Satisfying A Request For Evidence For E-2 Visa of Thai Investor
- Applicant: Mr. Lau
- Nationality: Thai
- Applying for: RFE
- Case type: E-2, Investor Visa
- Meeting the quickly-approaching deadline for client’s RFE response
- Proving the legitimacy of the client’s investment funds
- Determining the client’s ownership percentage of the overall investment enterprise
Mr. Lau– a Thai entrepreneur– came to the U.S. with an E-2 visa to oversee the international growth of his enterprise. After he had spent several years here, he had to apply to renew his E-2 visa so that he could continue directly working on his ambitious overseas expansion. In October 2018, however, he received a Request for Evidence (RFE) regarding his managerial and financial stakes in his company. In his application, Mr. Lau had submitted what he believed to be sufficient evidence of his legitimate funding and his company’s power structure– but he was blindsided by the specificity and stringency that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adhered to in their decision-making process. Thus, on top of having to balance the many managerial duties of a growing business, he was now obligated to assemble a plethora of documentation and records about his company that he was not entirely sure he would be able to provide.
Moreover, the RFE notice stated that he had been allotted the maximum amount of time to respond, meaning he had to get approval for his renewal as soon as possible. If Mr. Lau’s request were to be denied, he would be torn away from his tireless efforts in the U.S. and forced to leave the country– effectively wasting the huge investments of time and money he had made getting his project off the ground. In a frantic, last-minute attempt at preventing such a catastrophic outcome, Mr. Lau resolved to take his case to us at Tsang & Associates.
KEYS TO SUCCESS
Even though it was difficult for Mr. Lau to compile information about his many expenditures and transactions that were directly related to the U.S. branch of his company, we were confident we would be able to address USCIS’s concerns with him one at a time. We re-traced his financial steps through the past few years as meticulously as we could, accounting for all the money that had been attributed to the operations of the business.
In addition, we submitted company paperwork and sworn affidavits affirming that Mr. Lau had legally obtained the $120,000 he invested in his business and that the $120,000 was fully invested. In proving that this $120,000 was legitimate funding, we provided a detailed examination of the total investment broken down into two halves. We showed that $60,000 came from Mr. Lau selling land in Thailand, while the other $60,000 had been automatically deducted from his salary in small increments over the past several years. Thus, we proceeded to emphasize how Mr. Lau’s huge financial contributions to the company gave him a large majority of ownership. With all this as evidence, we respectfully implored USCIS to consider the importance of Mr. Lau’s continued stay in the U.S.
Mr. Lau’s E-2 visa was approved and he was overjoyed. He could not believe we resolved his time-sensitive legal predicaments so quickly. With this weight off of his shoulders, he was able to resume tending to his succeeding business, excited about the prospects of the future.