Investor Visa - Court Cases
Below, you will find a collection of court cases regarding the
E2 investor visa. These court decisions provide valuable insights
into how the courts interpret investor visa laws and apply the requirements
to real life cases.
Note: You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your
computer to open the attached PDF files. The free software is available
for download at the following link: http://www.adobe.com.
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (BIA)
of Walsh and Pollard (BIA 1988) -
BIA held: (1) No particular dollar amount is required for an investment
to be deemed substantial; however, the investment must be in a bona
fide business and, in the case of a new business, the investment
must not be in a marginal enterprise solely for earning a living
but must be of an amount normally considered necessary to establish
a viable enterprise of the nature contemplated; and (2) The applicants,
who are employed as automotive design engineers by a foreign corporation,
do not have supervisory or managerial duties; however, they are
highly trained, specially qualified, and essential to the corporation's
efficient operation and thus qualify for an E2 investor visa
classification even though they are not engaged in developing and
directing the qualifying investment.
of Khan (BIA 1977) - BIA held that
respondent failed to show that he was "actively in the process
of investing". Respondent had best a subjective intention to
invest in the future. Although he may have invested funds in hte
past, that does not establish that he will invest in the future.
More is required for such as showing. For example, copies of contracts
showing a legal commitment to make certain future expenditures or
documents of that nature could be submitted.
of Chung (BIA 1976) - BIA held that
in order to qualify for E2 investor visa, the respondent must establish
that he has invested or is actively in the process of investing
a substantial amount of capital in an US enterprise. BIA stated
that mere intent to invest does not satisfy the requirement.
of Shaw (BIA 1976) - BIA held that
photocopies of checks submitted as the primary evidence of the investment
and allegedly issued in payment for items related to the restaurant
did not show what items had been purchased. The BIA explained that
the financial statement submitted was unaudited and based exclusively
on information supplied by respondent to the accountant and which
indicated that the books had not been maintained in an acceptable
manner from an accounting standpoint and from which expenditures
could not be verified. The BIA stated that respondent failed to
submit documentation relating to the affairs of the enterprise or
a satisfactory explanation for the absence of such documentation.
of Lee (BIA 1975) - BIA held that
the investor must be coming solely to develop and direct the operations
of the enterprise in which the investment has been or is in the
process of being made and it must be shown that investor has a controlling
interest in the enterprise. In this case, it is alleged that the
total value of the enterprise is or will be $64,000. Of this amount,
applicant had invested $10,000, alleging that at some future time
he would invest additional capital to bring his investment to 51
percent. BIA found that this was too speculative, and further, in
the absence of any indication of the income the applicant may derive,
he has failed to show that his investment does not represent a small
amount of capital invested in a marginal enterprise for the purpose
of merely earning a living.
of Heitland (BIA 1974) - BIA held
that a Florida land holding (which appears to be of a speculative
nature) and a savings bank account (which is more an accumulation
of funds than an active enterpreneurial undertaking) do not qualify
FOR CONSULTATION WITH AN IMMIGRATION
AN ATTORNEY IN OUR OFFICE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ASSIST YOU.
THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED LEGAL
ADVICE. SUCH INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO EDUCATE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
GENERALLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL
PROBLEMS. READERS ARE CAUTIONED NOT TO ATTEMPT TO SOLVE INDIVIDUAL
PROBLEMS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN AND ARE STRONGLY
ADVISED TO SEEK ADVICE FROM AN EXPERIENCED IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY
REGARDING SPECIFIC CASE SITUATIONS.