No announcement yet.

Article: E-2 Versus EB-5: Both Investor Visas, But Very Different By H. Ronald Klasko


  • Article: E-2 Versus EB-5: Both Investor Visas, But Very Different By H. Ronald Klasko

    E-2 Versus EB-5: Both Investor Visas, But Very Different


    Oliver Yang and I recently completed our respective trips to China during which investors had great interest in the E-2 visa option and much less interest in EB-5. This was not surprising given the well‑publicized EB-5 quota backlogs for investors born in China.

    Since investors in China are very familiar with EB-5, and only now becoming familiar with E-2, I am publishing this blog to explain the differences between E-2 and EB-5 as we explained to the investors and agents with whom we met.

    1. Visa vs. Green Card

    E-2 is a visa, not a green card. However, it is the longest-term visa and, in many ways, the most advantageous visa to the U.S. It is a visa that can be obtained for 5 years and extended 5 years at a time indefinitely. It is a visa that allows children to go to public school, private school or university, often with in-state tuition. It is a visa that allows the spouse to work anywhere that he or she wishes in the U.S. However, it is still a visa. On the other hand, the EB-5 approval leads to a green card, which can lead to U.S. citizenship. Investors who wish to do so, can use their E-2 investment as a down payment for an EB-5 investment if they want to eventually qualify for a green card.

    1. Timing

    The E-2 visa can be obtained quickly – – usually within 2 months. There is no quota and therefore no backlog. The EB-5 is subject to a quota, which presently has a backlog estimated to be in excess of 10 years for China.

    1. Taxation

    Green cards obtained through EB-5 (and green cards obtained through any other category) subject the foreign national to U.S. taxation on worldwide income. E-2 visa holders can avoid taxation on worldwide income by reducing the number of days that they spend in the U.S.

    1. Exact vs. Flexible Requirements

    EB-5 has very exact requirements. In most cases, it requires an investment of $500,000 and creation of at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers.

    E-2 has no exact requirements. It requires a “substantial” investment, which is not defined by any specific dollar amount. Rather, it is defined by the amount necessary for the type of business in which the investor invests to be successful. Many E-2 investments are $200,000 or more, although in certain businesses it may be possible to show that a business can be profitable, employ people and expand with a smaller investment. Often, larger investments result in longer lasting and more profitable businesses.

    The job creation requirement utilizes the same philosophy as the investment requirement. The E-2 investor’s business should employ people, but the amount of employment is dependent upon the type of business. Generally, the investor wants to prove, through a good business plan, that he or she will employ the normal amount of employees necessary for similar businesses to succeed.

    1. Place of Filing

    EB-5 petitions, like virtually all working visa petitions, must be approved by USCIS before an applicant can file for the visa at the U.S. Consulate. The E-2 is the exception. The E-2 applicant never has to file any application with USCIS, which has produced unprecedentedly restrictive interpretations in many working visa applications. Rather, the E-2 application is filed directly at a U.S. Consulate, which may be a U.S. consulate in the country of birth, the country of citizenship (the U.S. Consulate in Barbados has jurisdiction over Grenada citizens), a U.S. consulate in a country of residence or any U.S. consulate anywhere in the world that is willing to take on the case.

    Because there is no pre-approved petition by USCIS, the interview at the U.S. consulate is especially critical. It is for that reason that we prepare clients meticulously for the questions likely to be asked at the E-2 visa interview.

    1. Country of Birth vs. Country of Citizenship

    EB-5 is available for people born in any country around the world. The quota is based on country of birth, not country of citizenship. The E-2 is based on country of citizenship. Since there is no investment treaty between the U.S. and China, people born in China are not eligible for the E-2 visa unless they obtain citizenship in a country that has an investment treaty with the U.S. The only country in which citizenship can be obtained relatively quickly (usually within 4 months) based on investment, and which has an investment treaty with the U.S., is Grenada.

    1. Ownership of Business

    EB-5 does not require any specific percentage ownership of a business in the U.S. The E-2 visa does require that the investor own at least 50% of the business in which he invests in order to qualify as an E-2 investor. If other nationals of the treaty country own at least 50% of the business, but the investor does not, the investor may be able to qualify for an E-2 managerial visa.

    1. Time Spent in the U.S.

    With U.S. permanent resident status, it necessary for a foreign national to reside in the U.S., which usually means spending at least 50% of the time in the U.S. If he or she does not do so, it may be possible to obtain a re-entry permit for a 2-year period in order in order to avoid abandonment of permanent resident status.

    The E-2 visa holder can spend 100% of his or her time in the U.S. or very little time in the U.S., as he or she prefers. As mentioned earlier, spending less time in the U.S. may avoid taxation on worldwide income.

    For some people, the advantages of the E-2 visa make the EB-5 process unnecessary. For others, the E-2 provides a good method to spend the EB-5 waiting period in the U.S.

    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.

    © 2018 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

    This post originally appeared on © 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.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      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
      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
      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.

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


      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).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM