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
© 2024 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 AllSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readEmployment Issues for Employers to Consider When Implementing Return-to-Work Mandates
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 2Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 3Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
- 4Against the Odds: Voters Elect Woody Clermont to the Broward Judicial Bench
- 5US Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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