Stay up to date on upcoming events, deadlines, news, and more by signing up for our newsletters.
At a recent session hosted by the NYU Leslie Entrepreneurial Institute, student founders gathered for a deep dive into one of the most overlooked yet critical aspects of building a company: navigating the legal constraints of immigration and work authorization. This session was led by Michael Serotte, Senior Partner at Serotte Law.
For many founders, especially international students, the question is simple but high stakes: How do I build a startup without accidentally breaking the law?
The answer, as the session made clear, is nuanced and highly situational.
The Founder Gray Zone
One of the most important frameworks discussed was the distinction between what is permissible versus what constitutes unauthorized work under an F-1 visa.
At a high level, founders can engage in activities that resemble those of a “business visitor.” This includes:
- Conducting market research
- Developing a product
- Attending meetings and negotiating contracts
- Networking and exploring opportunities
However, the line is crossed when execution begins.
Hiring employees, managing operations, signing contracts, or performing routine business activities can all require work authorization. As one key takeaway: ideation and exploration are generally allowed, but execution often is not.
This creates a unique challenge for student founders operating in the earliest stages of company building.
The 0 → 1 vs. 1 → 2 Insight
A particularly memorable concept from the session reframed startup progress through a legal lens:
- 0 → 1 (Exploration): Networking, validating ideas, and discussing potential funding is typically permissible.
- 1 → 2 (Execution): Actively raising capital, operating the business, or generating revenue may require authorization.
This distinction is critical. Founders can “drum up interest” and build relationships with investors, but once formal fundraising or operational activity begins, they may need to transition into a compliant structure.
Global vs. U.S. Impact Matters
Another key insight centered on where value is created.
If a founder is building something that benefits users outside the U.S., that work may fall within permissible boundaries. But once the economic benefit shifts to the U.S. market, work authorization requirements are triggered.
This subtle distinction forces founders to think not just about what they are building, but where the value accrues.
Structuring Around Constraints
Given these limitations, many founders explore creative but compliant structures:
- Delegating execution to authorized individuals
- Separating ownership from operational roles
- Acting in advisory or strategic capacities rather than operational ones
The session emphasized that while these workarounds exist, they must be approached carefully and intentionally.
Understanding the Visa Landscape
Beyond immediate constraints, the session also outlined longer-term pathways available to founders.
Some of the most relevant visa options include:
- H-1B: For specialized roles, typically tied to an employer
- O-1: For individuals with demonstrated extraordinary ability
- E-1/E-2: For treaty-based investors (not available to all nationalities)
- TN: For certain professions tied to degree qualifications
Each pathway comes with tradeoffs around flexibility, control, and long-term viability.
A particularly actionable takeaway for aspiring founders was to start building eligibility early. Activities like publishing, speaking, and building a strong professional profile can materially improve future visa outcomes, especially for O-1 pathways.
OPT and the Importance of Consistency
For students leveraging Optional Practical Training (OPT), compliance extends beyond simply having authorization.
Founders must ensure:
- Their role aligns with their field of study
- Their employment structure is legitimate and documented
- Their public narrative matches their legal filings
As highlighted in the session, inconsistencies across LinkedIn, press coverage, and official filings can create real issues during immigration review.
The Bigger Takeaway
If there was one overarching message from the session, it’s this:
Legal strategy is not a constraint on building, it’s part of building.
Founders can't think about product, market, and growth. Today, it’s important they think about structure, compliance, and long-term positioning from day one.
In an environment where timelines are compressing and startups can go from idea to traction faster than ever, understanding the legal framework early is no longer optional. It’s a competitive advantage.
