After spending more than 15 years building careers and raising a family in the United States, Indian entrepreneur Astha Chaturvedi and her husband made a decision that would have seemed unlikely years earlier: they left the country and relocated to Bengaluru, concluding that the uncertainty surrounding their immigration status no longer aligned with their personal and professional goals.

Chaturvedi, 38, founder of Mouri Living, said the move followed years of waiting for employment-based permanent residency in the United States. Despite establishing successful careers and long-term roots in the country, the couple faced an immigration process that offered little certainty about when they might receive green cards.

Speaking about the decision, Chaturvedi said she and her husband had spent approximately 15 years building their lives in the United States. However, the lack of a predictable timeline for permanent residency increasingly influenced their future planning. According to her account, her husband’s place in the green card queue dated back to 2015, while her own application timeline began in 2020.

The experience reflects a challenge faced by many highly skilled foreign workers from India employed in the United States. Long waiting periods for employment-based green cards have become a defining feature of the immigration system for many applicants, particularly those working in technology and professional services sectors.

Before launching her own company, Chaturvedi built a career across some of the most prominent names in technology and consulting. She spent more than a decade working in Big Tech and at consulting firm McKinsey before joining Ripple in San Francisco.While pursuing her corporate career, she also nurtured ambitions of becoming a founder.

That goal, however, was complicated by visa restrictions. Chaturvedi said she initially held an H-1B visa, a status commonly used by skilled foreign professionals working in the United States. Because the visa tied her work authorization to a sponsoring employer, she was unable to independently launch a startup while maintaining that status.

Seeking greater flexibility, she transitioned to an H-4 dependent visa through her husband. After becoming eligible for an H-4 Employment Authorization Document, she gained the legal ability to work independently and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities.

A turning point came during a visit to India in 2024. Chaturvedi traveled there to recruit a chief technology officer for her startup. During the trip, a conversation with a family member prompted a broader reassessment of where the business should be based. A cousin suggested establishing an office in India, pointing to the country’s rapidly expanding startup ecosystem and growing pool of technology talent.

The idea led the couple to explore the possibility of relocating permanently. What began as a business discussion gradually evolved into a broader evaluation of career prospects, family priorities and long-term stability.According to Chaturvedi, the prospect of building a company in India became increasingly attractive as the country’s startup environment matured.

Bengaluru, often referred to as India’s technology capital, emerged as a natural destination because of its concentration of entrepreneurs, engineers, investors and technology companies.The move also offered something that years of waiting in the United States had not provided: certainty.

Rather than continuing to plan around an immigration process with no defined endpoint, the family chose to establish themselves in a country where residency and business ownership presented fewer structural obstacles.

Their decision comes at a time when immigration pathways for highly skilled workers remain a significant topic within the global technology industry. Many foreign professionals working in the United States contribute to sectors such as software development, consulting, finance and artificial intelligence while navigating visa systems that can affect career choices, entrepreneurial ambitions and family planning.

For Chaturvedi, the relocation was not framed as a rejection of the United States. Instead, it reflected a reassessment of where she could most effectively pursue personal and professional goals.

After years spent advancing through major corporations and waiting for permanent residency, she concluded that India offered a clearer path toward building the company and life she envisioned.The decision ultimately combined business opportunity with personal certainty.

After more than a decade and a half in the United States, the couple relocated to Bengaluru, where they began the next phase of their careers without the constraints of an unresolved immigration timeline.

The controversy followed a series of events during and after a tournament in Australia, where seven members of the squad initially accepted asylum offers, but five later reversed their decisions and rejoined the team, leaving two players remaining in Australia.

Refugee advocates said the outcome raised concerns about whether the players had been given adequate time and independent legal advice before making decisions. Graham Thom described the result as “far from ideal,” expressing concern both for the two players who stayed and those who returned.

The episode drew scrutiny after Australia’s Immigration Minister Tony Burke publicly released images of five women who had accepted humanitarian visas, a move that critics said may have exposed them to additional pressure.

Analysts noted that Australia has traditionally handled asylum cases discreetly, partly to reduce risks for applicants and their families. Critics argued that the high-profile approach in this case may have complicated the situation.

The situation escalated after Donald Trump publicly called for the players to be granted asylum and raised the issue with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The involvement of political leaders, analysts said, contributed to turning the case into a broader geopolitical dispute.

Shahram Akbarzadeh said the players’ initial actions, including declining to sing the national anthem at a match, became politicized and amplified beyond their original context.

“It quickly turned into a political dispute and political theater,” he said, adding that multiple actors sought to use the situation to advance competing narratives.

Iranian officials rejected claims that the players were pressured to return. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said those who reversed their asylum decisions had been “coerced” into applying and denied that Tehran influenced their return.

Australian officials denied exerting pressure on the players, with Assistant Immigration Minister Matt Thistlethwaite describing the situation as “very complex” and emphasizing that the decisions were personal.

Some former athletes and advocates expressed concern that external pressure may have affected the players’ choices. Shiva Amini said she feared potential repercussions for those who returned, citing risks to family members, although she declined to provide details.

The majority of the team regrouped and traveled through Kuala Lumpur and Oman before returning to Iran via Turkiye, where state media reported they were welcomed upon arrival. Midfielder Fatemeh Shaban said the players were “happy to be in Iran,” describing it as their homeland.The reasons behind the decision by five players to abandon their asylum bids have not been publicly disclosed.

The episode has prompted wider debate over how asylum claims intersect with diplomacy, media exposure and the welfare of individuals involved in politically sensitive cases.