DEV Community: Jerry Kasem

Why Strong Developers Outside the US Get Ignored by American Companies (It's Not Your Code)

Jerry Kasem — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:57:28 +0000

You can build distributed systems, contribute to open source, and pass any technical screen thrown at you. But your applications to US companies go nowhere. No reply. Maybe a form rejection three weeks later.

That silence is not about your ability. It is about access, and access is fixable.

The actual problem

US hiring teams are not sitting around doubting whether engineers in Warsaw or Bangalore or Lagos can write good code. They are moving fast, drowning in applications, and defaulting to patterns that feel safe. When your profile does not immediately read as low-friction across a border, you get skipped. Not rejected. Skipped. There is a difference.

Remote roles at US tech companies already receive roughly four times the applications of on-site positions. That means a recruiter spending eight seconds on your profile needs to instantly understand: can we hire this person, will time zones work, do they communicate in a way our team will trust? If the answer is not obvious in those eight seconds, you are gone.

The problem is not your skills. It is that your profile was not built to answer those specific questions.

What "reads as a safe hire" actually means

This phrase sounds soft but it is mechanical. US hiring teams, especially at mid-size and larger tech companies, have checklists running in their heads even when they do not realize it.

A few things that quietly kill applications from developers outside the US:

Your location reads as ambiguous. If your profile says a city but not a country, or names a country the recruiter cannot instantly place on a mental map of "we have hired there before," you get hesitation. Hesitation turns into a skip.

Your availability signals are missing. Remote does not mean the same thing to everyone. A US team wants to know: overlap hours, async communication comfort, response norms. If none of that is visible, they assume the worst case.

Your English feels formal in the wrong way. Not incorrect, just stiff. US tech culture in written communication is direct and low-ceremony. Profiles and cover notes that sound translated, even subtly, create a small friction that compounds.

Your work history does not map to US company stages. If you have worked at a 400-person enterprise in Germany, that experience is real and valuable. But if the description does not translate it into terms a US startup or scale-up recognizes, the recruiter cannot place you.

None of these are about being less capable. They are about legibility across a context gap.

The access part

Here is something worth sitting with. GitLab operates across more than 60 countries. Zapier has over 800 people spread across 40. Automattic has more than 2,000 employees in 96 countries. These are not experimental programs. This is how they run.

The infrastructure for hiring you already exists at a meaningful number of US companies. The question is whether you are findable within it and whether your profile does the right work when someone finds you.

Findable means showing up in the right searches on LinkedIn, in GitHub activity that signals consistency not just raw commits, and in communities where US hiring managers actually look. Most developers outside the US are not unfindable because they are obscure. They are unfindable because their signal is optimized for the wrong audience.

What to actually do

Start with your LinkedIn headline and about section. Rewrite them with a US reader in mind, not a local one. Be explicit about remote availability and time zone overlap. Drop the formal summary structure and write the way you would explain your work to a smart colleague over coffee.

Then look at your application behavior. Are you applying to roles that explicitly say remote? Are you filtering for companies with a distributed track record, or are you sending applications into the void at companies that have never hired internationally and have no process to do it?

Target is everything. A strong application to the wrong company is worse than a decent application to a company already set up for you.

Finally, audit your GitHub and any public work for signal quality. Recruiters who care about engineers do look. Consistent contribution patterns, readable READMEs, and a project or two that shows judgment not just execution, these things matter when your resume is otherwise equal to ten other candidates.

The bottom line

The gap between a strong developer outside the US and a job offer from a US company is almost never about skill. It is about the profile not reading right and the targeting being off. Both of those are problems you can fix without moving, without a visa, and without luck.

If you want a structured way to close that gap, the free guide at access.czechdevusa.com/free walks through the specifics.

The US contract you didn't get wasn't a skills problem. It was one missing line.

Jerry Kasem — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 13:30:00 +0000

You are not getting rejected because you are not good enough. You are getting filtered out before a human ever reads your code, by a question your CV never answers.

I talk to senior engineers outside the US every week. Eight, ten, fifteen years in. People who have built distributed systems, carried pagers through real outages, shipped things that move money. And they keep hitting the same wall with US remote roles: apply, silence. Apply, silence. "We went another way."

They assume it is the skills. It is almost never the skills.

The enemy is not the ATS

Everyone loves to blame the applicant tracking system, the keyword robot that supposedly eats your resume before a human sees it. That myth is comfortable because it means the rejection is not about you, it is about a machine. But it is mostly wrong, and it keeps you fighting the wrong thing.

The real filter at a US company looking at a candidate abroad is a single, boring, practical question that runs in the hiring manager's head in the first few seconds:

"Can I even hire this person without it becoming a project?"

A US company does not want to sponsor a visa for a contractor. It does not want to figure out international payroll. It does not want to become an expert in your country's tax law. The moment your CV makes them wonder about any of that, you become the candidate that creates work, and the easy "no" wins. Not because you are weak. Because you are a question mark, and they have ten other resumes that are not.

The story

A backend engineer I know, ten years in, e-commerce at real scale, kept getting ghosted by US companies. Strong CV, real systems, good English. Nothing.

He was already set up to invoice as a business. He had done cross-border work before. From the US side, he was one of the easiest people in the pile to hire. His CV just never said so. So every reader filled the blank with the scary version: sponsorship, payroll, risk, hassle. And moved on.

He added one block near the top of his CV. Three lines. The ghosting stopped inside two weeks. Same engineer, same experience, same projects. One difference: he answered the question before they had to ask it.

The gift: the line that does it

If you contract (or can set up to), put a short, explicit work-authorization block near the top of your CV and your LinkedIn. Something like:

Engagement: Independent contractor (B2B). I invoice US companies directly through my own entity, paid via standard rails (Wise, Payoneer, bill.com). I provide a W-8BEN. No visa sponsorship or work authorization required.

That is it. That single block turns you from "a question I have to investigate" into "a vendor I have paid a hundred times before." It removes the easy no.

Notice what it does:

"Independent contractor (B2B)" tells them this is a clean commercial relationship, not employment.
"invoice directly through my own entity" tells them there is no third-party body shop skimming your rate and locking you in.
"paid via standard rails" tells them getting money to you is solved.
"I provide a W-8BEN" tells them the tax paperwork is handled and you have done this before.
"No sponsorship required" kills the single biggest reflex objection in one phrase.

You are not lying, exaggerating, or keyword-stuffing. You are just stating the thing that was already true and that they were quietly worried about.

Why this matters more than another LeetCode month

Most engineers, when the US market goes quiet on them, grind harder on the things they can already do: more algorithms, more side projects, more certs. That is polishing a car nobody has figured out how to buy yet.

The market for senior engineers who can plug in as a clean contractor is real, and it pays well above local rates for the exact same work, because the US company saves on the employer overhead, not on you. The thing standing between many strong people and that market is not depth. It is that their paper makes them look harder to hire than they are.

Fix the one line first. Then go back to being brilliant.

I wrote a free guide that maps where these US remote contract roles actually live (most never hit a public job board) and how to read like an easy hire from abroad. No cost, no catch: https://forms.fillout.com/t/efhSmqRbkius

And there is a free 30-second CV check that shows you how a US client reads you in the first six seconds: https://cvcheck.czechdevusa.com

If you want the whole system end-to-end, CV to where the roles hide, to the interview, to setting your rate to the contract, and getting paid clean across a border, that is the US Remote Job Playbook: https://jirikstar.gumroad.com/l/kuqmfp

Tell me in the comments where you are getting stuck. I read every one.

You Are Not Underpaid Because You Are Foreign. You Just Never Saw The Number.

Jerry Kasem — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 00:40:20 +0000

I place developers with US tech companies for a living. Before that sentence makes you close the tab: what follows is the thing I tell developers for free, one conversation at a time, until I got tired of saying it one person at a time.

Last month a developer in Prague asked me if 55 dollars an hour was a reasonable rate.

Nine years in. Kotlin, AWS. He had built and run a payment system for one of the largest Czech fintechs. Three million transactions a month. Zero P0 incidents in two years. A profile most US startups would fight over.

I told him what the US market actually pays for that exact stack at that exact level. He went quiet for about thirty seconds. Then he said: "I have been contracting for three years. I just did the math."

He had left roughly 180,000 dollars on the table. Not because he was not good enough. Because no one had ever told him the number.

This is the most expensive blind spot in our industry, and almost nobody outside the US escapes it. So let me walk through why it happens, because once you see it you cannot unsee it.

You are pricing against the only benchmark you have ever seen

When you set your rate, you do not pull it from nowhere. You anchor it to something. And the only thing you have ever had to anchor to is your local market.

So a senior engineer in Warsaw prices against Warsaw. One in Bucharest against Bucharest. You take the local senior salary, maybe add a premium because the client is foreign, and you land on a number that feels brave. Forty-five an hour feels brave when the engineer at the next desk makes the local equivalent of twenty.

Here is the disruptive part. The US client is not paying for your location. They are not even thinking about your location, except as a logistics detail. They are paying for the work, and what that work is worth to their business. A payment system that does not go down is worth the same to a US fintech whether the person who built it sits in San Francisco or Brno. The value did not get cheaper when it crossed a border. Only your benchmark did.

You are not underpaid because you are foreign. You are underpaid because you measured yourself with the wrong ruler, and no one handed you a better one.

Why nobody hands you a better ruler

This is the part that keeps the blind spot alive.

There is no public benchmark for your actual situation. levels.fyi is excellent, and it measures the wrong thing for you: it is full-time employee total compensation at mostly US-based big tech. You are not a US employee with equity and benefits. You are an independent contractor in Europe invoicing a US company on an hourly or monthly basis. Different market, different numbers, different dynamics, and there is no clean public table for it.

So you ask around. Your friends are anchored to the same local market you are, so they confirm your low number back to you. The agencies that could tell you have every reason not to, because the gap between what they bill the client and what they pay you is their entire business. The silence is not an accident. Nobody in the chain profits from you knowing the number, except you.

The traps that keep the number low even when you guess up

Say you decide to be bold and raise your rate. There are still three ways the market quietly talks you back down.

You sell yourself as the cheaper option. The moment your pitch is "same quality, lower price," you have capped yourself. Cheap is a race you can only lose, and it signals junior even when you are not. The senior move is to sell de-risked delivery: I own the outcome, I ship, you do not babysit me. Companies pay a premium for the engineer they do not have to worry about.

You name the first number. Whoever says a number first sets the ceiling, and if that is you and you are anchored low, you just capped the entire negotiation before it started. Let them range first where you can. When you cannot, anchor at the top of what you can defend, not the middle.

You treat your rate as set once. It is not a price tag, it is a starting position. The engineers who climb fastest revisit the rate every few months and on every new contract, with proof of impact in hand. The ones who stay underpaid set it once in year one out of nerves and never touch it again.

What actually closes the gap

None of the fixes require becoming a better engineer. You already did the hard part. The fixes are information and posture.

Find the real benchmark for your specific profile: your stack, your seniority, contractor and not employee, US client. Decide three numbers before any conversation: the walk-away you will not go below, the target you actually want, and the anchor you open with. Sell the outcome you own, never the discount. And raise it on schedule, with evidence.

The developers earning real US rates from abroad are not the most talented ones. I have watched the same engineer double their income in a year without learning a single new framework. The experience was always there. They just stopped using their hometown as the measuring stick.

That can be you, and it is almost embarrassing how little has to change. You do not need more skill. You need the number, and the nerve to hold it.

I wrote a free guide that goes deeper on all of this, the honest version I give developers one at a time: get it here.

And if you want the read a US hiring manager gives your CV in six seconds, before you ever get to the rate conversation, that is free too: cvcheck.czechdevusa.com.

Tell me your stack and your years in the comments and I will tell you honestly whether the number you are quoting is leaving money on the table. I read everything.

You Are Not Being Rejected. You Are Invisible.

Jerry Kasem — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:13:31 +0000

I place developers with US tech companies for a living. Before that sentence makes you close the tab: this article contains the things I tell developers for free, every week, one conversation at a time. I got tired of saying it one person at a time.

Here is the pattern. A strong developer outside the US decides to go for US remote work. The money is real, the work is real, the market is real. They polish the CV, they apply to twenty, fifty, a hundred roles.

And they hear nothing.

Not "no". Nothing. And after enough nothing, every single one of them arrives at the same quiet conclusion: I must not be good enough.

I have read the CVs and talked to the people behind them. The conclusion is almost always wrong. What is actually happening is mechanical, boring, and fixable, and nobody explains it because nobody profits from explaining it. Let me walk through the three filters that are actually eating your applications.

Filter 1: You are applying to jobs that were never open to you

"Remote" means two completely different things, and job boards mix them together.

Remote (US only) means the company wants you on US payroll. They will let you work from your couch, as long as your couch is in the United States. For someone applying from Prague or Bratislava or anywhere else abroad, this is a closed door. No amount of skill opens it, because the blocker is legal structure, not talent. Most "remote" listings on the big boards are this kind.

Remote (global, or contractor) means the company hires people anywhere and pays them as independent contractors who invoice. No US payroll, no visa, no sponsorship, because you are a vendor, not an employee. This is your actual market. It is smaller, it is real, and it is far less crowded.

If you do not check which kind you are looking at before applying, most of your applications go into doors that were locked before you knocked. Ten seconds of scanning for "worldwide", "contractor", "B2B", or "must be US-based" saves you months.

Filter 2: The knockout question

Somewhere in most application forms sits a question: "Are you legally authorized to work in the United States?"

If you are applying as a would-be employee and you answer honestly, the application ends right there. Not because a human read your CV and decided against you. Because a form gate closed. You never find out. This single checkbox kills more qualified international applicants than every skills gap combined.

You do not beat it by lying. You beat it by not being an employee. When you position yourself as an independent contractor who invoices the company, the question changes from "can this person legally be our employee" (hard, expensive, immigration lawyers) to "can we pay this vendor's invoice" (yes, accounting does it every day). Same developer. Same skills. Different door entirely.

Practically, that means saying it early and plainly: a line near the top of your CV like "Independent contractor, invoices directly, 4+ hours daily overlap with US time zones." You are answering the company's quiet worry before it forms.

Filter 3: Six seconds against six hundred applicants

A popular US remote role gets hundreds to a couple thousand applications. The human scanning the pile gives each CV a few seconds on the first pass. Whatever your CV needs to say, it has to say it in those seconds, in the first lines, or it has said nothing.

The CVs I see from European seniors are built for a different reader. Photo, long education section, four pages, every project since 2012, and a summary that says "passionate software engineer with strong communication skills", which appears on fifty thousand other CVs and carries zero bits of information.

What survives the six-second scan is outcomes with numbers in the first fifteen lines. "Led migration of 186 services to AWS, zero downtime." "Built payment infrastructure processing 3M transactions/month." Ownership, scale, results. Not who you are. What you did.

This is not fair, and it does not measure engineering skill, and it is also simply how the pile gets processed. The good news hiding in it: the fix is packaging, not talent. I have watched the same engineer go from silence to interviews without gaining a single new skill. The experience was always there. The first fifteen lines finally showed it.

What this adds up to

The silence was never a verdict on your ability. It is three mechanical filters doing what they were built to do: a market where most listings were never open to you, a checkbox that ends honest employee applications automatically, and a reading process that gives you six seconds you were not built for.

Every one of those is beatable, and none of the fixes require becoming a better engineer. Aim only at globally open roles. Position as a contractor and say so early. Rebuild the first fifteen lines around outcomes. Then reach actual humans instead of piles, which is a whole topic of its own.

The developers landing US remote contracts from abroad are not the most talented ones. They are the ones who understood which doors were real and showed up legible. That can be you with embarrassingly little additional effort, aimed in the right direction.

I wrote a free guide that goes deeper on exactly this, the honest version I tell developers one at a time: get it here. And if you have questions, comments, I read everything.