Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: E-2 Visa Versus EB-1C (Multinational Manager Green Card) for the Chinese Investor By H. Ronald Klasko

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: E-2 Visa Versus EB-1C (Multinational Manager Green Card) for the Chinese Investor By H. Ronald Klasko

    E-2 Visa Versus EB-1C (Multinational Manager Green Card) for the Chinese Investor

    by


    With the unprecedentedly long waiting list under the EB-5 quota for Chinese investors, we have been regularly requested to evaluate two alternative options for immigration to the U.S. One option is the E-2 (Treaty Investor) visa, which requires first obtaining citizenship in the country of Grenada. The other option is the EB-1C (multinational manager) green card option.

    The question of which option is better depends upon the situation of each investor.

    In order to assist investors in analyzing the two options, I have prepared the following summary:

    Advantages of E-2 Option

    If the investor is interested in coming to the U.S. as quickly as possible , the Grenada E-2 option is better than the EB-1C option. With Grenada E-2, the investor can be in the U.S. within 5 to 6 months. With the EB-1C option, the investor is not likely to be in the U.S. in less than 18 months. However, if the investor wishes to first apply for an L-1 (intracompany transferee) visa, the investor may be in the U.S. quicker than with the E-2 option. However, this would require getting USCIS approval of the L-1 petition and, eventually, the EB-1C petition

    If the investor wishes to avoid active management of the U.S. business , the E-2 option is better. For the E-2 option, the investor must “develop and direct” the business. This allows the investor to hire a manager, who reports periodically to the investor. With the EB-1C option, the investor must be actively involved in the management of the business.

    If the investor wishes to start up a new business , the E-2 option is far superior. With the E-2 option, a minimal number of employees in the U.S. business is usually sufficient. With the EB‑1C option, the application cannot even be filed until the U.S. business has been doing active business for at least 1 year. USCIS generally requires multiple levels of employees for the EB‑1C to be approved.

    If the investor wishes to avoid taxation on worldwide income , that can be done with the E-2 option depending on how much time the investor spends in the U.S. With EB-1C, the result is a green card, which automatically results in taxation on worldwide income.

    If the investor wishes to invest in a franchise , the E-2 is a better option. If the investor wishes to apply for EB-1C, it is generally better if the investor has multiple franchises that he will manage and oversee.

    If the investor is concerned with having his children in school in the U.S. at the earliest possible date , the E-2 is a better option than the EB-1C. However, as explained above, the L-1 visa may get the children to the U.S. quicker.

    If the investor wishes to avoid having to deal with USCIS , the E-2 option is the only option that can be dealt with directly at a U.S. consulate with no involvement of USCIS. This is significant since USCIS is extremely restrictive on small company and start-up L-1 and EB-1C cases.

    If the investor does not have a sizable overseas business that will continue in operation , the E-2 is a far better option. No overseas business is required. For the EB-1C, the investor has to show a sizable overseas business operation with multiple tiers of employees that the investor has actively managed for at least 1 year.

    If the investor does not own a business in China , the EB-1C is not an alternative unless the business in China buys a business in the U.S. No foreign business ownership is required for E-2.

    Advantages of the EB-1C

    If the investor wishes to get a green card , EB-1C achieves that result. The E-2 visa does not lead to a green card and must be renewed every 5 years.

    If the investor wishes to make the smallest possible investment in the U.S. , the EB-1C may be a better option. There is no exact amount of investment required for the EB-1C. The more important issue is the number of employees in the U.S. and in China. With the E-2 option, an investment of at least $350,000 (including obtaining citizenship in Grenada and buying the U.S. business) is generally required.

    If the investor is concerned about obtaining dual citizenship , the EB-1C is a better option. The E‑2 visa requires obtaining Grenada citizenship.

    If the investor is concerned with having a child obtain a green card so as not to have to go through the employer sponsorship process , the EB-1C may achieve that result. The E-2 visa requires the child to change to F-1 student status at age 21.

    Hopefully, this analysis will make the process of choosing between the E-2 option and the EB‑1C option clearer for our investor clients.

    The material contained in this article does not constitute direct legal advice and is for informational purposes only. An attorney-client relationship is not presumed or intended by receipt or review of this presentation. The information provided should never replace informed counsel when specific immigration-related guidance is needed.

    © 2017 Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP. All rights reserved. Information may not be reproduced, displayed, modified or distributed without the express prior written permission of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP. For permission, contact dlundy@klaskolaw.com.

    This post originally appeared on Klaskolaw.com. © 2017 Klasko Law. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Ronald Klasko H. Ronald Klasko (Ron) is widely recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country’s leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm has been chosen every year for the last ten years by the highly regarded Chambers Global 2015 as one of the top five immigration law firms in the United States; Ron himself is recognized annually as being in Tier One of immigration lawyers by Chambers Global and U.S. News and World Report. In addition, he has been included in the highly regarded Best Lawyers In America for two decades and has also been repeatedly selected for inclusion in Lawdragon’s/Human Resource Executive’s list of The Most Powerful Employment Attorneys Guide. Who’s Who Legal in Corporate Immigration named him as the most highly regarded immigration lawyer in the world.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X