Search results for: e-2

The E-2 visa has long been a popular option for entrepreneurs, investors, and employees seeking to live and work in the United States by investing in or working for a qualifying U.S. business. Historically, the U.S. Embassy in London has been a predictable and efficient post for processing E-2 visas, with interviews typically lasting only a few minutes and focusing on a cursory review of the application. However, recent developments have introduced significant changes to the process, requiring applicants to approach their interviews with greater preparation and awareness.

Key Changes in E-2 Visa Processing at the U.S. Embassy London

Over the past year, applicants and immigration practitioners have reported notable shifts in the E-2 visa interview process at the U.S. Embassy in London. These changes include longer interviews, more in-depth questioning, and an increase in unexpected refusals under INA 214(b). To address these concerns, representatives from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) engaged in discussions with consular leadership at the embassy. While consular officials confirmed that no changes have been made to the laws, regulations, or policy guidance governing E-2 visas, they did provide insights into procedural adjustments that may impact applicants.

1. Interview Environment

E-2 visa interviews are now conducted on a separate floor from other nonimmigrant visa classifications. Applicants are grouped with individuals undergoing Visa Control Unit interviews, which typically involve cases with potential criminal or inadmissibility issues. This setup offers limited privacy, which may add to the stress of the interview process.

2. Rotating Pool of Consular Officers

Unlike in the past, there is no dedicated E visa officer at the U.S. Embassy in London. Instead, interviews are conducted by a rotating pool of 14 consular officers, with two officers assigned to review E visa applications each day. This lack of specialization may lead to inconsistent adjudications, as officers may vary in their familiarity with E-2 visa requirements and nuances.

3. Longer and More Detailed Interviews

Interviews for E-2 corporate registrations and individual applicants are now lasting up to 30 minutes, compared to the brief interviews of the past. Applicants should be prepared to answer detailed questions about their business operations, financials, and role within the company. Examples of questions for corporate registrations include:

  • What is your U.K./U.S. revenue this year and last year?
  • Can you explain your business plan?
  • What were your start-up expenses, and what is their price/value?

For individual applicants, questions may focus on:

  • Why is your company expanding or operating in the United States?
  • Why are you being sent to the United States, and why can’t your U.S. colleagues cover your role?
  • Is your U.S. company profitable?
  • Will you be seeking a green card eventually?
  • Are you aware that an E-2 visa does not provide a pathway to a green card?

4. Increased Scrutiny

Applicants with limited business experience or those unable to provide detailed answers may face heightened scrutiny. Additionally, the embassy appears to be applying the “Buy American Hire American” (BAHA) lens, which asks applicants to justify why an American worker cannot perform their proposed U.S. job duties. This aligns with the broader “America First Policy Directive” that prioritizes U.S. workers and businesses.

Implications for Applicants

The procedural changes at the U.S. Embassy in London have implications for E-2 visa applicants:

  • Thorough Preparation is Essential: Applicants must be ready to discuss their business operations, financials, and role in detail. This includes having a clear understanding of their business plan, start-up expenses, and the rationale for their presence in the United States.
  • Risk of Refusal: Unexpected refusals under INA 214(b) have become more common. A refusal may also impact an applicant’s eligibility to visit the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA), further complicating future travel plans.
  • Inconsistent Adjudications: The rotating pool of consular officers may lead to variability in interview experiences and outcomes. Applicants should be prepared for a range of questions and approaches.

Key Considerations

Given the evolving landscape of E-2 visa processing in London, applicants should consider taking the following steps to maximize their chances of approval:

  1. Work with Experienced Counsel: Consulting with an experienced immigration attorney can help ensure applications are complete, accurate, and tailored to address potential concerns.
  2. Prepare for In-Depth Questions: Practice answering detailed questions about business operations, financials, and role within the company. Applicants should be ready to articulate why their presence in the United States is essential.
  3. Document Everything: Provide clear and organized documentation to support an application, including financial statements, business plans, and evidence of the applicant’s qualifications.
  4. Understand the Limitations of the E-2 Visa: Be aware that the E-2 visa does not provide a direct pathway to permanent residency (a green card). Applicants should be prepared to address this if asked during their interview.

Conclusion

The U.S. Embassy in London has introduced changes to its E-2 visa interview process, making it more rigorous and unpredictable than in the past. Applicants should consider approaching their interviews with thorough preparation, a clear understanding of their business and role, and a willingness to address detailed questions. By staying informed and working with experienced professionals, applicants can navigate these challenges and increase their chances of a successful outcome.

As of Jan. 23, 2020, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will no longer accept requests for changes to E-1 or E-2 status or extensions of E-1 or E-2 status from Iranian nationals and their dependents (see USCIS notice concerning termination of eligibility). This change applies to Iranian nationals who are already in the United States and are seeking an extension of their E-1/E-2 status or were planning to submit a change of status to E-1/E-2. Affected applicants who currently have pending applications will be issued Notices of Intent to Deny by USCIS. This policy change does not affect Iranians who are in the United States currently holding E-1 or E-2 status as they may remain in the United States until their current status expires. Continue Reading Iranian Nationals No Longer Eligible for Changes to E-1 and E-2 Status or Extensions of E-1 and E-2 Status

As previously announced on our blog, the E-2 Treaty Investor Visa will soon be available to Israeli nationals wishing to make a substantial investment in or set up a business in the United States. USCIS announced on April 22 that eligible Israeli nationals already in the United States in a lawful nonimmigrant status, as well as their dependents who are also already in the United States, can request a change of status to E-2 classification starting May 1, 2019.

The U.S. Embassy in Israel announced on April 11, 2019, that it will implement the U.S. E-2 Investor Visa for Israeli nationals beginning May 1, 2019.

For more on E-2 visas, click here.

 

On May 1, 2019, the E-2 Treaty Investor Visa may be available to Israeli citizens wishing to make a substantial investment in or set up a business in the United States. After several rounds of negotiations between the two countries and U.S. citizens already able to obtain a B-5 Israeli Investor visa, the United States is expected to approve the proposed May 1 launch date in early April.

The E-2 Visa grants qualified treaty investors and employees, as well as their dependent family members, a maximum initial stay of two years. Extensions may be granted in increments of up to two years, with no maximum limit so long as the E-2 nonimmigrant maintains an intention to depart the United States when their status expires or is terminated.

To qualify, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicates a treaty investor must show at least 50 percent ownership of the enterprise or possession of operational control through a managerial position or other corporate device. The enterprise must have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living for the treaty investor and his or her family. In addition, the treaty investor must risk a substantial amount of capital with the objective of generating a profit.

Given the flexibility of the E-2 Visa and Israel’s prominent position in the hi-tech sector, this new development has great potential to advance Israeli business interests and streamline entrepreneurial ventures.

For more on E-2 visas, click here.

As an update to an earlier post, on Aug. 1, the president signed the Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors Act (KIWI Act) granting E-1 and E-2 status to certain New Zealand nationals under mutual considerations. This will permit citizens of New Zealand to apply for U.S. visas to carry on significant trade with the United States (E-1) or after making a substantial investment in the United States (E-2). The KIWI Act is now designated as Public Law 115-226 (132 STAT. 1625).

For more information on E-Visas, click here.

For information on the EB-5 program, visit our EB-5 Insights Blog.

On July 23, 2018, the House passed by voice vote the Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors Act (S. 2245, “KIWI” Act ). This House action follows Senate passage by unanimous consent on June 28, 2018. The KIWI Act makes New Zealand nationals eligible for U.S. admission as E-1 (trade) and E-2 (investor) nonimmigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if New Zealand provides reciprocal nonimmigrant treatment to U.S. nationals.

In floor remarks, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated an important process point leading to the successful passage of KIWI-

The United States has entered into treaties of commerce since at least 1815, when we entered into a Convention to Regulate Commerce with the United Kingdom. Currently, the nationals of 83 countries are eligible for E-1 or E-2 status. In fiscal year 2017, in total, about 50,000 E-1 and E-2 visas were issued. In the past, countries became eligible for the E-1 and E-2 programs through treaties signed with the United States. However, in 2003, the Judiciary Committee reached an understanding with the U.S. Trade Representative that no immigration provisions were to be included in future trade agreements. Henceforth, legislation would be required to add countries. The bill we are considering today, S. 2245, makes New Zealand nationals eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas. I want to thank Mr. Issa for all of his work on this issue, and for introducing companion legislation in the House. I am also appreciative of the Embassy of New Zealand for seeking E visa status in the right way. (CQ House transcript)

The KIWI Act will proceed to the president for final action.

Due to recent increases in overall visa applications, the State Department has announced changes to the nonimmigrant E visa application process in Mexico. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico City will not process nonimmigrant E visa applications received on or after July 7, 2015. All E-1 treaty trader visa applications received in Applicant Service Centers on or after July 7, 2015, will be handled by the U.S. Consulates in Monterrey and Tijuana. All E-2 treaty investor visa applications received on or after July 7, 2015, will be handled by the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez.

Continue Reading State Department Shifting E-1 and E-2 Visa Processing Locations in Mexico to Provide Applicants with Higher Levels of Service

Israeli business owners and investors may soon be eligible to apply for E-2 visas in the United States. E-2 visas are non-immigrant visas available to citizens of countries that have entered into a bi-lateral agreement with the United States. E-2 visas will be available to an individual Israeli citizen who is the primary investor, executive, manager or individual with specialized knowledge for a U.S. company that is majority owned by Israeli nationals. The E-2 visa is different from existing visa categories, in part because it is renewable for an indefinite period of time. In September 2014, the Israeli Parliament granted U.S. citizens the ability to obtain investor visas in Israel. As a result of this substantial step by the Israeli government, the U.S. government will likely take steps to offer similar visas to Israeli nationals who wish to invest in a U.S. business.

When USCIS issued its May 21 memorandum emphasizing consular processing as the preferred pathway for many intending immigrants seeking permanent residence, the immigration community began raising questions. Would adjustment of status (AOS) applications become more difficult to approve? Would USCIS begin issuing widespread requests for evidence (RFEs) challenging applicants’ eligibility to adjust status in the United States? Would employment authorization and travel documents be affected? Would foreign nationals already pursuing AOS face increased scrutiny at interviews?

Now two weeks later, while it remains too early to draw definitive conclusions, implementation so far has been more measured than many initially anticipated. As is often the case with major immigration policy announcements, the practical impact of a memorandum depends not only on the language of the policy itself but also on how adjudicators interpret and apply that guidance in individual cases. Patterns are beginning to emerge, though the type of widespread disruption some stakeholders anticipated has not yet materialized. For a discussion of the memorandum, stream GT’s Immigration Insights Podcast Episode 25.

A Brief Reminder: What Did the Memorandum Do?

The memorandum signaled USCIS’s preference that many intending immigrants pursue immigrant visa processing abroad through U.S. consulates rather than AOS from within the United States. For decades, AOS has served as a critical pathway allowing eligible foreign nationals already present in the United States to complete the permanent residence process without departing the country. The memorandum raised concerns because it appeared to encourage greater scrutiny of adjustment filings and potentially shift adjudicative discretion toward consular processing in certain circumstances. Because AOS offers significant practical advantages – including the ability to remain in the United States while a case is pending, obtain employment authorization, and avoid many uncertainties associated with overseas visa processing – the memorandum generated concern among employers, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners.

What Are We Seeing So Far?

While every case is unique, several trends have emerged during the first two weeks following issuance of the memorandum.[1]

Adjustment Applications Continue to Be Approved

Many AOS applications filed before the memorandum was issued continue to be approved, including for applicants in valid F-1, H-1B, and L-1 status. To date, there has been no indication of a blanket slowdown or freeze affecting adjustment applications that were already pending when the memorandum was released.

Employment Authorization and Travel Documents Continue Moving Forward

There are continued approvals of employment authorization documents (EADs) and advance parole (AP) applications filed in connection with AOS cases.

This is significant for applicants relying on adjustment-based work authorization or travel permission while awaiting a decision on their green card applications.

Adjustment Interviews Continue

Adjustment interviews at local USCIS field offices are continuing without apparent interruption. There is variation in how officers appear to be approaching the memorandum. In some interviews, applicants have reported that the memorandum was not discussed at all, with officers focusing on traditional adjustment issues such as admissibility, maintenance of status, employment history, family relationships, and application accuracy. In other interviews, applicants have reported being asked why they chose AOS rather than consular processing, a line of questioning consistent with the language and policy objectives reflected in the memorandum. At this stage, these questions may be exploratory rather than outcome-determinative. The fact that some officers are raising the issue suggests that field offices are aware of the guidance and may be incorporating it into interview practices.

Limited Reports of Requests for Evidence

One concern following the memorandum was whether USCIS would begin issuing RFEs requiring applicants to justify why AOS is appropriate in lieu of consular processing. While practitioners around the country have reported receiving such RFEs in some cases, our office has not yet received any RFEs specifically seeking that explanation. The relatively short period since the memorandum’s issuance makes it difficult to assess whether such requests will become more common. Historically, USCIS implementation of major policy changes often varies by field office, service center, and adjudicator before more consistent practices emerge. As additional cases move through the system, we may gain greater insight into whether these RFEs represent isolated examples or the beginning of a broader adjudication trend.

No Significant Travel Issues Reported

Travel concerns were another area of uncertainty following the memorandum. Many applicants questioned whether travel on AP or travel in H-1B and L-1 status could become more complicated if USCIS adopted a stronger preference for consular processing. To date, we have not received reports from clients indicating unusual travel-related complications attributable to the memorandum.

A Growing Interest in Preserving Consular Processing Options

One practical response is increased interest in maintaining flexibility. Some individuals with approved immigrant petitions are electing to file Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition, to preserve the possibility of consular processing should they decide – or be required – to pursue that route in the future. While filing Form I-824 is not necessary or advisable in every case, it reflects a broader trend among applicants seeking to keep multiple options available while the long-term impact of the memorandum becomes clearer. For certain individuals, particularly those with international travel obligations, complex immigration histories, or concerns about future policy developments, preserving optionality may be a prudent strategic consideration.

Considerations for Employers and Foreign Nationals

The memorandum is significant, but the implementation data available today does not support the conclusion that AOS is no longer viable or that applicants should automatically abandon pending or planned adjustment filings in favor of consular processing.

Each case warrants careful evaluation on its own merits. Factors such as immigration status, travel needs, country of citizenship, visa availability, processing times, family circumstances, and long-term immigration objectives should continue to drive strategic decision-making. For many applicants, AOS may remain the preferred and most practical path to permanent residence. For others, preserving consular processing as a backup option may provide additional flexibility. Immigration strategy is most effective when tailored to the individual circumstances of the applicant.

Looking Ahead

The first two weeks following the memorandum have provided some initial data points, but many questions remain unanswered. As additional cases move through interviews and adjudication, we expect to gain greater visibility into how field offices and service centers interpret the guidance. There may also be further policy clarification from USCIS, additional stakeholder engagement, new adjudication trends, and potentially litigation that could affect implementation. For now, AOS cases continue to move forward – applications are being approved, interviews are being conducted, employment authorization and travel documents continue to be issued.

[1] Disclaimer: The observations discussed in this blog post are based on our firm’s cases and discussions with colleagues throughout the immigration bar during the first two weeks following issuance of the memorandum. These observations are anecdotal in nature, may not be representative of all USCIS offices, adjudicators, or case types, and should not be viewed as predictive of any individual case outcome.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has updated the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) to create a new “Specialized Trainer” category within the B-1 business visitor classification. The change may provide multinational companies with greater flexibility when bringing foreign experts to the United States. For years, some companies have struggled with the often-blurry line between permissible B-1 business activities and employment requiring a work-authorized visa such as H-1B, L-1, E-2, or TN status. The new guidance does not eliminate those distinctions, but it does create a clearer pathway for certain foreign nationals whose primary purpose is to transfer specialized knowledge rather than perform productive work in the United States.

What Changed?

DOS revised 9 FAM 402.2 to add a standalone “Specialized Trainers” provision at 9 FAM 402.2-5(E)(2). Under the new guidance, a foreign national may qualify for B-1 classification if he or she is traveling temporarily to the United States to provide training or transfer knowledge to U.S. workers regarding specialized or proprietary techniques, skills, or know-how necessary for industrial equipment, machinery, or processes that have been acquired from or sourced through a company outside the United States.

To qualify, the individual must:

  • Possess unique knowledge that is not widely available in the United States;
  • Travel to the United States on a temporary basis;
  • Be involved in a qualifying project connected to foreign-sourced equipment, machinery, or processes; and
  • Receive no remuneration from a U.S. source.

The FAM also instructs consular officers to annotate visas issued under this provision with the notation “B-1 SPECIALIZED TRAINER.”

Why This Matters

The significance of this change lies not only in the creation of a new category but also in what it may suggest about the government’s evolving view of modern business operations. Historically, the B-1 classification permitted certain commercial or industrial workers to install, service, repair, or train workers regarding equipment purchased from a foreign company, but the training component was closely tied to the installation or servicing function. Companies sometimes encountered situations where a foreign expert needed to transfer proprietary knowledge relating to a manufacturing process, technology platform, industrial workflow, or specialized production method, yet did not clearly fit within existing B-1 guidance.

The new Specialized Trainer category appears to acknowledge that global businesses increasingly rely on the movement of knowledge, rather than simply the movement of equipment. In many industries, the true value of a foreign acquisition is not the machinery itself but the expertise required to use it effectively. Whether involving advanced manufacturing, semiconductor production, renewable energy systems, artificial intelligence applications, pharmaceuticals, or industrial automation, some companies need foreign specialists to train U.S. personnel on proprietary techniques that cannot easily be replicated by local workers. The revised guidance provides a more direct framework for these scenarios.

A Potentially Broader Category Than Before

The Specialized Trainer provision appears broader than the traditional commercial or industrial worker framework.

Under the older guidance, training activities were often tied directly to installation, servicing, or repair obligations arising from a sales contract. The new language focuses more broadly on the transfer of specialized knowledge related to foreign-sourced equipment, machinery, or processes. This distinction may create opportunities for companies that acquire technology, proprietary production methods, or specialized industrial systems from foreign affiliates or vendors, even when a traditional installation or service agreement does not exist.

That said, employers should not view this as an unrestricted expansion of B-1 eligibility. DOS did not create a general category for foreign nationals to provide training in the United States. Rather, the training must still be connected to specialized knowledge involving foreign-sourced industrial equipment, machinery, or processes, and the applicant must possess expertise that is not readily available in the U.S. labor market.

What Activities Remain Prohibited?

As with all B-1 classifications, an important limitation remains unchanged: the foreign national cannot engage in productive employment in the United States.

This distinction will continue to be critical during visa adjudications and inspections at ports of entry. The foreign national’s primary purpose must be knowledge transfer and training. If the individual is actually performing day-to-day operational work, filling a position in the U.S. workforce, directly providing services to customers, or otherwise engaging in productive labor, a work-authorized visa classification may still be required.

Similarly, the FAM expressly requires that the individual receive no remuneration from a U.S. source. Foreign payroll arrangements therefore remain an important part of compliance planning. Companies utilizing this category should consider documenting foreign employment, compensation arrangements, and the temporary nature of the assignment.

Employer Considerations

For multinational companies, manufacturers, technology firms, and industrial enterprises, the new guidance creates an opportunity to revisit situations that may previously have required more complicated immigration solutions.

Employers should consider whether upcoming projects involve:

  • Installation of foreign-sourced equipment;
  • Implementation of proprietary manufacturing processes;
  • Technology transfer initiatives;
  • Specialized training for U.S. personnel;
  • Knowledge-sharing programs involving foreign subject-matter experts; or
  • Short-term assignments focused on operational training rather than productive work.

Where the facts align with the new FAM guidance, the B-1 Specialized Trainer category may offer a faster and more efficient alternative to traditional work-authorized classifications. However, because the category is new, stakeholders may seeconsular posts and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers develop their own interpretations regarding the scope of permissible activities and what requirements must be met for a “qualifying project.” Documentation, including evidence regarding the proprietary nature of the knowledge being transferred, the foreign source of the equipment or process, the applicant’s unique expertise, and the absence of U.S.-source remuneration, may be critical.

Looking Ahead

The addition of the Specialized Trainer category represents a meaningful expansion of B-1 business visitor eligibility in recent years. While it does not fundamentally alter the longstanding prohibition on employment in B-1 status, it provides greater clarity for companies that need foreign experts to transfer highly specialized knowledge to U.S. workers. For employers operating in increasingly global and technology-driven industries, that clarification may prove valuable.

As consular officers, CBP, and employers begin applying the new guidance in practice, additional questions may emerge regarding the boundaries of permissible training activities and the documentation needed to support these applications. Companies considering use of this category may wish to evaluate the facts of each case to confirm that the proposed activities fit squarely within the new FAM framework and do not cross into unauthorized employment.

The update serves as a reminder that while some stakeholders view the B-1 category, it continues to evolve alongside the realities of international business, technology transfer, and global workforce mobility.