Corporate Immigration Services for E-2 Intra Company Assignment Approval

The foreign startup was a technology driven company seeking to validate its service model within the U.S. market by opening a lean operational branch in Washington, D.C., rather than pursuing immediate large scale expansion.

Its objective was to support government adjacent clients and institutional partners located in the District, making Washington, D.C. a strategically selected jurisdiction rather than a convenience location.

To accomplish this, the company required the temporary transfer of a key employee with institutional knowledge capable of executing early stage operations, client coordination, and compliance oversight.

Corporate immigration services were engaged early to ensure that the proposed business activities, capitalization, and staffing plan aligned with E-2 treaty investor requirements under U.S. immigration law.

A critical complication involved the employee’s prior travel history to a country designated under U.S. security frameworks, which rendered ESTA travel authorization unavailable as a matter of law.

Following the ESTA restriction, the individual had applied for a B-1/B-2 visitor visa for short term business travel, which was denied due to concerns that the intended activities could exceed permissible visitor scope.

These prior outcomes created a heightened scrutiny profile, requiring that any subsequent nonimmigrant application be structurally distinct, legally robust, and supported by clearly defined employment authorization.

The corporate immigration services strategy therefore focused on eliminating ambiguity by transitioning away from visitor classifications and toward a fully compliant employment based E-2 structure.

The U.S. entity was incorporated in Washington, D.C. in accordance with local corporate law, with capitalization structured to meet the “substantial investment” threshold relative to the nature and scale of the business.

Rather than inflating investment figures artificially, the strategy focused on proportionality, demonstrating that the committed funds were sufficient to render the enterprise operational and non marginal from inception.

Detailed records showed lawful fund sourcing, timely deployment of capital, and binding contractual obligations within the District, including office arrangements and service agreements.

This alignment between corporate formation and immigration eligibility reinforced the credibility of the E-2 filing under corporate immigration services standards.

The employee was designated as an essential staff member rather than an executive by title alone, with duties carefully articulated to reflect specialized knowledge critical to the startup’s U.S. launch phase.

Responsibilities included operational implementation, regulatory coordination, and institutional client engagement, all of which were tied directly to the company’s treaty investor activities.

By clearly distinguishing the role from short term consulting or visitor based tasks, the application addressed concerns raised in the prior B-1/B-2 refusal history.

This precision in role definition is a hallmark of effective corporate immigration services, particularly where prior refusals have heightened adjudicator sensitivity.

Rather than minimizing or obscuring the applicant’s prior travel to a designated country, the filing acknowledged the factual history while clarifying its lawful and professional nature.

Supporting documentation demonstrated that the travel occurred for legitimate, non prohibited purposes unrelated to any inadmissibility grounds under U.S. immigration law.

The application emphasized that ESTA ineligibility is an automatic statutory consequence rather than a discretionary finding, thereby preventing mischaracterization of the issue.

Corporate immigration services ensured that this explanation was integrated seamlessly into the broader E-2 narrative rather than isolated as a defensive disclosure.

The earlier B-1/B-2 refusal was addressed by contrasting the limited scope of visitor visas with the explicit employment authorization granted under the E-2 classification.

Evidence showed that the startup’s operational needs could not lawfully be met through visitor status, reinforcing the appropriateness of the E-2 pathway.

By demonstrating a clear evolution in strategy rather than repeated attempts at entry, the application framed the E-2 filing as a corrective and compliant solution.

This approach aligns with best practices in corporate immigration services when managing cumulative immigration histories.

The E-2 employee visa was approved, granting the applicant lawful authorization to reside and work in the United States in furtherance of the startup’s Washington, D.C. operations.

The approval recognized the legitimacy of the investment, the necessity of the employee’s role, and the company’s compliance with applicable immigration standards.

This outcome allowed the startup to commence operations without reliance on interim or high risk entry strategies.

The approval also established a compliant framework for future extensions and potential additional E-2 staffing.