Common Issues for Third-Country Treaty Investor (E-2) Visa Cases
Traditionally, the E-2 visa is only available for foreign nationals who possess the nationality of a country with which the United States maintains a bilateral investment treaty or a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation.
August 13, 2019 at 12:04 PM
7 minute read
Traditionally, the E-2 visa is only available for foreign nationals who possess the nationality of a country with which the United States maintains a bilateral investment treaty or a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation. It is a nonimmigrant visa with major benefits that are typically not conferred by other types of nonimmigrant visas, including fast processing time, indefinite extension, ability for the entire family to travel freely, possibility to avoid taxation on worldwide income, ability for the derivative children to go to school and ability for the spouse to work.
In recent years, delays in various immigration preference categories have brought this visa under the spotlight. Through certain “citizenship by investment” (CBI) programs, citizens of nontreaty countries, such as China, India and Vietnam, can obtain citizenship of an E-2 treaty country (most notably Grenada and Turkey) and apply for the E-2 visa.
While we have successfully assisted many of our clients from nontreaty countries in obtaining the E-2 visa, we have also seen a fair amount of confusion about the process commonly shared among our clients. Addressing those issues at the onset of the representation has proven to be essential in building a rapport with the client and moving the case along smoothly.
- A new passport does not create a new identity.
The confusion stems from the fact that many nontreaty country clients are not accustomed to the practice of holding passports from multiple countries. A common misconception is that a new passport from another country comes with a new identity, and that all immigration history under the initial identity is severed from this new identity. This could not be further from the truth. A new passport does not create a doppelgänger. It simply means the same individual now has dual nationality. A nonimmigrant visa applicant should truthfully report information of all passports held by him on the nonimmigrant visa application. Any visa denial or pending/approved immigrant petition must also be disclosed, even if it was tied to the original nationality. Failure to properly disclose such information could potentially result in permanent bar to enter the United States for fraud or misrepresentation under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).
The only caveat is that in the E visa context, the Board of Immigration Appeals has held in Matter of Ognibene, 18 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 1983) that the treaty country nationality does become the sole and operative nationality during the duration of the admission. This principle is further enshrined in 9 FAM 402.9-4(B), which states that in the case of dual national owner(s), a choice must be made by the owner(s) as to which nationality shall be used. However, this issue will only arise with regard to a change of status application to the E status when the applicant initially entered the United States in a different status with a passport from a nontreaty country. Barring special circumstances like this, E-2 applicants should treat the new passport only as a new form of identification during the E-2 process.
- You can have valid visas of different types in different passports.
Many clients are also concerned that getting the E-2 visa will jeopardize other valid visas they already have. They also think that having different visas in different passports could further complicate the situation. Since many of them already possess a valid B1/B2 visitor visa, they worry that their B1/B2 visa would get canceled if they apply for E-2 with a new passport. Under 9 FAM 403.9-2(C), while it is true that a visa applicant is not permitted to possess more than one valid visa of the same classification, it is acceptable for someone to have the desire to travel to the United States on different occasions for different primary purposes. Therefore, you can have valid visas of different types in different passports. At the border, you will need to declare your primary purpose of the visit and present the appropriate visa in the appropriate passport.
- You can apply from inside the United States, but it is not recommended.
As mentioned above, one of the benefits of the E-2 visa is that it can be applied for directly at a U.S. consulate or embassy overseas without going through the hassles of dealing with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Any practicing immigration attorney would probably agree that in the current immigration environment, the ability to circumvent USCIS to apply for an immigration benefit is a major advantage. However, this does not mean that you cannot apply for E-2 from inside the United States. If you are in the United States in a valid nonimmigrant status, you may file Form I-129 to change your status to E-2.
However, such practice is almost always not recommended, unless there are special reasons that prevent you from traveling outside of the country. There are numerous reasons for that. First, filing Form I-129 costs $460 and the adjudication takes approximately two to four months. You can additionally pay a hefty fee of $1,410 for premium processing. On the other hand, applying for the E-2 visa at the consulate only costs $205, and the case typically gets processed within two months. Furthermore, an I-129 approval only grants a one-time stay of up to two years in E-2 status. As will be fully discussed below, if the client ever travels outside of the United States, he will have to go through essentially the same application process again by applying for an E-2 visa stamp at a U.S. consulate or embassy. Given the above, applying from inside the United States certainly looks like a loser in most cases.
- E-2 visa stamp and E-2 status are different (albeit related).
Although they are usually used interchangeably in the colloquial sense, visa and status are technically two different things. A visa is a stamp or sticker placed in the passport that is used only when one is seeking entry into the United States, while immigration status is the legal permission to remain in the United States under the specific conditions of a visa classification.
Each time you wish to use your E-2 visa to enter the United States, you need to present your unexpired E-2 visa in your passport. After you enter with an unexpired E-2 visa stamp, you will be given two years of authorized stay under the E-2 status, which means you can remain in the United States for a maximum of two years without leaving, regardless of your E-2 visa expiration date. At the end of the period, you must either apply for an extension (by filing Form I-129) or depart and reenter the United States using a valid E-2 visa.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable that your E-2 visa stamp expires during this two-year period. In this case, you are still allowed to remain in the country under the E-2 status for the duration of your authorized stay, but you will need to renew your E-2 visa at the U.S. embassy for your next entry once you travel overseas.
F. Oliver Yang, an attorney at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, manages the process to obtain long-term residence through E-2 visa/Grenada citizenship. He also manages all stages of the EB-5 process. As a native Mandarin Chinese speaker, he guides Chinese investors with I-526 petitions, as well as investors from Taiwan, Canada, Singapore, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UK Firm Womble Bond to Roll Out AI Tool Across Whole Firm
- 2Starbucks Hands New CLO Hefty Raise, Says He Fosters 'Environment of Courage and Joy'
- 3Blockchain’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Privacy Paradoxes
- 4Prior Written Notice: Calabrese v. City of Albany
- 5Learning From Experience: The Best and Worst of Years Past
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250