If I have a thousand applications lying on my desk, my first task would be to remove everyone that has even the slightest issue. There is absolutely no way you would know who is going to be successful so your job is not to find the winners but get rid of the losers.
Unfortunately VCs have a power over startups. Any startups they touch will have higher chance to succeed. And when the winds are strong even the chickens can fly so it's not that you choose the right startups, its just that the startups YC chooses become right.
Not saying you are wrong but let's just agree to disagree ;)
As I understand it, that's exactly backwards. The fatal mistake is not funding losers, it's missing winners. Certainly that's true of YC but it's well known among investors generally.
That's also consistent with YC's view that founders matter most. If Larry and Sergey cross your path and you decline to fund them because they're on an H1B or some other issue like that, that would be...really bad.
> Not saying you are wrong but let's just agree to disagree ;)
Ok :) - I read your comment as saying that founders are fungible and we can definitely agree to disagree about that.
Look at it this way: if there's even a small chance that an application could lead to a major startup, would it make any sense for YC to reject it because of visa reasons (or similar)? Absolutely not. That would be how startup investors fail.
On the contrary what would make sense is to fund it and then help get the obstacles overcome. This is a no-brainer and is one of the big ways that YC helps founders—not just about visa issues, but lots of other things - legal issues, cap table issues, prior investor issues, cofounder conflicts, god knows what else.