via consular processing. The timing of this transition is a critical planning consideration; with proper advance planning, founders can coordinate their departure with the aim of applying for permanent residency or transitioning to another status from abroad. The need for consular processing adds a layer of administrative complexity, including visa interviews, background checks, and potential visa category alignment with eligibility criteria in the home country. A well-designed plan that accounts for these steps ahead of time can help minimize gaps in status and ensure a smoother transition to a different immigration trajectory.

In practice, the IEP program’s extension framework rewards measurable progress that translates into real-world impact—growth in funding, revenue, and employment. The combination of an initial 30-month parole period and a potential extension to 60 months creates a window within which founders can focus on market validation, technology refinement, and expansion strategies while building a credible pathway toward a more durable immigration solution. However, it is important to recognize that not all startups will meet the extension metrics, and other immigration options may be necessary to secure long-term status. The strategic decision to pursue IEP should be informed by a founder’s funding profile, growth trajectory, and the likelihood of meeting or surpassing extension benchmarks, as well as by the broader policy environment and adjudicatory climate.

The Quickest Option and How It Compares to IEP

One of the most critical practical considerations for startup founders seeking to immigrate to the United States is time-to-decision. The IEP pathway, while valuable for certain founders, is often not fast. In many cases, clients have faced waiting periods approaching two and a half years, with little predictability about when USCIS will reach a final decision. For founders who need to accelerate the ability to live, work, and scale in the United States, the O-1A extraordinary ability visa presents a compelling alternative, particularly because it can be filed with premium processing, providing a defined decision timeline.

• The O-1A visa with premium processing: The O-1A is designed for individuals who demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. It is a nonimmigrant visa that allows the holder to live and work in the United States for an initial period of up to three years, with the possibility of extensions. The premium processing option is a separate filing track that guarantees a USCIS decision within 15 calendar days, subject to the availability of premium processing and payment of the associated fee. This accelerated processing can be a game-changer for founders who have a compelling case of extraordinary ability and who can demonstrate their achievements through robust, verifiable documentation.

• When does O-1A typically apply to startup founders? O-1A can be particularly advantageous for founders who have demonstrated exceptional achievements and who have a credible, evidence-backed profile. The types of evidence that commonly support O-1A petitions align closely with the criteria used for other high-profile professional recognitions. The O-1A’s criteria can be summarized as follows (with the understanding that meeting multiple criteria strengthens the petition):

  • You have won nationally or internationally recognized awards, such as venture capital funding or notable industry acknowledgments.
  • You have been invited to join a group that requires outstanding achievements in your field.
  • You and your work have been featured in professional or major trade publications, or major media outlets.
  • You have judged the work of others in your field, either as an individual or as part of a panel.
  • You have made significant contributions to your field, such as patents or widely used breakthroughs.
  • You have written book chapters or articles for scholarly journals, professional or major trade publications, or major media.
  • You are a critical employee of an organization with a distinguished reputation.
  • You command a high salary relative to others in your field and geographic area.

• Practical strategy when considering O-1A: Among these criteria, it is typically recommended to establish at least four criteria with robust, verifiable evidence to present a persuasive case. In practice, many successful O-1A petitions rely on combinations such as major industry recognition, leadership roles, notable publications or media features, and a demonstrated track record of significant contributions to the field. For startup founders who have secured venture funding or government grants, the O-1A category can often be a strong option because venture funding and government grants can be framed as evidence of recognition, achievement, and the ability to scale.

• A note on evidence and the IEP comparison: The O-1A path hinges on a strong evidentiary record that demonstrates extraordinary ability and sustained achievement. While IEP focuses on funding thresholds and active participation in the venture, the O-1A emphasizes recognized accomplishments and leadership within the field. If a founder has compelling achievements that meet multiple O-1A criteria, premium processing can dramatically shorten the timeline from petition to decision, enabling earlier entry into the U.S. market and faster operational capabilities for the startup.

• The intersection with other options: It is common for founders to pursue parallel strategies—filing an IEP petition while preparing an O-1A submission or exploring H-1B eligibility. This approach ensures that the founder maintains status options in case one path encounters delays or denials. It also allows the founder to leverage different evidence streams, such as government funding records for IEP and award recognitions for O-1A, to build a robust overall immigration strategy.

O-1A Criteria in Depth: Practical Examples and Strategic Framing

To help founders understand how to approach the O-1A petition, it is helpful to break down the eight criteria and illustrate potential evidence that could support a strong petition. While meeting three criteria is the minimum threshold, a more compelling case often requires four or more criteria with well-documented evidence.

• National or international awards (such as venture funding or industry recognition): Document the scale of recognition, the jury or presenting body, the prestige of the award, prize amounts, and the impact on the startup’s credibility. Include press releases, award ceremonies, and independent coverage that underscores the significance of the recognition within the field.

• Invitations to join groups requiring outstanding achievements: Provide evidence of invitations to exclusive forums, panels, or organizations that recognize exceptional contributions. This could include letters from host organizations, membership rosters, or publicly available listings of invitees.

• Featured in professional or major trade publications or major media: Compile a portfolio of articles, interviews, or profiles that demonstrate sustained visibility and recognition of the founder’s work. Seek out both industry publications and mainstream media where possible, with contextual analysis of the founder’s impact on the field.

• Judging the work of others in your field: Include invitation letters to serve on review panels, judges’ bios, and proof of the selection process. Document the dates, venues, and outcomes of these judging activities to illustrate a pattern of recognized expertise.

• Significant contributions to the field (such as patents or widely used tools): Provide patent documents, licensing agreements, technology transfer records, or evidence of technology adoption by others in the field.

• Authorship of scholarly or professional publications: Include citations, impact metrics (where appropriate), and the relevance of the work to the domain. Provide links to citations in major journals or trade publications, along with contextual commentary on the significance of the work.

• Employment in a critical or distinguished organization: Compile evidence that links the founder’s role to the organization’s reputation and to major projects that demonstrate impact and leadership.

• High salary or remuneration relative to peers: Substantiate with payroll records, tax documents, or third-party compensation analyses that position the founder’s compensation as exceptional within the field and geographic area.

• Other considerations: The O-1A category is flexible and can accommodate other forms of evidence that demonstrate extraordinary ability, such as major conference invitations, scholarly awards, or leadership positions that are widely recognized as markers of distinction.

If venture funding or government grants are available as recognized awards, linking them to the O-1A criteria can be advantageous. In practice, founders who have secured notable funding and have demonstrable achievement in their domain can construct a compelling O-1A petition with a strong premium processing track record. The O-1A pathway can thus complement or, in some cases, supersede IEP when the founder’s achievements align with the criteria and the evidentiary record is robust.

Other Startup Immigration Routes: H-1B and Beyond

In recent years, the H-1B specialty occupation visa has become more adaptable for startup founders. Historically, establishing an employer-employee relationship between the founder and the startup could require the founder to cede substantial control or ownership to demonstrate supervision rights by a co-founder or board member, or to limit the founder’s ownership to maintain the necessary supervisory structure. These constraints could undercut the founder’s ability to lead the company effectively.

Recent developments, however, have shifted the landscape in several important ways. Founders who hold more than 50% of the equity in their startup may still qualify for an H-1B visa or for transferring an H-1B status to their startup without relinquishing control. The key is to demonstrate a legitimate employer-employee relationship, which can be supported by submitting the Labor Condition Application (LCA) approved by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and a formal employment agreement or job offer letter from the startup. These documents help establish that the startup is the employer of the founder, consistent with the H-1B framework.

Prospective H-1B applicants should be mindful of the annual filing timeline. The H-1B lottery typically takes place in March, and if selected, the LCA must be approved by the DOL and the H-1B petition approved by USCIS before the earliest possible start date. The standard H-1B start date aligns with the fiscal year, commonly October 1. In some recent years, regulatory and policy changes have included adjustments to eligibility criteria, public charge considerations, and travel-related requirements, which can influence the planning and execution of an H-1B strategy. While H-1B processing times can vary, the combination of a robust LCA, a strong employment relationship narrative, and a favorable Labor Condition Application can provide a viable route for founders seeking to establish company employment in the United States.

H-1B changes have also impacted how founders structure their ventures and their equity. In some cases, founders with substantial equity can leverage the H-1B while maintaining leadership control, provided they meet the LCA and job offer requirements. For entrepreneurs exploring H-1B, a crucial step is to build and present a credible chain of evidence connecting the founder’s day-to-day responsibilities, the critical nature of the founder’s role, and the company’s need for specialized labor in order to compete and grow. This often includes detailed job descriptions, evidence of specialized knowledge, and documentation of how the founder’s unique expertise is central to the startup’s success and ongoing execution.

Seasoned immigration practitioners often advise founders to pursue multiple pathways in parallel. Given the uncertainties inherent in any single immigration route, a diversified plan that includes IEP, O-1A, and H-1B can provide strategic flexibility. This multi-path approach is particularly prudent for startups operating in fast-moving technology sectors where time-to-market and talent acquisition are critical. Founders should work with counsel to map out a timeline that accounts for potential delays, the need for documentary substantiation, and the realities of funding cycles, investor milestones, and government grant cycles. The goal is to optimize the chance of obtaining status in the United States on terms that align with the startup’s development timeline and funding strategy, while maintaining compliance and minimizing gaps in status.

A Practical Look at the Quickest Path: How O-1A Compares to IEP

For founders who prioritize speed and predictability, the O-1A extraordinary ability visa, especially with premium processing, offers a compelling option. The O-1A pathway’s emphasis on extraordinary achievement can align well with profiles that include major funding rounds, industry recognition, and proven leadership. The premium processing track can reduce waiting times dramatically, enabling a faster transition to U.S. operations. However, the O-1A requires a robust evidentiary record that demonstrates exceptional ability and sustained acclaim, often through multiple categories of achievement.

In assessing whether to pursue O-1A versus IEP, founders should consider:

• The nature of evidence available: If there are strong awards, recognitions, media coverage, and professional contributions, O-1A may be more viable and faster than IEP. If government funding and verifiable grants form the backbone of the startup’s support, IEP may be more straightforward, given the program’s explicit funding thresholds.

• The timeline and plan for permanency: If the founder’s longer-term aim is permanent residency or a green card, an O-1A pathway can, in some cases, be a stepping stone toward a broader immigrant strategy. IEP, while valuable, is more time-bound and requires a separate plan for eventual permanent residency if desired.

• The risk profile and funding structure: O-1A is more sensitive to the quality and visibility of achievements, while IEP centers on the existence of credible funding sources and active leadership. Understanding how funding sources are documented and how achievements are showcased is key to building a persuasive case in either pathway.

• The operational needs of the startup: If immediate, on-the-ground presence in the United States is critical to the venture’s survival, O-1A’s speed can be decisive. If the startup’s growth hinges on verifiable funding streams and the founder’s active role, IEP can be a strong fit, particularly when extended with careful planning for potential long-term immigration status.

The emphasis here is not to pick one path in isolation, but to design a coordinated strategy that leverages the strengths of each route. Founders should work closely with qualified immigration counsel to tailor a plan that aligns with the startup’s funding instruments, growth trajectory, and long-term objectives. In practice, a blended approach often yields the best overall outcome: use premium processing O-1A to secure an early foothold in the U.S. market, while simultaneously building an IEP-backed plan that ensures the founder’s continued ability to operate, recruit, and scale within the United States during the interim period and beyond.

H-1B and Startup Equity: Evolving Rules for Founders

The landscape for startup founders seeking U.S. work authorization has evolved to recognize the realities of founder-led ventures and the need for practical, workable solutions. The H-1B visa, long a mainstay for specialized workers, has become more adaptable to startups that require founders to maintain a high degree of control over their companies. Previously, demonstrating an employer-employee relationship between the founder and the startup could require the co-founder or board to supervise and have the power to fire, which inevitably challenged a founder’s control and vision.

Recent developments have made it increasingly feasible for founders who own a majority stake in their company to qualify for an H-1B or to transfer an H-1B to the startup without relinquishing control. By submitting a Labor Condition Application (LCA) approved by the Department of Labor (DOL) and an employment offer from the startup, founders can present a credible employer-employee relationship that satisfies H-1B requirements. This change widens the set of viable pathways for founder-led startups, enabling founders to remain actively involved in management while pursuing U.S. work authorization. It is essential to coordinate these steps with immigration counsel to ensure that the LCA and job offer align with the company’s structure, governance, and compensation framework.

Founders should also be mindful of the H-1B lottery timing and the importance of early preparation. Registrations typically occur in March, with successful petitions moving forward if selected for the lottery. For many startups, the earliest working date falls on October 1 of the fiscal year, which aligns with standard H-1B processing timelines once the petition is approved. In light of ongoing changes to immigration policies and enforcement priorities, founders should view H-1B as one piece of a broader immigration strategy rather than a standalone, one-size-fits-all solution. The choice among IEP, O-1A, and H-1B should be guided by the founder’s profile, funding resources, and the startup’s growth plan, with careful consideration given to timelines, evidentiary requirements, and the competitive landscape for startup immigration.

Practical Considerations: Grants, Evidence, and Strategic Positioning

A core theme across all startup immigration pathways is the role of funding, evidence, and strategic positioning. IEP’s explicit funding thresholds (whether from government awards or qualified U.S. investors) provide a clear evidentiary framework. Government grants and nondilutive awards can be a powerful foundation for IEP petitions, particularly for founders who can present non-dilutive funding as a signal of public sector support and market validation. The requirement of at least $106,000 in government awards or grants is a notable threshold that helps distinguish applicants whose ventures are aligned with government priorities and economic development goals.

From a practical standpoint, founders should plan for both the supply side (funding sources) and demand side (evidence presentation). On the funding side, exploring opportunities through programs like those run by urban innovation labs, universities, and government-supported initiatives can strengthen the IEP case. On the evidence side, founders should assemble documentary packs that include funding letters, grant terms, milestones achieved, payroll data, and other documentation that demonstrates both financial backing and tangible impact on job creation and growth. It is also important to be mindful of investor privacy concerns. The sensitivity around private investment information means that counsel must carefully curate what is disclosed and how it is presented to USCIS, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential data.

In addition to financial evidence, USCIS will assess the founder’s centrality to the project and the startup’s growth potential. This often requires a narrative that logically connects the founder’s leadership with milestones such as product development progress, customer expansion, pilot programs, and measurable economic impact. When the founder can show a clear path from current achievements to future growth—supported by data, contracts, partnerships, and revenue indicators—the IEP petition becomes more compelling.

Policy Updates: Biden’s AI Executive Order and DHS Initiatives

A significant policy development shaping startup immigration is the executive order focused on artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies. President Biden directed DHS to improve the IEP process for founders working in AI and other critical emerging technologies. This directive reflects a broader strategy to accelerate the deployment of innovative technology in the United States while ensuring that immigration processes support, rather than hinder, comparative advantage for the nation’s tech ecosystem.

The executive order positions DHS and its component agencies, including USCIS and CBP, to streamline adjudication, standardize documentation requirements, and facilitate more predictable processing timelines for qualified applicants. While the precise administrative implementations can vary based on DHS guidance and evolving policy priorities, founders should anticipate an increased focus on speed, clarity, and efficiency for IEP. In practice, this means better alignment between funding evidence, project milestones, and the regulatory expectations for parole status, with the ultimate aim of reducing delays that have historically affected IEP timelines.

Step-by-Step Guide: Pursuing IEP and Evaluating Alternatives

For founders planning to pursue IEP, O-1A, or H-1B, a structured, proactive approach can improve probability of success. The following steps outline a practical blueprint that integrates the core IEP requirements with a forward-looking immigration plan.

• Step 1: Assess eligibility comprehensively. Review all IEP criteria: the startup’s U.S. entity status, the founder’s ownership percentage, active involvement, the startup’s funding sources (government grants or qualified U.S. investors), and the five-year window for founder formation. If possible, perform a gap analysis to understand what must be demonstrated for a successful petition.

• Step 2: Build a robust funding profile. For IEP, government awards and nondilutive grants can be a decisive factor. If government grants are not yet secured, explore programs such as city, university, or public-private partnerships that align with the startup’s domain. For those pursuing O-1A, identify robust evidence of recognition (awards, media features, and invitations to prestigious groups), and gather documentation of high-impact achievements.

• Step 3: Assemble a comprehensive evidence package. Prepare documents that clearly establish the founder’s centrality and active operational role, the company’s legal status, ownership stake, and progress toward growth metrics. For IEP, compile grant letters, investment documentation from qualified investors, and any evidence of job creation. For O-1A, assemble awards, publications, media coverage, invitations, and other evidence of extraordinary ability.

• Step 4: Develop a detailed business plan and growth trajectory. Provide a credible roadmap that links funding, hiring, revenue growth, and product milestones to the broader U.S. economic impact. This plan should articulate how the founder’s leadership and the company’s strategic direction will create value in the near term and over the initial parole period.

• Step 5: Consider parallel pathways. Given the extended timelines of IEP, explore a fast-track option such as O-1A with premium processing if the founder has substantial achievements. Evaluate H-1B as a longer-term route if the founder’s role in the company and the company’s structure support the employer-employee relationship required by H-1B.

• Step 6: Engage experienced immigration counsel early. Work with counsel to tailor the documentary evidence to the specific pathway, ensuring compliance with current regulations and best practices for evidentiary presentation. Counsel can also help harmonize filing timelines with funding cycles and business milestones.

• Step 7: Plan for transition beyond the five-year horizon. If the ultimate goal is permanent residency, begin formulating a strategy that anticipates consular processing or adjustment of status considerations. Ensure that the plan accounts for potential changes in policy, funding cycles, and market dynamics, and that there is a clear exit or transition pathway if needed.

• Step 8: Monitor policy developments. Stay informed about DHS, USCIS, and executive-level policy shifts related to IEP, O-1A, and H-1B. Early awareness of policy updates can enable timely adjustments to the strategy and documentation requirements.

• Step 9: Prepare for contingencies. Build a plan that accounts for potential delays in adjudication, changes in funding availability, and shifts in regulatory criteria. This includes maintaining operational resilience, diversifying funding streams where feasible, and ensuring that the founder’s status remains uninterrupted during the planning period.

Conclusion

IEP remains a meaningful option for startup founders who have secured government funding or grants and who can demonstrate a compelling path to growth, job creation, and scalable impact in the United States. Yet it is essential to recognize that adjudication timelines can be long, and extensions require concrete progress and measurable outcomes. The Biden administration’s emphasis on AI and emerging technologies signals a policy environment that seeks to streamline processes and accelerate access for high-impact ventures. For many founders, the fastest route to U.S. presence may lie in the O-1A extraordinary ability visa with premium processing, particularly when a robust, verifiable record of achievement supports the petition. The H-1B visa remains a viable option for founders who can establish a credible employer-employee relationship and meet the program’s requirements, especially when the founder holds a meaningful equity stake in the startup.

Ultimately, the most effective strategy often involves a well-coordinated blend of pathways, tailored to the founder’s background, the startup’s funding profile, and the company’s growth plans. By starting with a clear eligibility assessment, assembling a thorough evidence package, and aligning funding trajectories with immigration milestones, founders can navigate the complex landscape with greater confidence. The overarching message is clear: you can build and scale in the United States, but proactive planning, strategic funding, and careful selection of immigration routes are essential to maximize opportunity and minimize risk in a dynamic regulatory environment. With careful preparation, founders can position their ventures to thrive in the United States while maintaining a clear, compliant, and resilient immigration pathway that supports long-term success.