5

My stay would be over 90 days as I would be in the US for just over three months. I've been looking online for the answer but it doesn't seem clear.

phoog
  • 134,313
  • 19
  • 274
  • 446
  • 1
    Are you seeking to be in US and work for your UK-based company or is the company seeking to send you to the US? How does the time add up to 90+ days since your gross working period is 84 days? – user2617804 Jul 24 '22 at 01:35
  • 1
    I know someone who tried to do exactly this a few years back. Turned up at the border after a long haul flight, was refused entry at immigration and sent straight back home. So be very sure you are allowed to do what you're planning to do, otherwise it will go badly! – Bamboo Jul 25 '22 at 02:23

2 Answers2

10

There is no visa in the US that allows the bearer to work remotely for a foreign employer. If you're planning to stay in the US as a "visitor for business or pleasure" for longer than 90 days, you would need a B visa (B-1 or B-1/B-2 as a business visitor; B-2 or B-1/B-2 as a "pleasure" visitor).

As a B-2 visitor, you are allowed to undertake incidental tasks related to your employment, such as e-mail, telephone calls, and so on. As a business visitor, you can also attend meetings, negotiate contracts, and other similar activity. There's no clear guidance concerning full-on working, but anecdotally it seems that if you apply for a visa saying that you intend to be working full time, remotely, for your foreign employer, the visa will be refused. Similarly, if the immigration officer discovers the same intention, you will not be admitted to the US.

This may not make much sense, especially in terms of fostering the US tourism sector, but that seems to be how it works these days.

For what it is worth, Canada has explicitly taken the opposite position on this question, so you might consider going there instead.

Another thing to keep in mind is that your pay for the work you perform in the United States is likely taxable in the United States.

phoog
  • 134,313
  • 19
  • 274
  • 446
  • 1
    The first statement in your answer is not necessarily correct. Depending on the work it is possible that a B-1 visa would be suitable, however even if it wasn't then a "B-1 in Lieu of H-1B" visa would allow this (presuming the applicant met the requirements). – Doc Jul 23 '22 at 18:27
  • There's no clear guidance concerning full-on working - yes there is. See the "travel not permitted on visitor visas" section: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visitor.html – littleadv Jul 23 '22 at 19:13
  • @Doc this article explains in what cases BILOH is suitable (hint: not this case), and also mentioned that it is going away: https://klaskolaw.com/news-politics/state-department-moves-to-restrict-business-travel-biloh/ – littleadv Jul 23 '22 at 19:27
  • 1
    @littleadv I don't how you can state "not this case" when the chris1888 has provided almost zero details of what "this case" is... – Doc Jul 23 '22 at 20:44
  • @Doc for starters, it's the OP who's interested in the arrangement and not the employer, I think that's enough to rule BILOH out. – littleadv Jul 23 '22 at 20:48
  • 1
    @littleadv "yes there is": where on that page is the question of remote work for a foreign employer addressed? It is not clear that the word "employment" covers that. – phoog Jul 24 '22 at 09:39
  • @littleadv where in the question does the OP say he's not being sent by his employer? – Midavalo Jul 24 '22 at 16:17
  • @phoog employment means working for an employer, not sure how this word could be clearer. Foreign or domestics matters not, unless explicitly stated (which it is not). Unless you can show to me that foreign employment is allowed in some authoritative text (which is not your speculation or uneducated guess), the source I provided quite clearly and explicitly says that it is not. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 01:22
  • @Midavalo In the US, foreign workers' immigration status is the responsibility of the employer. If the employer is sending him to commit immigration fraud or break foreign country's immigration laws then the OP should seek a different employer. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 01:23
  • @littleadv that is a straw man. It is not the word "employment" that is unclear but the applicability of the prohibition on traveling for the purpose of employment to someone who intends to, for example, sit by the beach for 12 weeks while working remotely for a foreign employer. Many intelligent people fail to make the connection; therefore, the connection is unclear. "immigration status is the responsibility of the employer": that is untrue. A person who violates immigration status by working in the US is subject to personal legal liability. – phoog Jul 25 '22 at 07:35
  • @phoog speaking of straw men, the guidance I referred to is pretty clear. Employment is forbidden. The identity of the employer is irrelevant. Whether you are employed while sipping mai tais at the beach is also irrelevant. Unless you can bring any authoritative source from the US government saying otherwise, you will not be able to refute my evidence. Can you bring such evidence? So far you haven't. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 07:49
  • As to "many intelligent people", this is a non-argument. You're clearly an intelligent person, who clearly understands the intent and the literal meaning. You choose to ignore it and twist it to your personal needs as you go, but that doesn't mean that you don't understand what the word "employment" means. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 07:53
  • @littleadv look at Matter of Hira. It was held that a person working in the US for a foreign employer had not violated B-1 status. Many of the conditions present in that case are absent here, but it certainly undermines the proposition that "employment prohibited" applies to any work for any employer anywhere in the world. – phoog Jul 25 '22 at 07:54
  • @phoog That was already discussed and mentioned by Doc and my comment to Doc. Read the article I linked to. Again, not a relevant case here. I'm sure, you, as an educated lawyer and a Justice in the SCOTUS, know that. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 07:55
  • @littleadv I'm not ignoring or twisting anything. I'm describing the confusion experienced by reasonable people who see the information you've provided and are left with questions about what it means. It's unclear. – phoog Jul 25 '22 at 07:55
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – phoog Jul 25 '22 at 07:55
  • @phoog the only one causing confusion is you by saying something that is factually incorrect. You said that there's no clear guidance and I corrected you. You could remove the incorrect statement from your nonsensical answer, but as usual - you don't think that you can ever be wrong. Well, you're wrong about that too. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 07:56
  • @littleadv here's a question with several answers in support of the factually correct statement that the US government does not address this question clearly in its public information. The accepted answer says it's fine, and the second answer says it was grounds for a visa rejection: https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/12771/19400. If the US government had a clear message on this question, the accepted answer would never have been posted. Just because something is clear to you does not mean that it is clear. I am not going to post any more comments here. Further discussion in chat. – phoog Jul 25 '22 at 08:09
  • @phoog you're referring me back to speculations of anonymous internet users that they were not caught breaking the law in order to refute official guidance of the US government that the law exists. You're being unreasonable, you understand perfectly well that you're wrong. Submit and remove the factually incorrect part of your otherwise nonsensical answer. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 16:36
2

In order to work in the US, you have to have an employment authorization in the US.

There are different kinds of employment authorizations for foreigners:

  • Limited to specific employer: the employer has to ask for this, and such authorization results usually in an L or H visa (L1a/b or H1b are the most common ones, but there are other sub-classes). In some exceptional cases there's also the E visas, O visas, and for government officials there are A/G visas, and some more esoteric classes for other specific activities (like religious activities, merchant marines, air crews, etc). Some countries have specific agreements allowing their citizens to work in the US more easily (e.g.: TN status for Canadians).

  • Employer agnostic: You can get an employment authorization for yourself if you're a student/recent graduate (as part of the OPT/CPT process), or if you're in a process of adjustment of status to permanent residency. Some undocumented immigrants can also receive employment authorization as part of DACA, and some refugees and other arrivals can get it while their petitions are being processed.

  • Implicit: you implicitly have employment authorization in the US if you're a US citizen, national, or lawful permanent resident.

If you don't have an employment authorization, then you're not allowed to work in the US. It doesn't matter where your employer is. As mentioned in the other answer, you can conduct some business activities on a B1 visa, but these are restricted and limited in scope. For example, meetings with your US co-workers or partners, occasional phone calls or emails, negotiations, conferences, presentations, and such. Not working. The US DOS explicitly states that employment on B1 is forbidden here:

These are some examples of activities that require different categories of visas and cannot be done while on a visitor visa:

Study

Employment

Paid performances, or any professional performance before a paying audience

Arrival as a crewmember on a ship or aircraft

Work as foreign press, in radio, film, print journalism, or other information media

Permanent residence in the United States

All these cases have their own specific visas.

littleadv
  • 18,055
  • 2
  • 44
  • 73
  • This prohibits working for foreign press but why did they single out press? That seems to me to say that digital nomad type work is otherwise not prohibited, only working for a US employer. – Loren Pechtel Jul 25 '22 at 02:25
  • @LorenPechtel working for foreign press may not be employment (e.g.: freelance reporter investigating a story intending to later sell it to a paper). There is however an explicit visa class for this type of activity. – littleadv Jul 25 '22 at 04:54