The E-2/E-1 Center

See attached.

According to AILA NATIONAL LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING LIAISON AGENDA, December 9, 2010

Reply: Rafael Henry will look into this issue. CBP requested that the Committee provide examples.Read more

Yes, but you need a valid I-94 Form, and there are exceptions and limitations.

What is Automatic Revalidation?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the authority and the responsibility over the admission of travelers to the U.S. Under the automatic revalidation provision of immigration law, certain temporary visitors holding expired nonimmigrant visas who seek to return to the U.S. may be admitted at a U.S. port of entry by CBP, if they meet certain requirements, including, but not limited to the following:Read more

As of September 16, 2010, the I-907 Premium Processing Request fee is:

$1,000. Note: If you are requesting Premium Processing on a form type and classification that is Premium eligible, the $1000.00 Premium processing fee is required in addition to all other filing fees required by the application to be processed. Checks should be made payable to Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, there is regular $320 I-129 filing fee for E petition for the principal E worker.

And then, there is I-539 change of nonimmigrant status fling fee for dependents, which is $300.Read more

From a USCIS examiner's perspective, your scenario will be governed by the below CFR provision:Read more

One thing it should be noted about consular processing of E visas is that a different adjudicating consular officer can make a huge difference on whether your case will be approved or denied. Even though most consular officers decide E visa cases similarly, time to time, new consular officers get rotated to E visa cases for training purposes or other purposes -- which is fine -- but sometimes they really do not have sufficient experience and knowledge of FAM and regulations governing E visas. As a result, I have seen them issue totally weird denials.Read more

The employee applicant must possess the same nationality as the U.S. based E-2 enterprise. Therefore, if the U.S. based E-2 enterprise is owned by a foreign company, the applying employee must possess the nationality of the majority shareholders of the foreign company. The applying does not have to possess the same nationality as the CEO of the U.S. based E-2 enterprise unless the CEO is the majority shareholder of the U.S. based E-2 enterprise. CEO also is an employee, not necessarily the owner.

Assuming that the wife is applying for E-2 spouse visa based on an already-approved E-2 visa for the principal applicant (husband), the consular officer can always review the facts again and also require that the wife prove that she really is a bona-fide wife by asking for wedding photos, invitations, etc.

Recently, there appears to be more and more instances where EB-5 law and cases are being cited by USCIS examiners in denying E-2 extension cases, including but not limited to, Matter of Ho precedent AAO case. This kind of language in a RFE is very strange, as the Matter of Ho specifically dealt with a pending I-526 immigrant petition, whereas an E-2 EOS is a nonimmigrant extension application. USCIS should not be using a precedent case for EB-5 law for a nonimmigrant application because they are two different areas of law.

There is no grace period, so that legally speaking, when the principal E-2 holder died, her status as E-2 dependent disappeared! But if her I-94 stay is still valid, she is not accruing any unlawful presence.

What she should have done or should do now is to try to get herself as the E-2 principal. Or she can try to pursue green card route.