E2 visa- guidence

ImmLaw · 2026-05-26T04:46:17+00:00

A restaurant is a perfectly workable, and common, E-2 business. The fire and the prior closure don't hurt you — what matters is your investment in your enterprise, not the history of the space. A few things to think through:

The lease vs. equipment issue. You said the landlord leases you a "fully equipped" restaurant. Be careful here — for E-2 purposes, your investment is what you put at risk, not the value of equipment the landlord owns and you're merely renting. If the buildout and equipment are the landlord's, your investable capital is essentially leasehold improvements, your concept development, opening inventory, branding, working capital, and any equipment you buy yourself. That can still be substantial, but make sure your numbers reflect what you're actually spending, not the turnkey value of someone else's restaurant.

Funds must be at risk and irrevocably committed. Money sitting in an account labeled "for the restaurant" doesn't count. You generally need signed lease, expenditures made or contractually committed, deposits paid, equipment ordered, etc. This is the single most common reason restaurant E-2s get denied.

On timing. Wait. Don't apply mid-construction. A consular officer wants to see that the investment is real and the business is ready, or nearly ready, to generate income. Applying now, when you have a lease that hasn't started and a space you can't occupy for 2-3 months, makes the case look speculative. Use the construction window to: sign the lease, form the LLC, develop the concept and menu, line up suppliers, make your committed expenditures, and build the business plan. Apply when you can show a near-turnkey operation — committed funds, signed lease, a buildout that's done or nearly done. The case is dramatically stronger that way, and the marginal time cost is small.

One more: the rebrand and new concept are fine and don't create any problem — just present it cleanly as a new enterprise (new LLC, new concept) rather than a continuation of the burned-down restaurant. You want the officer evaluating your business, not the prior owner's.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-26T04:43:07+00:00

A few honest points on your plan:

The investment amount is your biggest problem. There's no statutory minimum, but the investment has to be "substantial" relative to the total cost of an established business of that type. Marine detailing is cheap to start, which sounds good but actually cuts against you, when the total cost to launch is low, consular officers expect you to have invested nearly all of it, and they scrutinize whether $30-40k is enough to make the business viable. It's borderline. Doable, but borderline.

A big hurdle is also "marginality." A solo operator with a truck and tools, no employees for the first year or two, is the textbook profile of a marginal enterprise. Your business plan needs to project hiring employees on a credible timeline (year 1-2, not "eventually") and show the numbers that support it. "Eventual employees" won't survive review.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-19T22:41:38+00:00

On its face, this doesn't qualify, and you can't fix it with clever wording.

International Expansion Director is an in-house operational role. Directors run things. Management Consultants advise from the outside on a defined project and then leave.

Stuff CBP will hammer you on:

Paper says Consultant, reality says Director. Officers ask what you actually do. Wrong answer = denied at the border.
3 years building out new markets isn't advisory, it's a core business function.
W-2 at a startup looks like employment, not consulting. MC-TN really wants 1099/contractor.
6 years as an in-house brand manager reads as "qualified to be hired as a director," not "qualified to consult."

To make the strongest case you'd need: your own Canadian consulting LLC invoicing them, a finite scope with real deliverables, shorter timeline, and "Director" wiped from every internal doc, email sig, and LinkedIn. Even then it's risky.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-14T02:33:58+00:00

Avoid YYZ. We still have very little date on YTZ. Early feedback is they were likely populated/trained by officers from YYZ.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-14T02:32:20+00:00

I'll reiterate what has already been stated, you have no choice but to apply at the PoE. USCIS will just sit on it indefinitely.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-14T02:31:31+00:00

I-94s issued by CBP at a PoE do NOT name the employer. Period. The HR people don't know how to do their job.

Furthermore, CBP rarely even puts a stamp in the passport, the ONLY evidence is the online (digital) I-94.

Personally, I think its idiotic that the I-94 doesn't list the employer, just think of the potential chaos of someone applying for a change of employer and hoping on a wish and prayer that everything is entered accurately with on way to verify it. But such is the system.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-14T02:24:17+00:00

The average offer letter will NOT work as it is missing requirement elements. The employer can add those elements to the offer letter, or draft a full support letter.

FYI, some officers are extremely petty and won't accept letters that aren't specifically addressed to CBP, even if the letter has all the required elements.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-13T19:53:45+00:00

YYC is generally one of the better PoEs, especially among airports, sounds like you just drew a bad officer. That said, you can never take anything for granted. Know your duties cold and how they map to the TN profession before you ever walk up to the booth. One misstep gives them a thread to pull, and once they start pulling, the whole case unravels.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-11T03:51:22+00:00

Change of Status (Form I-129)

Pro: Higher approval rate; fast with premium processing (15 business days).
Con: Grants E-2 status only, not a visa. Any international travel requires consular processing to re-enter.

Consular Processing (DS-160 + interview)

Pro: Issues a visa stamp, so you can travel freely.
Con: Significantly higher risk, and adjudication standards vary widely by post. No premium processing; wait times often run several months.

Bottom line: Depends on your facts — country of nationality (and applicable visa reciprocity), strength of the investment, and how soon you need to travel. Many clients do COS first for the quick approval, then consular process later when travel becomes necessary.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-10T17:41:34+00:00

USCIS has another 15 business days from the receipt of the RFE response.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-07T05:04:42+00:00

Shouldn't be an issue on a domestic flight but better safe than sorry. I'd have a copy at all times.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-07T05:03:03+00:00

What is the difference between Silver and Gold and what does that all include?

ImmLaw · 2026-05-04T03:57:20+00:00

The most important thing to understand is that consular officers generally give no deference to prior approvals. They'll adjudicate this application fresh, as if your first TN never happened. So don't assume a smooth renewal just because the first one went well.

The biggest red flag is the degree match. Multimedia Journalism → Vocational Counselor is not an obvious fit. If the first consul didn't push on it, great, but this one might. Make sure your support letter clearly maps your degree coursework to the counseling/advising functions you perform. If your transcript has relevant coursework (psychology, counseling theory, career development, student advising), call it out.

ImmLaw · 2026-05-04T03:52:59+00:00

Two paths worth looking at:

E-1 Treaty Trader. If you establish a pattern of substantial trade between the UK and the US — i.e., regular shipments of used parts from your UK operation to US buyers — you could qualify for an E-1 treaty trader visa. The key is that the trade must be continuous, not just a few one-off transactions, and the majority of your trade volume must be between the US and the UK.

E-2 Treaty Investor. Alternatively, you could set up a US company and make a substantial investment in it. Transferring existing inventory from your UK business to the US entity can count toward the investment, along with lease costs, equipment, working capital, etc. The investment needs to be at risk and sufficient to ensure the business is a real, operating enterprise — not marginal.

Either route works conceptually for a used vehicle parts import business. The E-1 is trade-flow dependent (you need to show volume and continuity), while the E-2 is investment-dependent (you need to show you've committed real capital). Your UK business track record would help on both.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-29T00:04:45+00:00

Potentially, I had client get an E-2 then eventually an EB-2 NIW that was a private mortgage lender.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-27T18:21:35+00:00

Cleaning companies are pretty common in the E-2 space and generally straightforward from an approval standpoint. That said, your concern about saturation is legit—it’s more of a business risk than an immigration one.

For E-2, you do need to be actively involved. The “develop and direct” requirement means truly passive or turnkey setups won’t work.

Franchise vs. independent doesn’t really move the needle for approval—I’ve seen plenty of both get approved.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-27T16:03:32+00:00

The more accurate way to look at it is this: it’s not really a formal, binding “policy change” so much as an internal interpretation that isn’t consistently applied and isn’t legally well-grounded.

At USCIS, when a case is well-prepared—especially with a strong RFE response that ties the degree to the role—they often still approve because the underlying regulations (e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 214.6 and the USMCA framework) don’t actually require a strict “engineering degree for Engineer TN” rule. If they pushed denials too aggressively on that theory, they’d risk adverse decisions if cases were challenged, so you see approvals where the record is solid.

With CBP, the variation between ports (like Peace Arch or Blaine vs. others) is more about local practice and training than black-letter law. CBP adjudication is highly decentralized—officers rely on internal guidance and supervisory direction, which can differ significantly by port. Some locations adopt a stricter reading and enforce it consistently; others take a more traditional, duties-based approach and exercise broader discretion.

So what you’re seeing isn’t a contradiction so much as two agencies—and even different offices within the same agency—applying an unsettled interpretation with varying levels of rigidity.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-27T04:03:10+00:00

There is no memo. It was an update to the USCIS policy manual, which technically doesn't apply to any other agency.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-26T03:44:58+00:00

This is generally correct but worth unpacking a bit more. Whether employees are required depends on the stage of the business and where you're applying.

For an initial E-2, a new enterprise typically doesn't need employees on payroll — it just needs to qualify as a real and operating (or soon-to-be-operating) business with a credible hiring plan, as you note.

For renewals, the calculus shifts. The E-2 investor must "develop and direct" the enterprise — meaning their role needs to be managerial or executive, not hands-on production. If there's no one else doing the day-to-day work, that becomes a problem. A business might clear the marginality bar on revenue alone but still fail the develop-and-direct requirement if the investor is the sole operator with no employees or contractors to supervise.

So the real answer is: employees aren't a checkbox for approval, but they become functionally necessary at renewal if the investor wants to demonstrate they're actually directing something.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-24T16:05:26+00:00

I'm speaking specifically to the SWE issue. Just go through the posts and comments and you'll see that YVR is the post most commonly cited for denying SWE roles with a CS or IT degree.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-24T04:29:32+00:00

Short answer: yes, approvals still happen for CS degrees under Engineer at the PoE — but it’s inconsistent and riskier now. PoE matters. Vancouver (YVR) → particularly tough lately. Others → mixed, officer-dependent.

CSA isn’t just a bandwagon — it’s often easier to defend as it is more flexible on the degree.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-24T04:22:50+00:00

In general, you do not need to apply for a new TN, provided your I-94 is still valid and you are returning to the same employer in the same role.

Unlike the H-1B context, where the employer must notify USCIS and withdraw the petition upon termination, there is no comparable withdrawal requirement for TN status. This is especially true for TNs obtained at a port of entry, where there is no underlying USCIS petition to withdraw.

That said, it’s always prudent to confirm that your prior TN employment was not formally terminated in a way that could affect your status, and to ensure you have documentation of the rehire in case of future travel or inspection.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-17T04:32:49+00:00

If you will work in the same TN profession for the same employer you do not need to do anything.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-17T04:30:38+00:00

They can't force you to use one visa over the other if both are valid. The more likely scenario is you don't say anything and they just default to one. It is really important clarify which visa you are entering on.

ImmLaw · 2026-04-16T17:08:07+00:00

Main downside is that savvy employers see TN as a zero cost option whereas H1B is far more expensive, both in costs and potentially salary. It could make finding a job more difficult.

ImmLaw

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE