A minor consideration is that the bureaucrats in the U.S. government earn lower incomes than most mangerial-class Americans (although they are much less likely to lose their job) and that about 90% of the employees of the U.S. government have left-of-center political beliefs, which usually include some amount of resentment towards successful capitalists and high-income earners. Consequently, an immigration bureaucrat will probably envy the income or assets of a successful technology cofounder. Usually the rules dictate the bureaucrat's decision, but in a case where the rules are silent, envy might make the difference between a favorable immigration decision and an unfavorable one. But like I said, most of the time the bureaucrat's choice will be forced by the rules, and if the rules dictate a favorable decision, then the bureaucrat will have to make a favorable decision no matter how envious he is (or you will be able to force a favorable outcome by spending a moderate amount of legal costs).
I'd consult an immigration lawyer. It sounds like there're a lot of thorny issues that depend a lot on the specifics of the case.
not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a business. considering the complexity of immigration law, "probably" and "maybe" are good answers until a judge gives an official "yes" or "no".
Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it.
Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings.
This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway.
After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on.
Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'.
IANAL etc.
Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.
But I could be wrong, I'm no professional. Your university might know about any loopholes and stuff and would probably know some immigration lawyers in the area.