No announcement yet.

Article: How States, Cities, and Universities Can Retain Foreign Entrepreneurs. by Matthew La Corte and Brandon Fuller


  • Article: How States, Cities, and Universities Can Retain Foreign Entrepreneurs. by Matthew La Corte and Brandon Fuller

    How States, Cities, and Universities Can Retain Foreign Entrepreneurs


    American colleges and universities attract and educate some of the world’s most talented and ambitious foreign graduate students. But thanks to restrictive immigration laws, many of these brilliant, highly-trained individuals are forced to head straight to the nearest airport upon graduation.

    They take a lot more than their suitcases home with them. They take the valuable skills, talents, and ideas incubated by America’s graduate programs. What’s worse, the innovations and businesses, which would have created good American jobs, materialize instead on foreign shores.

    Better legal immigration options for foreign students would alleviate shortages for skilled worker, boost economic growth, and promote job creation for all Americans. An innovative program in Massachusetts shows how it can be done.

    It’s called the Global Entrepreneur in Residence Program (GEIR), and it’s becoming a model for capturing more of the value of America’s world-leading universities by keeping  job creators on American soil. GEIR is aimed at retaining the entrepreneurial foreign graduates who, despite their talents, lost the lottery for H-1B visas.

    The concept is simple: universities are granted an exemption from the H-1B high-skilled worker visa cap. By working part-time at the university and part-time on their start-up, a foreign student can stay in the U.S. and build a business, facilitating job creation for locals.


    The visa for high-skilled foreign workersthe H-1Bis capped at just 85,000 per year. However, firms file in excess of 300,000 H-1B visa petitions each year, and a lottery system determines who gets them. The application process is restrictive and expensive. Because applications are submitted only once per year, fast-moving start-ups are forced to make hiring decisions around an arbitrary deadline.

    The experience of Massachusetts shows why current visa policy is such a big problem. There are about 50,000 foreign college students at Massachusetts colleges. Every year, it’s estimated that more than a thousand entrepreneurs leave the state due to the national limitation on H-1B visas.

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted several “cases in which entrepreneurs attempting to establish very early-stage technology start-ups were unable to obtain H-1B or other work visas for themselves and either relocated the project abroad or had to abandon the start-up.”

    Furthermore, the Boston Federal Reserve found that New England has the highest concentration of regional employment in STEM fields nationally and some of the highest demand for H-1B workers.

    High-skilled visa reform is badly needed, but Congress shows no signs of making meaningful reform a reality any time soon. That is where GEIR comes in.


    The good news is that some entities, including universities and nonprofit research organizations, are already exempt from the H-1B visa cap. Several years ago, this little-known fact piqued the interest of Jeffrey Goldman—a Boston-based immigration lawyer—and Jeffrey Bussgang—venture capitalist and Harvard Business School lecturer.

    They asked: could universities use the cap exemption to sponsor graduates of advanced degree programs who want to build their businesses in Massachusetts but would otherwise be unable to due to the lack of H-1B visa slots?

    “I teach at Harvard Business School,”Bussgang said. “And at the end of my class I would have all these incredibly brilliant students come up to me and tell me about their startups that they were working on, and yet they couldn’t stay to launch those startups here in the U.S.”

    The Massachusetts Legislature provided a framework for the program in 2014, with initial GEIR programs taking root at UMass Boston and UMass Lowell. Though initially funded entirely by the state, the UMass programs have shifted to a public-private partnership with modest public funding and a growing effort to enlist private philanthropy. More recently, Babson College in Wellesley became the first private college to establish a program.

    In order to qualify for the program, candidates must be in a leadership position at an early-stage venture, have a masters degree or higher in a STEM or business field, and have their company headquartered in Massachusetts.

    The entrepreneurs-in-residence spend part of their time (eight to ten hours weekly) mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs amongst the university’s students, faculty, and alumni and teaching classes which triggers the exemption as university employees. The other half of their time will be spent building their company, incubating new ideas, and creating value and jobs for the people of Massachusetts.

    Once the startup firm develops sufficiently, it can apply to directly sponsor the entrepreneur-in-residence for an H-1B visa. Because the entrepreneur has work authorization from the participating university, the startup’s application to sponsor the entrepreneur is not included in the lottery process—the startup’s ability to sponsor the H-1B visa is therefore judged strictly on the merits of the application rather than the luck of the draw.

    The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative vets applicants and the participating universities sponsor them. The GEIR program now has two corporate partners. This public-private program has the support of the Governor’s office and the investment community in Massachusetts.

    In less than two years, twenty entrepreneurs have received visasa 100 percent success rateand the companies those students have created produced 261 jobs and raised $118.5M in private investment.


    The GEIR program tends to focus on entrepreneurs in high technology that will generate high-skill job positions. But this program isn’t just a win for Silicon Valley-type techies in their t-shirts and sandals making the next Facebook or Snapchat.

    As the work of UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti suggests, the addition of high-tech jobs to cities ultimately leads to the creation of 5 additional service jobs, ranging from lower-skilled jobs in security to higher-skilled jobs in design and architecture.

    Similar programs elsewhere show promise. Colorado and New York have already picked up on Massachusetts’ example. Working on its own, the University of Colorado Boulder launched an entrepreneur-in-residence program in 2015 with philanthropic support from venture capitalist Brad Feld.

    In early 2016, seven City University of New York (CUNY) campuses announced they are collaborating with New York City’s Economic Development Corporation to launch the International Innovations Initiative NYC (IN2NYC), a program for foreign entrepreneurs that shares similarities with GEIR. It’s the first city-run program and seeks to allow 80 entrepreneurs to work at CUNY institutions while building their business for two years.

    The New York program seeks to “create quality 21st-century jobs for New Yorkers” and “support the CUNY system by attracting international talent and fostering entrepreneurship among its student and faculty population.”

    Retention programs like these could also work in other places. The approach could work well in areas where academic institutions already draw top foreign talent for advanced degrees in STEM fields, such as Raleigh-Durham, Chicago, or Southern California. It could work even better in places where the industries generating new and growing firms are well-matched to the research and training programs at local academic institutions: be it healthcare in Atlanta or Nashville, or software in Austin or the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Creating Jobs Through Better Immigration Policy

    Each year, American universities educate hundreds of thousands of foreign students, many of them pursuing degrees in science, math, engineering, and technology—fields that are central to innovation and economic growth. Doing more to retain the exceptional foreign graduates who wish to stay in the United States—particularly those with a demonstrated ability to start new companies and create jobs—would be an unambiguous economic good.

    Entrepreneurs will start companies somewhere. By making sure it happens in the U.S., the entrepreneur-in-residence approach emphasizes a better sense of entrepreneurship at world class American institutions and contributes to the growth of new firms, jobs, and tax revenues that will reverberate through local economies.  

    Existing policy amounts to the de facto deportation of some the world’s smartest and most creative mindsblocking tangible benefits and jobs for Americans.

    So long as Congress remains stalled on H-1B reform, programs like Massachusetts’s GEIR offer a feasible stand-in for states, cities, and universities interested in retaining foreign entrepreneurs with promising business ventures that can help supercharge local economies. It’s time to unleash foreign entrepreneurs on the American economy. 

    This post appeared on the Niskanen Center. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Matthew La Corte Matthew La Corte is a Research Associate at the Niskanen Center where he works on immigration policy. Matthew graduated from Hofstra University with degrees in Political Science and Economics. He has been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Financial Times, the Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and many others. His research has been cited by the Washington Post, Vox, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nonprofit Quarterly, and Yahoo News. He writes regularly for the Niskanen Center website and is a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post. He focuses on legal immigration channels, state-based visa reform, and refugee resettlement. You can follow him on Twitter at @MLaCorte_

    Brandon Fuller Brandon Fuller is Deputy Director and Research Scholar at the Marron Institute. Fuller is also part of the founding team at the Urbanization Project, a Marron-affiliated research center at NYU's Stern School of Business.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • JohnKang
      JohnKang commented
      Editing a comment
      Very informative piece. Thanks a lot Matthew and Brandon.
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
  • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
    PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
    08-13-2018, 02:21 PM