E2 denial London

[InnVic]

About 18 months ago I posted a thread about Innkeepers in New Hampshire who were denied E2 renewal. One was landlocked in London and after 3 months or so of bruhaha he was granted a two year visa. They went back to London this week to renew and I recieved this e-mail today....
Hi there,



Well we went and done it this time!



went for the interview this morning, and was turned down again. this time they said that they gave

us a chance and we didn't do it. or not in there eyes we didn't.



So know we are both stuck in the UK. with all our stuff in New Hampshire, our business our home everything.

and no way back, they even took our three months that we had left back, that's right they revoked the three month we had left.

so not sure how we are going to go from here?



Life is **** right now.



we did improve income by around $20,000 and stuffing of about $8,000 more than last time and they still said that it wasn't enough for them.
they won't tell you how much they want they just say we didn't do it.



So what next well we are not sure we want to come back but don't no how.



thought you might like to no that every thing hasn't change they still don't like us!

I can't believe they even revoked the visa - left those guys high and dry.....there is NO WAY I'm leaving this country until I sell. I've mentioned this site to them and hopefully they will join and give details. By the way they do have employees.

[Susie]

I am so sorry for the people concerned.

You would think there would be some commonsense/leeway for visa renewals especially with this economic climate.

Trouble is that unless you fit and tick all their boxes they cannot seeem to think out of it

There would be nothing stopping them visiting on the visa waiver so long as they do not do any physical work or they could apply for a transit visa to come back and sell up

[InnVic]

Hi Susie
They had 3 months left on their visa - it was taken away. They cannot come back on visa waiver. They have been for sale for over a year I believe - obviously in this economy things aren't selling quickly. (I can vouch for that!)
They have been well and truely screwed!

[kirtida8]

Wow! What a sad state of affairs. How on earth do the embassy officials expect them to run/sell their business if they are not allowed back in? Hope that they are going to make some noise in the media about this.

[Kriz1]

We had a good few Indian friends given 10 days to leave the country when they lost their jobs..we are told time and time again this does not happen..it did..lucky enough some still had family nearby to sell their homes..and a few were given visa's to Canada straight away..

[chris]

It sucks royally!
Maybe they could come over on VWP to tie up loose ends and overstay till they are good and ready to leave.
OK they would get a ban from coming back here, but I suspect they wouldn't want to return here ever again once they have sorted things out.
It really is a crap shoot with Visas.

[JulieC]

They should be able to get back on visa waiver. We were denied L1 renewal in July 2006, left here in December 2006 and had to return on visa waiver at the end of February 2007 for a court case. We were let in OK on visa waiver though we were asked why.

BTW E2 sucks, doesnt it?? No joy on selling, Innvic?

[InnVic]

we've got a viewing on Friday so fingers crossed - our realtors doing it while we take a well earned vacation!

[Carl]

Absolutely ridiclious, I feel for them.

[InnVic]

I know they have it harder than most - being a same sex couple they have in effect TWO separate E2 applicatons - so their business has to perform twice as profitable, employ twice the people with twice the investment - its really unfair!

[Carl]

Did they do the application themselves?

[britcan]

this sucks- they should contact thier local congressman! They should at least be allowed to go back and clear up the lose ends and get thier stuff out.

[davidmartin_uk]

What a terrible story! They have got to try to get back in on VWP and just stay as long as it takes to sell. So what of they are banned from coming back to the USA if they overstay. Even if it takes years to sell they need to stay on until they are forcibly removed. Who would ever want to live anywhere that treated you like that.

Dave

[InnVic]

Did they do the application themselves?

I believe they have an attorney

[grumps]

this is the sort of story that the UK press needs to be publishing to worn people just how bad it is on a visa. if the national papers run this sort of story then you can bet the embassy would be in trouble if people stooped coming.

[twen]

This story saddens me deeply, I feel for them both and can only pray an dhope that they get some kind of a resolve and can go back to sort our their affairs accordingly.

We have just completed our renewal and will be sending to london early next week, I have to admit I have a knot in my stomach already, we have followed their instructions, but as we have not made a profit this year and gone down to one member of staff with my husband working the other hours we know this does not look farily on us at all but what can we do, we could not afford to pay for a lawyer to do the renewall for us hence why we have done it ourselves..

The only thing I did not do in the folder was insert a page in the front of each tab detailing the FAM guidelines for that tab....can anyone advise if this would be an issue??

As I have said I really do wish this couple all the luck in the world in getting this resolved.

Wendy

[davidmartin_uk]

Where in New Hampshire is their B&B?

Dave

[InnVic]

temple - its the Birchwood Inn

[blueharborhouse]

How devastating for the two of them. The draconian attitude of the Embassy certainly doesn't allow them to finalize their affairs with any sense of decency. Obviously they and their lawyer thought they had a strong enough case to merit the renewal, or they would not have gone back to London. My heart goes out to them.

[Ed Tha Brit]

:fit:You know, going to the press is not a bad Idea after all we are suppose to live in a democratic country but where is the fair play in all this, these people have thier investment here so should be able to get thier affairs in order.

Things need to be changed not just for our futures but for the future or do the USA not need investment anymore, as my Attorney told me, If an Iraqi came over with 1-2 million Dollars not a problem? ALL WRONG!!!!!!:fit:

Have a nice Day

Ed Tha Brit

[byjove]

omg! This has really made me sad! I hope they make a huge noise in both the UK and here in the USA! This is so bloody unfair. It makes people so unsure for renewals now!

[JulieC]

This story saddens me deeply, I feel for them both and can only pray an dhope that they get some kind of a resolve and can go back to sort our their affairs accordingly.

We have just completed our renewal and will be sending to london early next week, I have to admit I have a knot in my stomach already, we have followed their instructions, but as we have not made a profit this year and gone down to one member of staff with my husband working the other hours we know this does not look farily on us at all but what can we do, we could not afford to pay for a lawyer to do the renewall for us hence why we have done it ourselves..

The only thing I did not do in the folder was insert a page in the front of each tab detailing the FAM guidelines for that tab....can anyone advise if this would be an issue??

As I have said I really do wish this couple all the luck in the world in getting this resolved.

Wendy


I presume you did not wish to be landlocked?? Otherwise maybe just extending status would be have been a safer option?? Did you consider embassies other than London??? Sorry cannot advise on the technical aspects. I did mine myself but it was not London.

[peter gold]

I think you may only have half the story here!.
By law you have 90 days after the refusal of a visa to leave the US to clear your affairs then you must leave or you become out of status and an overstayer. Get a copy of their refusal and pm it to me and I will see if there is anything that should be done.
Franky they should get on a plane and seek re admission by the POE officer as long as their visa is still valid.
A visa can only be revoked on two grounds
1. ineligibility under INA 212 a and
2. non entitlement to visa classification
If POE refuse a 90 day re-entry that is different, and it is their sole discretion to admits any non immigrant visa or non inmigrant visa waiver traveler
They should seek out an attorney letter quoting the law and travel with it and show the POE

[InnVic]

I think you may only have half the story here!.
By law you have 90 days after the refusal of a visa to leave the US

thats all well and good if YOU"RE IN THE USA...when your in the UK they don't have to readmit do they? They are however attempting to reenter on VW next week (nothing to lose as they had purchased return flights) - I'll keep you posted.

[peter gold]

Please reread my post
They re enter on their E-2 visa and not visa waiver If they use visa waiver they concede they have no visa when in fact they do as the visa cannot be revoked It can not be renewed but if still valid can and should be used for re entry.

[InnVic]

why can't a visa be revoked? if you have a legal basis for that let me know because they have been told that their visa was cancelled.

P.S just been thinking..if you sell a business or no longer comply with E2 then your out of status and so therfore if they are judged to not qualify for renewal then by default they are judged to be out of status and it would be reasonable (in their thinking!) to revoke visa wouldn't it?

[peter gold]

No revocation is a positive act requiring a legal decision. Effluxion by the lapse of time, change of status etc does not invalidate the visa it means the visa holders is no longer eligible to travel with that visa The visa goes with the business not the holder The holder gets derivative status from the business as e.g manager.
Please reread my posting.." A visa can only be revoked on two grounds
1. ineligibility under INA 212A and
2. non entitlement to visa classification
They should attempt to re enter under current valid unexpired visa and see a GOOD immigration attorney

[InnVic]

if the visa holder cannot travel with that visa then how can you say this is not in effect "revoked"??? The visa is after all only a "travel document". Am I being stupid here but I cannot see any logic in your explanation. If they were judged not entitled to the visa classification at renewal then why wouldn't or couldn't a mean spirited adjudicating officer be able to revoke this.

[blueharborhouse]

No revocation is a positive act requiring a legal decision. Effluxion by the lapse of time, change of status etc does not invalidate the visa it means the visa holders is no longer eligible to travel with that visa The visa goes with the business not the holder The holder gets derivative status from the business as e.g manager.
Please reread my posting.." A visa can only be revoked on two grounds
1. ineligibility under INA 212A and
2. non entitlement to visa classification
They should attempt to re enter under current valid unexpired visa and see a GOOD immigration attorney

So, if they manage to enter under their current E2 visa, will that mean that they get a new I-94 stamp for two years?....I imagine not, as presumably they will have to say somewhere that their Visa has not been renewed by London....or will they?
Alternatively, would trying to enter under visa waiver, when they have existing E2 and ongoing business send up red flags more likely to result in refusal of entry?

[anniefromessex]

Just a thought but don't they put a stamp across the Visa page with "cancelled" on it which would obviously mean they couldn't try to use it?

Love Anniexxx

[blueharborhouse]

Just a thought but don't they put a stamp across the Visa page with "cancelled" on it which would obviously mean they couldn't try to use it?

Love Anniexxx

Yes, that makes sense to me, but then how could Peters suggestion work?
They should attempt to re enter under current valid unexpired visa and see a GOOD immigration attorney.
They are caught between a rock and a hard place, with no straightforward solution, it seems.

[Phoenix]

Unfortunately, it is ALL about money and until we start to view it in that cold, hard, businesslike way, we will continued to be disappointed that they don't take into account the human factor. Like any government in the world (including our own), they don't care about sob stories, heartfelt pleas or the fact that their decisions can destroy someone's dreams. Unless you are claiming asylum, they will stick to the criteria set out in the guidelines for visas and nothing will sway them. It angers me to know that there are so many people who are ripped off by so called visa lawyers, even big companies who are willing to take your money and basically fob you off with bad advice and half hearted, hit and miss service. They seem to mess with peoples' futures as much as immigration. Please, please, please, do you homework on anyone you pay money to before putting your entire future in their hands.

It is also worth reminding everyone, that any non-immigrant visa is only ever going to be temporary. That is the nature of them. Never take for granted that you will get it renewed automatically. You must meet all the criteria or be prepared to go home. It's not fair, especially in this economic climate and with so many illegal immigrants here, but that is the way it is and if you view it with your head instead of your heart, it gives a little more clarity.

We would like to wish you all the best, and hope that things do turn out the way you would like them to.

:angry: what goes around comes around... keep the faith :angel:

[peter gold]

Because the visa exists as a travel warrant so long as it is valid. No power to revoke therefore valid to travel to expiry and on admission you get an I 94 till the expiration of the visa. IT HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED IT CAN EXPIRE OR NOT BE RENEWED BUT IS NOT REVOKED
If a valid remaining unexpired E-2 visa exists it should be used to present at POE and unless there is an idiot on duty you should get the balance of the unexpired time of the visa. Explain you are returning to sell and leave !

[InnVic]

If this is true can you give me a legal reference (FAM? Federal code?) that states that so I can print it off and forward to them.

I found this post which seems to indicate they cannot revoke WHEN VISA HOLDER IS IN TRANSIT BUT OTHER THAN THAT THEY CAN>

(lifted from immigration attornys website but I cannot vouch for validity)

Visa Revocation and Revocation Notice.
Posted by Jeff Xie on November 10, 2002 at 22:16:54



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: we are aware that visa holders have been sent letters informing them of visa cancellations. Also, we are aware that in at least one instance, such a letter was sent to a visa holder who was present in the United States, and furthermore, that VO or post informed the visa holder’s employer of the visa cancellation, resulting in the visa holder’s firing. Please describe the process by which visa holders are informed of visa cancellations, the basis for such cancellations, and the process to be undertaken to obtain a new visa. Please also confirm that it is not the policy of the Department of State to inform a visa holder’s employer of a visa cancellation.

A: INA 221(i) authorizes both consular officers and the Secretary of State to revoke visas. The authority of the Secretary of State has been formally delegated to the Deputy Assistant Deputy of State for Visa Services. 22 CFR 41.122(b) requires consular officers considering a visa revocation to first give notice to the alien, if such notice is practicable: “Notice of proposed revocation. When consideration is being given to the revocation of a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer considering that action shall, if practicable, notify the alien to whom the visa was issued of intention to revoke the visa. The alien shall also be given an opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked and requested to present the travel document in which the visa was originally issued.” 9 FAM 41.122 Note 3 states that “Under no circumstances should a consular officer revoke the visa of an alien believed to be physically in the United States, or to have commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States.” Where the alien is known or believed to be in the U.S., or to have begun an uninterrupted journey to the U.S., the visa revocation is effected by the Department of State. In such a case, no notice is required, but notice if practicable would still be appropriate out of fairness to the affected alien. Once the alien receives notice of a visa revocation, the alien can apply for a new visa, but must overcome the finding of ineligibility that led to the visa revocation.

In regard to informing the alien’s employer, INA 222(f) provides for the confidentiality of visa records and this requirement would relate to visa revocations. This section, however, does permit use of visa records for purposes related to “administration, or enforcement of the immigration, nationality, and other laws of the United States.” Therefore, notification to the employer could be appropriate if there is a law enforcement reason for it (such as in order to locate and apprehend someone in the U.S. in unlawful status). It may also be the case that notification of a revocation is sent to an affected alien at a work address, which may the only address available, and intercepted by the employer.

DOS Answers to AILA Questions (10/02/2002)
AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 02100340 (Oct. 3, 2002) .

[InnVic]

from another immigration attorny site.....
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:6_zZwxdZVycJ:ezinearticles.com/%3FVisa-Cancellation-Vs-Visa-Revocation%26id%3D1321420+can+the+USA+revoke+visa&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


The fact that a visa has been cancelled does not necessarily indicate anything negative about the visa holder. A visa may be cancelled because there has been a clerical or similar error. Example: The person was approved for an "X" visa, but the visa foil in the passport says "Y" visa. These errors and other needs for correction are actually quite common. Think of incorrect birth dates, where the date format in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. can be confusing. If someone's birthday is April 12, 1968, his DOB can be written as "04/12/1968" or "12-04-1968", depending on which date format is used. (did the applicant possibly put his/her birth date on the application form in the wrong date format?)

Embassy staff may also cancel a visa if the visa holder gets a new visa in a new passport, but has a valid visa of the same kind, not yet expired, in the old passport. Non-immigrant visas of aliens deemed inadmissible at a port of entry may also be cancelled. You will sometimes find CBP officers at the port-of-entry cancelling visas, especially in cases where visas may only provide for a SINGLE entry, rather than the customary "multiple" entries, usually encountered on visas.

The fact that a visa has been revoked may or may not indicate something negative about the visa holder. A consular officer will revoke a visa when he or she determines that:

• the alien is ineligible to receive a visa or enter the United States for health, criminal, security, or other serious reasons;

• the alien no longer qualifies for the particular visa;

• the alien has been issued an immigrant visa (IV); or

• the visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued.

What happens when a U.S. visa is revoked?

A consular officer can only revoke a visa on the basis of such a determination if the traveler is outside the United States, or if his or her whereabouts are unknown. When a consular officer revokes a visa, the embassy or consulate informs the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security through designated channels. The consular officer also is responsible for informing all local transportation companies about the visa revocation to prevent the traveler from embarking on a flight to the United States.

CBP Officers working at U.S. ports of entry are also informed electronically of the visa revocation through the following databases; Consular Consolidated Database (CCD), Consular Lookout Automated System (CLASS) and through the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) in case the traveler arrives seeking admission into the United States.

The Secretary of State (via a consular officer) can also revoke a nonimmigrant visa, regardless of whether the alien is in the United States, and an immigrant visa if the alien has not entered the United States in immigrant status. Such revocation is generally on prudential grounds such that the alien would have to appear before a consular officer to establish eligibility for a visa before being permitted to apply for entry to the United States.

[anniefromessex]

They cover all their bases don't they?!!

Love Anniexxx

[chris]

I think that all the two guys can do is try and come back in. If they are allowed through - great. If not, then go to plan B.
The test is standing in front of Senor Jose Jobsworth at POE IMHO.

[peter gold]

Absolutely agree with chris but not to enter on a visa waiver

[InnVic]

Absolutely agree with chris but not to enter on a visa waiver

THEIR E2 VISA WAS CANCELLED PETER!!!!!!!! so they have no other option but visa waiver-if at all!

[peter gold]

and no way back, they even took our three months that we had left back, that's right they revoked the three month we had left.
Cancelled or revoked are 2 different decisons
Please get a copy of their notice of cancellation or revocation as IMHO there is no power for them to do that exect when as quoted in my previous post.
The visa should be relied upon.
I did tell them days ago to seek independant immigration legal advice

[InnVic]

and no way back, they even took our three months that we had left back, that's right they revoked the three month we had left.
Cancelled or revoked are 2 different decisons
Please get a copy of their notice of cancellation or revocation as IMHO there is no power for them to do that exect when as quoted in my previous post.
The visa should be relied upon.
I did tell them days ago to seek independant immigration legal advice

well according to the federal code they are one and the same.....

TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS

CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS

PART 41 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF NONIMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED

subpart l - REFUSALS AND REVOCATIONS

41.122 - Revocation of visas.

(a) Grounds for revocation by consular officers. A consular officer is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa issued to an alien if: (1) The officer finds that the alien was not, or has ceased to be, entitled to the nonimmigrant classification under INA 101(a)(15) specified in the visa or that the alien was at the time the visa was issued, or has since become, ineligible under INA 212(a) to receive a visa, or was issued a visa in contravention of INA 222(g) (2) The visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued prior to the alien's embarkation upon a continuous voyage to the United States; or (3) For any of the reasons specified in paragraph (h) of this section if the visa has not been revoked by an immigration officer as authorized in that paragraph.

(4) The visa has been issued in a combined Mexican or Canadian B1/B2 visa and border crossing identification card and the officer makes the determination specified in 41.32(c) with respect to the alien's Mexican citizenship and/or residence or the determination specified in 41.33(b) with respect to the alien's status as a permanent resident of Canada.

(b) Notice of proposed revocation. When consideration is being given to the revocation of a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer considering that action shall, if practicable, notify the alien to whom the visa was issued of intention to revoke the visa. The alien shall also be given an opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked and requested to present the travel document in which the visa was originally issued.

(c) Procedure for physically cancelling visas. A nonimmigrant visa which is revoked shall be canceled by writing or stamping the word REVOKED plainly across the face of the visa. The cancellation shall be dated and signed by the officer taking the action. The failure of the alien to present the visa for cancellation does not affect the validity of action taken to revoke it.
(d) Notice to carriers. Notice of revocation shall be given to the master, aircraft captain, agent, owner, charterer, or consignee of the carrier or transportation line on which it is believed the alien intends to travel to the United States, unless the visa has been physically canceled as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(e) Notice to Department. When a visa is revoked under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer shall promptly submit notice of the revocation, including a full report on the facts in the case, to the Department for transmission to INS. A report is not required if the visa is physically canceled prior to the alien's departure for the United States except in cases involving A, G, C2, C3, NATO, diplomatic or official visas.

(f) Record of action. Upon revocation of a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer shall complete for the post files a Certificate of Revocation by Consular Officer which includes a statement of the reasons for the revocation. If the revocation is effected at other than the issuing office, a copy of the Certificate of Revocation shall be sent to that office.

(g) Reconsideration of revocation. (1) The consular office shall consider any evidence submitted by the alien or the alien's attorney or representative in connection with a request that the revocation be reconsidered. If the officer finds that the evidence is sufficient to overcome the basis for the revocation, a new visa shall be issued. A memorandum regarding the action taken and the reasons therefor shall be placed in the consular files and appropriate notification shall be made promptly to the carriers concerned, the Department, and the issuing office if notice of revocation has been given in accordance with paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.

(2) In view of the provisions of 41.107(d) providing for the refund of fees when a visa has not been used as a result of action by the U.S.

Government, a fee shall not be charged in connection with a reinstated visa.

(h) Revocation of visa by immigration officer. An immigration officer is authorized to revoke a valid visa by physically canceling it in accordance with the procedure prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section if: (1) The alien obtains an immigrant visa or an adjustment of status to that of permanent resident; (2) The alien is ordered excluded from the United States pursuant to INA 235(c) or 236; (3) The alien is notified pursuant to INA 235(b) by an immigration officer at a port of entry that the alien appears to be inadmissible to the United States and the alien requests and is granted permission to withdraw the application for admission; (4) A final order of deportation or a final order granting voluntary departure with an alternate order of deportation is entered against the alien pursuant to INS regulations; (5) The alien has been permitted by INS to depart voluntarily from the United States pursuant to INS regulations; (6) A waiver of ineligibility pursuant to INA 212(d)(3)(A) on the basis of which the visa was issued to the alien is revoked by INS; (7) The visa is presented in connection with an application for admission to the United States by a person other than the alien to whom it was issued; or (8) The visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued.

(9) The visa has been issued in a combined Mexican or Canadian B1/B2 visa and border crossing identification card and the officer makes the determination specified in 41.32(c) with respect to the alien's Mexican citizenship and/or residence or the determination specified in 41.33(b) with respect to the alien's status as a permanent resident of Canada.

[52 FR 42597, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 16895, Apr. 7, 1998; 66 FR 10364, Feb. 15, 2001; 66 FR 38544, July 25, 2001; 67 FR 66046, Oct.

30, 2002]

Other documents:

[chris]

According to the last post, the physical act of revoking or cancelling the Visa is to stamp it revoked/canceled or to remove it from the passport. I guess they cannot do that as the passport is property of HMG and something the Yanks would have to do on pain of death or flogging - hopefully!
Anyhow, if the Visa is still in ye olde UK passport, and doesn't have anything on it to indicate it's been revoked, playing dumb may be the best course of action.
If they then go back in on the strength of it, stick with being landlocked and keep renewing via USCIS, until such time as you want to leave.
The whole treatment sucks big time in my view and gives further credence why the USA is Billy No Mates in the World today - they richly deserve it too, the toe rags. Sorry if I don't mince words, but it truly infuriates me when I hear these stories.

[dip your toe]

Won't the computer at POE have the information of what happened at the Embassy interview?

[anniefromessex]

I have a cancelled B1/B2 stamp in my passport!

Totally agree with you Chris, it sucks big time but as everybody keeps saying you go over on Visas in the knowledge that it could be temporary!!! For the life of me I cannot understand why a country like America with their illegal problems, would want to treat hardworking, decent people who invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in that country like they do, but hey, while people still keep doing it they're laughing!!

As you all know my eldest son and his family emigrated to Australia, he was agreed because he was an Electrician and that was one of the trades they were taking, he is not doing electrical work though, he has bought a Cafe/Bar which opened Good Friday and he is doing really well; my point being he didn't have to employ Australians (although he is obviously), he doesn't have the worry of Visa renewals over his head, he can live his life pretty much as he wants to, his partner had to have a knee op - she went to see a Specialist on the Thursday, she was operated on on Monday and guess what, the cost was minimal!! Hey America isn't all its cracked up to be!!!

By the way DYT, my son and his family after being denied returned a few days later and were let in, so there may be some hope for this couple. Just your luck on the day I guess.

Love Anniexxx

[maddy]

It really sickens me to hear that the US Embassy is still up to their old tricks. In November 2007 my daughter was denied her E2 on the grounds that they didn't believe she had invested money into the business which employed 15 Americans and turned over a million dollars a year. It took the Embassy TWENTY THREE months to get to that decision! We had proof of their incompetence and sent three letters by recorded delivery to John Caulfied but, true to form, they didn't have the decency to respond. There is no procedure for appeal - they can do as they like.
There is not a day goes by that I'm angered and upset at the incompetent, beauracratic pen-pusher who basically destroyed my daughter's dreams that day. So, two years on my family is still separated across the Atlantic with no hope of being reunited anytime soon.

[Susie]

It really sickens me to hear that the US Embassy is still up to their old tricks. In November 2007 my daughter was denied her E2 on the grounds that they didn't believe she had invested money into the business which employed 15 Americans and turned over a million dollars a year. It took the Embassy TWENTY THREE months to get to that decision! We had proof of their incompetence and sent three letters by recorded delivery to John Caulfied but, true to form, they didn't have the decency to respond. There is no procedure for appeal - they can do as they like.
There is not a day goes by that I'm angered and upset at the incompetent, beauracratic pen-pusher who basically destroyed my daughter's dreams that day. So, two years on my family is still separated across the Atlantic with no hope of being reunited anytime soon.

I am so sorry to hear your family is separated, I know how that feels from personal experience

Would you be willing to come with me to Congressman Bill Posey's office? to tell him of our plight?

[maddy]

I am so sorry to hear your family is separated, I know how that feels from personal experience

Would you be willing to come with me to Congressman Bill Posey's office? to tell him of our plight?

Absolutely I would. But I didn't get to the US via an E2 route - does that matter?

[Steve in clermont]

I think the same sex couple was the downfall in this case. Not recognising a same sex relationship is typical american ignorance at its best. Had this been a joint application would it have gone through ????? Most likley.....
Could this be sexual discrimination ?????

[chris]

DYT,
Quite possibly. But ignorance can work both ways.
The Embassy official did NOT stamp out the Visa nor remove it from the Passport. Therefore on the face of it, it is still current.
The official VERBALLY told them he had canceled it, but they have nothing in writing to confirm that verbal remark. Any Attorney worth their salt would require something like that type of decision to be in writing.
With so much at stake, I would try my luck at getting back by saying nothing at POE. If the POE has computer information that it has been canceled and refuses them entry, then so be it.
I think we've all played ignorant at some point in our lives when we have wanted it to work to our advantage.
What have they got to lose??

[peter gold]

Thank You Chris
This is what I have been saying for days now.
If it has not been stamped cancelled or revoked which I ma sure it has not been. My guess is the applicant has miusunderstood what was said by the officer and we are all wasting our time on this one

[InnVic]

DYT,
Quite possibly. But ignorance can work both ways.
The Embassy official did NOT stamp out the Visa nor remove it from the Passport. Therefore on the face of it, it is still current.
??

How do you know this Chris? Have you spoken to Nic and Andrew? The Embassy had the passports as they always do for E2 interviews, they are then returned by courier with or without visa a few days later. They can just as easily remove a visa (physically or by cancellation/revokation stamp) as they can put one in. What they can't do by Uk law is retain or cancel the passport. Anyway once in the system a machine readable passport will flag a void visa.

P.S and Peter we're only "going round in circles" because you kept saying they can't cancel visa when its blatently obvious that they can - and do.

[chris]

Inn Vic,
I am basing my remarks on what you copied to everyone at the outset of this thread. If we have only half a tale, then as usual we will end up with half the advice.
Perhaps, if the lads can answer that one, we can discuss it more sensibly. Without it, we are wasting our time debating this any further.

[InnVic]

Inn Vic,
I am basing my remarks on what you copied to everyone at the outset of this thread. If we have only half a tale, then as usual we will end up with half the advice.
Perhaps, if the lads can answer that one, we can discuss it more sensibly. Without it, we are wasting our time debating this any further.

the only thing that is sending this discussion round in circles is that people are making ASSUMPTIONS (was it stamped? was it cancelled or revoked? can they do that? etc..) Your post claimed it WAS NOT stamped and that the instruction WAS VERBAL this is your assumption - I don't know one way or the other and never claimed to. I haven't heard anything more from them for a few days and I think they have enough on their plate with out me trying to dig for detail. They are attempting to fly back on Monday - we'll see what happens then.

[JulieC]

I have a cancelled B1/B2 stamp in my passport!

Totally agree with you Chris, it sucks big time but as everybody keeps saying you go over on Visas in the knowledge that it could be temporary!!! For the life of me I cannot understand why a country like America with their illegal problems, would want to treat hardworking, decent people who invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in that country like they do, but hey, while people still keep doing it they're laughing!!

As you all know my eldest son and his family emigrated to Australia, he was agreed because he was an Electrician and that was one of the trades they were taking, he is not doing electrical work though, he has bought a Cafe/Bar which opened Good Friday and he is doing really well; my point being he didn't have to employ Australians (although he is obviously), he doesn't have the worry of Visa renewals over his head, he can live his life pretty much as he wants to, his partner had to have a knee op - she went to see a Specialist on the Thursday, she was operated on on Monday and guess what, the cost was minimal!! Hey America isn't all its cracked up to be!!!

By the way DYT, my son and his family after being denied returned a few days later and were let in, so there may be some hope for this couple. Just your luck on the day I guess.

Love Anniexxx

I saw on TV that Oz were cutting back on immigration in view of their own recession problems. I never quite understood their system. Your son emigrated as an electrician which they need but doesnt have to work at that and has opened a cafe and my friends who used to be E2 here emigrated as a painter and decorator and he nows work in a factory doing something totally different. Hasnt touched a paint brush since his arrival. And you think the American system is cock eyed!

[Kriz1]

Its really hard to work in OZ without taking tests and getting a license for this and that and the cost of getting all that stuff sends a lot of people back home..the stories you read in British expats makes you wonder if anyone stays long.. then its getting someone to take you on...they don't seem backwards in telling you OZ jobs are for Ozzies..

[InnVic]

Just to update I got a quick e-mail to say the boys were able to get back in to the US last night. Came in on visa waiver. They applied for the ESTA (new electronic visa waiver) straight away (the day they were denied at embassy I think) and it was approved online (although there is still the chance they could get pulled at POE I think that to get the approval before the revocation was on the computer made sense). This may be a smart way to re-enter if you have a "border line" renewal case and the Embassy are starting visa revocation tactics - apply for ESTA asap! I'll give more info as it comes in but I think they will be doing a media campaign which could be good for our cause.
P.S I understand they were given specific targets to hit at last interview 2 years ago WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY ACHIEVED - just proves what a dishonorable bunch the Embassy folk are.

PPS Other friends with small profit and one employee did ther application themselves just got 5 years in London....so its a bloody lottery!

[twen]

InnVic,

I am glad the boy's got back in ok, I hope that they can get their affairs sorted out without too much hassle, as I am sure they are going through enough worries as it is.

We ourelves have been thinking if we do not get our renewal [by the way no acknowledgement from the embassy that they have received our renewal yet] what if we do not sell our house/business/cards before our current E2 expires?

Good Luck to the guy's

Wendy

[JulieC]

InnVic,

I am glad the boy's got back in ok, I hope that they can get their affairs sorted out without too much hassle, as I am sure they are going through enough worries as it is.

We ourelves have been thinking if we do not get our renewal [by the way no acknowledgement from the embassy that they have received our renewal yet] what if we do not sell our house/business/cards before our current E2 expires?

Good Luck to the guy's

Wendy

Overstay!!! It is what we did in the same situation. You do not get a bar provided it is less than 183 days, we got another visa afterwards. That is overstaying a visa however. Coming back in and overstaying on a visa waiver is I think more serious. Real risk going back to the embassy rather than staying inside and trying to extend status.

[twen]

Thanks Julie,

Just as I thought it would be. Is there another visa you can apply for and come back that would allow you more time to sell everything??

There is no way we can afford to come back on a visa waiver fo 90 days then return to the UK for a short period and then back in on the 90 day vw again, the flights alone are expensive.

If you stay inside US and file to extend status then are you landlocked.......not that it really matters to us as we have already sent our renewal application into the Embassy.

Rgds
Wendy

[Ray10]

You cannot go to any visa from a Visa Waiver

You must leave before your 90 days are up ...

just a day late means you cannot use the VW again ...

[InnVic]

I don't think that Nick and Andrew care...once they have sold up I doubt they'd want to set foot in a country that treats people like this again.
Our situation is our E2 VISA expires in October but currently our I-94 valid till June 2010. If we haven't sold by september (and we've been for sale since Feb 2008) then we'll take a trip to get another two years I-94 and stay landlocked for however long it takes.

[JulieC]

Thanks Julie,

Just as I thought it would be. Is there another visa you can apply for and come back that would allow you more time to sell everything??

There is no way we can afford to come back on a visa waiver fo 90 days then return to the UK for a short period and then back in on the 90 day vw again, the flights alone are expensive.

If you stay inside US and file to extend status then are you landlocked.......not that it really matters to us as we have already sent our renewal application into the Embassy.

Rgds
Wendy

No there should be, but there isnt. It is the fear of ending up with trying to sell everything on visa waiver that is making so many people extend status and not go for embassy renewal at the moment. Of course if you are leaving for good and never intend coming back, it doesnt really matter if you overstay and get a bar.

[chris]

Isn't there a thread on EV at them moment from someone who has overstayed by 18 years?
By that yardstick, the lads have nothing to worry about!!

[britcan]

Isn't there a thread on EV at them moment from someone who has overstayed by 18 years?
By that yardstick, the lads have nothing to worry about!!

really? do tell...

Actually just thought of a scathingly brilliant idea- why don't we all stay past our visa's anyway and join forces,find a pro bono lawyer who will cover all of USA as its Fed Law, and argue if they are letting the illegals stay at $10 hour jobs, why can't we stay cos we are creating jobs? Seriously- its about time we stood up for ourselves!

[chris]

Britcan,
Read the thread
'Any help gratefully accepted'.
The thread author has been an overstay in the US for the past 18 years and was asking about how to go about getting married and the legal bit. The advice was stay low.

[britcan]

Britcan,
Read the thread
'Any help gratefully accepted'.
The thread author has been an overstay in the US for the past 18 years and was asking about how to go about getting married and the legal bit. The advice was stay low.

Thanks- I still think my idea is a good one!

[anniefromessex]

So do I Britcan, why are we always the ones who say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir". I am fed up hearing about the illegals (although really why should I care, I don't live there anymore), you never read anything about the plight of E-2ers/L Visa holders - perhaps I care because I do have a heart and I hate reading about the plight of the guys above, InnVic and so many others - on the other hand perhaps I should just say "hard luck - get on with it"...... No sorry, tried it but can't so you are just going to have put up with me for a while yet!!!

Love Anniexxx

[Peter Dexter]

well according to the federal code they are one and the same.....

TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS

CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS

PART 41 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF NONIMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED

subpart l - REFUSALS AND REVOCATIONS

41.122 - Revocation of visas.

(a) Grounds for revocation by consular officers. A consular officer is authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa issued to an alien if: (1) The officer finds that the alien was not, or has ceased to be, entitled to the nonimmigrant classification under INA 101(a)(15) specified in the visa or that the alien was at the time the visa was issued, or has since become, ineligible under INA 212(a) to receive a visa, or was issued a visa in contravention of INA 222(g) (2) The visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued prior to the alien's embarkation upon a continuous voyage to the United States; or (3) For any of the reasons specified in paragraph (h) of this section if the visa has not been revoked by an immigration officer as authorized in that paragraph.

(4) The visa has been issued in a combined Mexican or Canadian B1/B2 visa and border crossing identification card and the officer makes the determination specified in 41.32(c) with respect to the alien's Mexican citizenship and/or residence or the determination specified in 41.33(b) with respect to the alien's status as a permanent resident of Canada.

(b) Notice of proposed revocation. When consideration is being given to the revocation of a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer considering that action shall, if practicable, notify the alien to whom the visa was issued of intention to revoke the visa. The alien shall also be given an opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked and requested to present the travel document in which the visa was originally issued.

(c) Procedure for physically cancelling visas. A nonimmigrant visa which is revoked shall be canceled by writing or stamping the word REVOKED plainly across the face of the visa. The cancellation shall be dated and signed by the officer taking the action. The failure of the alien to present the visa for cancellation does not affect the validity of action taken to revoke it.
(d) Notice to carriers. Notice of revocation shall be given to the master, aircraft captain, agent, owner, charterer, or consignee of the carrier or transportation line on which it is believed the alien intends to travel to the United States, unless the visa has been physically canceled as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.

(e) Notice to Department. When a visa is revoked under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer shall promptly submit notice of the revocation, including a full report on the facts in the case, to the Department for transmission to INS. A report is not required if the visa is physically canceled prior to the alien's departure for the United States except in cases involving A, G, C2, C3, NATO, diplomatic or official visas.

(f) Record of action. Upon revocation of a nonimmigrant visa under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the consular officer shall complete for the post files a Certificate of Revocation by Consular Officer which includes a statement of the reasons for the revocation. If the revocation is effected at other than the issuing office, a copy of the Certificate of Revocation shall be sent to that office.

(g) Reconsideration of revocation. (1) The consular office shall consider any evidence submitted by the alien or the alien's attorney or representative in connection with a request that the revocation be reconsidered. If the officer finds that the evidence is sufficient to overcome the basis for the revocation, a new visa shall be issued. A memorandum regarding the action taken and the reasons therefor shall be placed in the consular files and appropriate notification shall be made promptly to the carriers concerned, the Department, and the issuing office if notice of revocation has been given in accordance with paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.

(2) In view of the provisions of 41.107(d) providing for the refund of fees when a visa has not been used as a result of action by the U.S.

Government, a fee shall not be charged in connection with a reinstated visa.

(h) Revocation of visa by immigration officer. An immigration officer is authorized to revoke a valid visa by physically canceling it in accordance with the procedure prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section if: (1) The alien obtains an immigrant visa or an adjustment of status to that of permanent resident; (2) The alien is ordered excluded from the United States pursuant to INA 235(c) or 236; (3) The alien is notified pursuant to INA 235(b) by an immigration officer at a port of entry that the alien appears to be inadmissible to the United States and the alien requests and is granted permission to withdraw the application for admission; (4) A final order of deportation or a final order granting voluntary departure with an alternate order of deportation is entered against the alien pursuant to INS regulations; (5) The alien has been permitted by INS to depart voluntarily from the United States pursuant to INS regulations; (6) A waiver of ineligibility pursuant to INA 212(d)(3)(A) on the basis of which the visa was issued to the alien is revoked by INS; (7) The visa is presented in connection with an application for admission to the United States by a person other than the alien to whom it was issued; or (8) The visa has been physically removed from the passport in which it was issued.

(9) The visa has been issued in a combined Mexican or Canadian B1/B2 visa and border crossing identification card and the officer makes the determination specified in 41.32(c) with respect to the alien's Mexican citizenship and/or residence or the determination specified in 41.33(b) with respect to the alien's status as a permanent resident of Canada.

[52 FR 42597, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 16895, Apr. 7, 1998; 66 FR 10364, Feb. 15, 2001; 66 FR 38544, July 25, 2001; 67 FR 66046, Oct.

30, 2002]

Other documents:

I am intrigued as to how one justifies quoting the rules as an absolute, but then does not accept, and complains that the same rules permit them from staying in the USA when their enterprise does not fulfill the requirements laid down when the same rules are applied.

[anniefromessex]

Peter, I think your post is really sad if I am honest. Yes, we do have to abide by the rul es and regs of the country, but for the life of me I cannot and will not ever understand America's take on it. They have hundreds of thousands of illegals and yet the people who want to work, try hard and are not a drain on the system are given the bums rush. Sorry but I will never agree with your take on it. You try living in England and see what goes on over here - it is mind boggling - murderers, rapists - you name it, they let em all in - the very people you are saying shouldn't complain when they have their life savings ploughed into America you are in actual fact saying should just accept their lot - I find that hard to take, these people are not murderers, rapists - they are hard working people who want a fair crack of the whip. I could understand it if they were all of the above and would condone it, but no way will I ever condone the lottery that is London.

[InnVic]

I am intrigued as to how one justifies quoting the rules as an absolute, but then does not accept, and complains that the same rules permit them from staying in the USA when their enterprise does not fulfill the requirements laid down when the same rules are applied.

My post was to clarify that the law DOES give authroity to revoke/cancel visa - another poster claimed it was impossible. It is obvious from the Federal code that revokation is permissable. As a Magistrate in a past life I happily accept laws that are applied as intended. With regard to MY enteprise (which what I assume your having a dig at) I also did quote the law (federal code) and I would be happy to accept the limitations of the law except that London does not appear to be applying the law as written.
http://expatsvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4852&highlight=federal+code

[Peter Dexter]

My point is that it is the law is quoted frequently on here, (as this thread shows) but participants are quick to forget the law and only to complain how unfair it is with regard to E visas, aging out, not being able to retire here, claim benefits and that if the business is not performing well being sent home.

These rules are seen as unfair as most people on E visas did not do due diligence before the got them, and only discovered their pitfalls too late. That is not an unfair rule, that blame lies solely at the feet of the applicant.

All the complaints that the USA only want them here for the money, to employ Americans, to pay taxes and Social Security (and not reaping the benefits) and then getting kicked out. That is the purpose of the E visa. It exists solely for the benefit of the USA, and as a short term visa for the applicant, almost like students who go to Australia for a year or two then returns to the UK.

All laws are open to interpretation, and different jurisdictions interpret them differently. London interprets differently from Paris, and Paris from Madrid. Barbados certainly interprets them very differently. I suspect that London's interpretation of the rules has everything to do with people pulling scams on them (much as people are now doing in Barbados) and them trying to stop the scams. It is unfortunate that everyone is tarred with the same brush, but that is the nature of the law. Everyone thinks themselves to be a special case, and that is not the way it works.


I am not against people trying to change the law, but to complain it is unfair, when it is doing exactly what it was meant to do is obtuse. The law is VERY fair for Americans who get the benefit of the investment and the tax revenue. And that is the point of the visa. America and only Americans benefit.

[InnVic]

I am not against people trying to change the law, but to complain it is unfair, when it is doing exactly what it was meant to do is obtuse. .


Your post was very obviously directed at ME. The only time I have quoted the Federal Code in the past is to do with the question of marginality. I do not consider myself a special case and have never wanted to be here on a permanent basis, we only wanted confidence in one further renewal to enable us to continue investment in our business. The federal code as related to the question of marginality states
(10) Marginal enterprise. A marginal enterprise is an enterprise
that does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than
enough income to provide a minimal living for the treaty investor and
his or her family.

We have invested almost half a million in this business, we have an owner benefit of almost $80k which by anyones standard (except obviously the Embassy's) is a tad more than a minimal living". So which part of that is unfair of me to complan about?

[chris]

I can understand where both PG and InnVic are coming from. Peter as an ex-Barrister had the rule of law as his benchmark and he knows precisely that the law is the law.
I can also see that InnVic has an issue with the clear disparity that exists in London over E2 renewals.
The law is the Immigration Act. Beneath that we have the FAM Guidelines, which I have long said are just that ...guidelines. In the guidelines it does give the adjudicating official a lot of personal discretion, but emphasises that the discretion is about recognizing the investment impact that the E2'r is having on the US. Sadly, I do not believe the officials use their discretion in that way.
With discretion, you can look for ways to approve or ways to deny, unfortunately they seem to choose the latter.
PG also made a comment about the use of Barbados for renewals. PG remarked that London was the subject of scams and now it seems Barbados is being used the same way. Whilst I would agree that there have been questionable applications via London and they are well known, from what I read on this and other forums from E2'rs using Barbados, they are using that perfectly legal 3rd Country National arrangement to sort their visas out. I do not believe anyone is pulling a scam simply by exercising that logical and commonsense option. E2 renewals are being done now In Mexico and I reado of one elsewhere only last week. It was not a scam, it was totally legit. They were simply doing TCN renewal and saving time and money in the process.
However, if PG has evidence of scams, perhaps he could share them with us?

[anniefromessex]

Chris, I think you are getting mixed up with your Peter's!!! Have another beer ha ha!!

Love Anniexxx

[chris]

Annie,
Have you been on the sherry again?
PG is Peter as in Peter Gold see PG. When he gives advice it's a PG Tips.:):):):):):):):):)

[anniefromessex]

Chris hic hic, sorry thought you were referring to the poster as in Peter Dexter - just going for another one!!!

Love Anniexxx

[kirtida8]

I think Annie is right Chris and you have your peters mixed up

[chris]

Sorry Annie for making you drink more Sherry. I did get it mixed up. Senior moment again!!

[anniefromessex]

Chris, no probs - by the way its turps now - can't afford Sherry ha ha!!!

Love Anniexxx

[chris]

At least Turps has got taste. You should try rubbing alcohol!!!! I drank the last of my gin last night and nearly at the bottom of the Bacardi. Then it will be Rubbing alcohol.

[InnVic]

At least Turps has got taste. You should try rubbing alcohol!!!! I drank the last of my gin last night and nearly at the bottom of the Bacardi. Then it will be Rubbing alcohol.

you're lucky - we're on the Toilet Duck..

[InnVic]

Just to post and update - I heard today that Andrew and Nick have been given two year I-94's - so they have successfully renewed status in the US after denial in London........

I'm delighted for them, but still cannot make sense of a system that will landlock you on a visa/status that insists you maintain ties with your home country as they want you to return. :doh:

[chris]

Great news InnVic. It never ceases to amaze me that the State Dept and USCIS work from the same Immigration Legislation, yet reach different decisions. It just goes to prove that it is a lottery when all said and done.

[Susie]

Just to post and update - I heard today that Andrew and Nick have been given two year I-94's - so they have successfully renewed status in the US after denial in London........

I'm delighted for them, but still cannot make sense of a system that will landlock you on a visa/status that insists you maintain ties with your home country as they want you to return. :doh:

What good news. I am so pleased for them.


But I an confused, did they enter on the WVP or E visa ?

[lorraine]

Just to post and update - I heard today that Andrew and Nick have been given two year I-94's - so they have successfully renewed status in the US after denial in London........

I'm delighted for them, but still cannot make sense of a system that will landlock you on a visa/status that insists you maintain ties with your home country as they want you to return. :doh:


That is excellent news, hopefully they can get things sorted out now. So sorry they have and are going through so much xx

[byjove]

Good news! Need some right now!