1. Immigration Lawyers in Manhattan New York | Case Background and Business Expansion Objective
The client was a foreign owned engineering and technical services company specializing in integrated design, engineering coordination, and project management support for large commercial developments.
The company established a New York subsidiary to participate in major metropolitan projects requiring on site engineering oversight and technical integration services.
Immigration lawyers in Manhattan were engaged to structure an E-2 visa strategy that complied with federal treaty investor regulations while demonstrating lawful and substantive business operations in New York.
Initial U.S. market entry and E-2 investment structure
The U.S. entity was incorporated in New York and received a qualifying investment intended to fund office setup, payroll obligations, and project-related operational costs.
Although the capital was irrevocably committed, the company had not yet accumulated extensive operational records such as executed client contracts or sustained revenue streams at the time of the first filing.
Under INA §101(a)(15)(E)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. §214.2(e), mere business plans without corroborating operational evidence are often insufficient for E-2 approval, particularly in newly formed entities.
2. Immigration Lawyers in Manhattan New York | Initial Refusal and Legal Risk Assessment
The company proceeded with two E-2 visa applications using the limited documentation available due to internal operational constraints.
Despite meeting the nationality and ownership requirements under the E-2 treaty framework, the applications were refused at the consular stage.
The refusal was based on concerns regarding marginality, operational readiness, and the lack of verifiable commercial activity.
Consular refusal analysis under federal E-2 standards
The reviewing officer questioned whether the U.S. enterprise was more than a speculative or preparatory venture, as prohibited under 9 FAM 41.51 N.9.
Additionally, the absence of executed service agreements and active project deployment raised doubts about whether the business would generate more than minimal living income.
Immigration lawyers in Manhattan conducted a detailed refusal analysis to identify evidentiary deficiencies rather than substantive ineligibility.
3. Immigration Lawyers in Manhattan New York | Strategic Refiling and Compliance Enhancement
Following the refusal, the legal team advised the company to delay refiling until concrete operational indicators could be established.
The company then cooperated fully with counsel to implement corrective measures consistent with both federal immigration law and New York business regulations.
This phase focused on transforming the U.S. entity from a planned operation into a demonstrably active enterprise.
Operational substantiation under New York business law
The U.S. subsidiary executed binding service agreements with local project partners and secured office premises compliant with New York zoning and commercial leasing standards.
Payroll systems were established in accordance with New York Labor Law, and internal governance documents were updated to reflect actual managerial control exercised by E-2 principals.
These measures directly addressed the “real and operating enterprise” requirement under 8 C.F.R. §214.2(e)(12).
4. Immigration Lawyers in Manhattan New York | Final Outcome and Multi-Applicant Approval
After comprehensive restructuring, the company refiled E-2 visa applications not only for the original two engineers but also for additional essential personnel.
A total of eight E-2 visas were submitted, each supported by individualized role descriptions demonstrating executive, supervisory, or essential skills functions.
All applications were approved without further refusals, confirming that the enterprise met the treaty investor standards.
Legal significance of the approved E-2 structure
The approvals validated that the U.S. business was no longer marginal and was positioned to contribute economically through job creation and project execution.
This case demonstrates that E-2 refusals are not final determinations of ineligibility but often reflect timing and documentation issues.
Through precise statutory alignment and localized compliance, immigration lawyers in Manhattan successfully converted a high risk case into a full approval outcome.
15 Jan, 2026
