Attorney New York E-2 Treaty Investor Visa Approval

The U.S. Entity was a legally established American corporation majority owned by treaty nationals, satisfying the nationality requirements for E-2 classification.

Corporate documentation confirmed that the business was active, operating, and engaged in legitimate commercial marketing activities within New York. 

The attorney New York emphasized that the enterprise was not marginal and possessed the present and future capacity to generate revenue beyond minimal living needs.

Although the applicant was not the principal investor, the E-2 framework permits essential managerial employees to obtain derivative classification where the underlying investment is substantial and at risk. 

Financial records, capitalization evidence, and operational budgets were submitted to demonstrate that the enterprise maintained a credible commercial footprint in New York. 

This substantiation allowed the adjudicating officer to clearly identify the enterprise as a qualifying E-2 business.

The applicant was tasked with overseeing local marketing teams, coordinating multi market branding strategies, and supervising vendor relationships within New York. 

Job descriptions highlighted authority over budgeting, campaign approval, and strategic planning rather than hands on execution alone. 

These factors demonstrated that the position involved discretionary decision making consistent with a managerial role.

In addition to domestic responsibilities, the applicant served as a liaison between the Korean parent company and the U.S. Subsidiary, ensuring brand consistency and compliance with U.S. Market standards. 

This transnational function was positioned as critical to the U.S. Enterprise’s success and could not be readily performed by locally hired personnel without extensive institutional knowledge. 

The attorney New York framed this responsibility as evidence of the applicant’s essential skills and experience.

The U.S. Subsidiary maintained proper corporate governance, tax registration, and internal policies consistent with New York business standards. 

Employment terms were structured to reflect lawful managerial compensation practices rather than hourly wage arrangements. 

This reinforced the legitimacy of the role and reduced any risk of mischaracterization during adjudication.

Evidence of physical office space, local contracts, and active marketing campaigns within New York was submitted to demonstrate real operational presence. 

The attorney New York highlighted that the applicant’s on site management was directly tied to the growth and stability of the New York business operations. 

This local nexus strengthened the credibility of the assignment.

The adjudicating authority accepted the legal and factual framework as presented, confirming that the applicant satisfied both treaty employee and managerial criteria.

No supplemental documentation was required, reflecting the clarity and completeness of the initial filing. 

The approval ensured predictable business continuity for the U.S. Subsidiary.

Beyond immediate approval, the case was structured to support future renewals and potential long term immigration strategies.

By clearly defining managerial functions and operational necessity, the attorney New York positioned the enterprise and the applicant for sustainable compliance. 

This case illustrates how strategic planning can align immigration objectives with business expansion in New York.