floridapete
09-14-2006, 02:03 PM
Here is the full text of the latest response from the US Embassy in London as published in the current issue of "Emigrate America". This is similar (but not identical) to some quotes which Kelly published in the Sunday Sentinel article. See if you can spot the important differences ?
An Embassy response to the open letter:
Consul General John Caulfield offers his side of the E-2 story in response to Emigrate America’s ‘Open letters to the Embassy’ article.
In the July/August edition of Emigrate America we printed a collection of the letters we had received from our readers detailing the complaints they had with the E-2 application process and in the US Embassy in London.
Here is the Embassy’s response:
"Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the letters in your July/August edition about the processing of E-2 Investor Non-Immigrant visas at the US Embassy in London.
It would be useful to give readers a sense of perspective on these cases. In 2005, US Embassy London processed 2,835 E-2 Non-Immigrant visa applications. Of these, 2,815 were approved and 20 refused indicating an approval rate of 99.3 per cent among applicants who filed a formal visa application in person. An additional 150 individuals submitted pre-interview business proposals that were incomplete or lacking one or more elements required to qualify the investor under E-2 regulations. Of these, 120 have not responded to requests for further information.
We review every case to determine the eligibility of the applicant under US immigration law. When an applicant fails to meet the legal requirements for the issuance of a visa we are obliged to refuse it. I am not able to debate the personal circumstances of each applicant refused a visa, but every applicant is informed as to the reason his visa application was not approved. In most cases it is because the applicant failed to demonstrate that his investment was substantial, capable of generating employment and able to provide an income beyond that required to simply support the investor and his family.
Other letters express frustration with the length of time necessary to approve an E-2 investment. Most employment visas such as the temporary worker (H visa) or the Intra Company Transfer (L visa) as well as employment-related permanent resident visas require preliminary approval by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau of the Department of Homeland Security which makes the substantive judgment concerning the eligibility of this employment for visa issuance. This is a process that often takes up to a year or more.
In the case of the E visa it is the consular officer abroad (i.e. London) who makes the determination as to whether the investment contemplated meets the necessary requirements. The extensive documentation submitted with these cases requires time to review. We have also experienced a substantial increase in E visa applications in the last two years. For these reasons even well-documented E visa applications can take up to six months to review. Marginal investments or poorly documented cases can take even longer to resolve.
I would also like to point out that a Non-Immigrant E visa is not a good option for someone who intends to reside permanently in the United States. If the investor retires or sells their investment, his or her visa status lapses and he or she must leave the US. Only single dependent children under 21 are eligible for visas to accompany their investor parent, and when these children turn 21 they lose their status as a dependent and their visa.
The more secure option for those who have the necessary capital is the permanent resident (‘green card’) investor visa. In this case the required investment is one million dollars, or under certain circumstances 500,000 dollars.
I hope this information is useful to your readers. As in my previous letter, I would strongly urge any prospective investor visa applicants to review the Embassy's web site http://london.usembassy.gov/ and consult with an independent immigration law practitioner before committing funds to any enterprise."
John Caulfield, Consul General, US Embassy London.
..........................................
If you would like to respond to John Caulfield’s comments please send your letters via email to ben.lewis@outboundmedia.co.uk
An Embassy response to the open letter:
Consul General John Caulfield offers his side of the E-2 story in response to Emigrate America’s ‘Open letters to the Embassy’ article.
In the July/August edition of Emigrate America we printed a collection of the letters we had received from our readers detailing the complaints they had with the E-2 application process and in the US Embassy in London.
Here is the Embassy’s response:
"Thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of the letters in your July/August edition about the processing of E-2 Investor Non-Immigrant visas at the US Embassy in London.
It would be useful to give readers a sense of perspective on these cases. In 2005, US Embassy London processed 2,835 E-2 Non-Immigrant visa applications. Of these, 2,815 were approved and 20 refused indicating an approval rate of 99.3 per cent among applicants who filed a formal visa application in person. An additional 150 individuals submitted pre-interview business proposals that were incomplete or lacking one or more elements required to qualify the investor under E-2 regulations. Of these, 120 have not responded to requests for further information.
We review every case to determine the eligibility of the applicant under US immigration law. When an applicant fails to meet the legal requirements for the issuance of a visa we are obliged to refuse it. I am not able to debate the personal circumstances of each applicant refused a visa, but every applicant is informed as to the reason his visa application was not approved. In most cases it is because the applicant failed to demonstrate that his investment was substantial, capable of generating employment and able to provide an income beyond that required to simply support the investor and his family.
Other letters express frustration with the length of time necessary to approve an E-2 investment. Most employment visas such as the temporary worker (H visa) or the Intra Company Transfer (L visa) as well as employment-related permanent resident visas require preliminary approval by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau of the Department of Homeland Security which makes the substantive judgment concerning the eligibility of this employment for visa issuance. This is a process that often takes up to a year or more.
In the case of the E visa it is the consular officer abroad (i.e. London) who makes the determination as to whether the investment contemplated meets the necessary requirements. The extensive documentation submitted with these cases requires time to review. We have also experienced a substantial increase in E visa applications in the last two years. For these reasons even well-documented E visa applications can take up to six months to review. Marginal investments or poorly documented cases can take even longer to resolve.
I would also like to point out that a Non-Immigrant E visa is not a good option for someone who intends to reside permanently in the United States. If the investor retires or sells their investment, his or her visa status lapses and he or she must leave the US. Only single dependent children under 21 are eligible for visas to accompany their investor parent, and when these children turn 21 they lose their status as a dependent and their visa.
The more secure option for those who have the necessary capital is the permanent resident (‘green card’) investor visa. In this case the required investment is one million dollars, or under certain circumstances 500,000 dollars.
I hope this information is useful to your readers. As in my previous letter, I would strongly urge any prospective investor visa applicants to review the Embassy's web site http://london.usembassy.gov/ and consult with an independent immigration law practitioner before committing funds to any enterprise."
John Caulfield, Consul General, US Embassy London.
..........................................
If you would like to respond to John Caulfield’s comments please send your letters via email to ben.lewis@outboundmedia.co.uk