SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Applicant: Mr. Hung  Nationality: Taiwanese  Business: Marketing and Distribution of Electronic Photo, Video, and Athletic Devices  Position: Principal Investor/ General Manager    Year Incorporated: 2005   Number of Employees: 2  Investment Amount: $200,000   Challenges:  Multiple levels of ownership, making it difficult to show that Mr. Hung owned half of the company     Short term negative projections financially     Mr. Hung* came to Tsang and Associates hoping that we would be able to assist him in forming an E-2 visa application as a treaty investor for his company. His company, focused on marketing and distributing consumer electronic goods, had expanded product lines for retailers, E-tailers, and national accounts, selling goods such as cameras, DVD/TV portables, scanners, and converters. He hoped that through a plunge into the U.S. marketplace, he would be able to build up a solid and substantial consumer base and facilitate even greater growth and success. As such, we helped him file an E-2 Treaty Investor visa application on September 11, 2014 and received approval within 2 days.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country  The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and not a fictitious paper organization  Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise  The investment cannot be marginal  Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise  Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status    Nationality of Country   When Mr. Hung came to us at Tsang and Associates, we believed strongly in his case. First off, Mr. Hung was a Taiwanese national, which qualified him as from a treaty country. However, the company was registered in the United States and was completely owned by another company, a company majority owned by Taiwanese nationals. Mr. Hung invested in the parent company and was given a share of the controlled company. We proved through the stock transfer ledger, that Mr. Hung was transferred 51% of the U.S. company’s controlling shares by the controlling company, thus making Mr. Hung 51% owner of the company; this figure satisfied the requirement of ownership interest for treaty country ownership.   Real and Operating Enterprise   We also had to show that the corporation was a bona fide U.S. Corporation. In order to do so, we highlighted that the company was founded in 2005 and had been engaging in successful business within that period of time. We provided the company’s previous tax returns and copies of various purchases and invoices related to the company, fully establishing that the company was indeed doing business.   Substantial and Irrevocable Investment   We also were required to prove that the investment made by Mr. Hung was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. As such, we demonstrated that Mr. Hung made a substantial capital investment of $200,000 into the company derived from his personal funds. In using the federally regulated proportionality test that related the amount invested with the percentage owned, we indicated that as Mr. Hung owned 51% of the company and invested $200,000 that qualified as a substantial investment. We showed through the company’s five year plan, that it planned to aggressively expand its area of operations and product portfolio stemming from this initial investment. Thus we were able to demonstrate that Mr. Hung was “unquestionably committed to the success of the business”.   More than Marginal Investment   Moreover beyond being substantial, we showed that the investment was “more than marginal”. According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal in the cases that it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family or that it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. We addressed this in both ways. In tackling the first qualification, difficulty arose because according to the company’s projections, they expected to have negative profit years for the following two years. Assuming negative profit, the revenue generated would not be sufficient to be considered more than marginal to sustain Mr. Hung. However despite this, we continually emphasized the huge profits to be made beyond the first couple years, numbers that approached $2 million in profits. We even hired a Certified Public Accountant in order to prove that the investment would assure a good return on investment. In addition, we showed that the investment directly created at least 3 full time jobs and was expected to create 16 additional jobs within the next five years, thereby qualifying the investment further as being “more than marginal.”   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   Furthermore, we had to prove that Mr. Hung was coming to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise, meaning that he would have to have a controlling interest in the company. According to USCIS regulation, ordinary skilled and unskilled workers do not qualify. Thus we had to demonstrate that Mr. Hung, while serving as the principal investor and Chairman of the company, would be instrumental in directing the business’s overall growth strategy and maintaining effective client relations with business associates. We detailed Mr. Hung’s extensive experience within the business realm and electronics industry, as he had been an integral part of several other ventures and developments. We then explained his proposed duties in the United States, which included overseeing all financial aspects of the company’s operations, working directly with outside accounting professionals, being engaged in the development of new products, and being responsible for directing and managing the sales and marketing aspects of operations.   Intent to Depart   Lastly, we stressed that Mr. Hung had an unequivocal intent to return to Taiwan following his E-2 status. We provided evidence in the form of real estate holdings and financial statements demonstrating his ties to Taiwan that helped to establish his social and financial connections abroad.   Interview Preparation   Following our work with the petition, we also helped prepare Mr. Hung for the upcoming interview. At first, Mr. Hung was extremely concerned that he would do poorly on the interview. He was not sure if he could satisfactorily explain his stake in the ownership of the U.S. company. Even greater concern for him was the fact that the company had negative projections in terms of profit in the short term; he feared that the immigration officer would hone in on this detail and make this a justification for denial. However after much preparation with our attorney, Mr. Hung felt much more comfortable. Hours of practice interviews and anticipating questions and answers allowed him to believe that he would perform well. Indeed, Mr. Hung ended up feeling confident in every answer that he gave the immigration officer and he passed.   Outcome   We submitted the petition on September 11, 2014 and received approval within 2 days.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Electronics Distribution and Marketing Company General Manager applies and is approved for an E-2 Treaty Investor visa. Even though he had short term negative projections financially, we demonstrated the long term success of the company and his role in its development and direction.

       SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Nationality: Taiwanese  Industry: Marketing Firm  Position: CEO, Owner  Year Incorporated: 2016  Number of Employees: 3, including Ms. Chen  Number of Dependents: 1 child, U.S. citizen  Investment Amount: $250,000  Challenges:  Applicant/CEO has prior CBP record showing frequent visits to the United States  Applicant/CEO’s child is a U.S. citizen showing immigrant intent  Applicant had no experience running a business     Ms. Chen* came to Tsang and Associates seeking assistance in forming her E-2 Treaty Investor visa application. She had a child in the U.S. and was looking to stay for an extended amount of time. Previously, Ms. Chen would visit and stay on Taiwanese visa waivers, but was warned by a CBP officer at the airport that her frequency of visitation would be a cause for concern. She came to us to help her incorporate her business and help with the initial startup for her E-2 qualifying business. Her business specialized in marketing Taiwan based imports, focusing on marketing consultation for Taiwanese companies looking to sell in the United States by providing them the resources and the connections to sell internationally that they would otherwise be lacking. This was Ms. Chen’s first business venture, as many of her previous jobs involved consulting companies on marketing strategies and teaching as a professor. After much revision and hard work, Ms. Chen formally became the owner of her very own marketing firm. Once she began business, she sought our help in filing an E-2 Treaty Investor visa application. We filed her petition on July 19, 2016 and received approval on the same day.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country  The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and  not a fictitious paper organization  Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise  The investment cannot be marginal  Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise  Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status    Nationality of Treaty Country   When Ms. Chen first came to us, we strongly felt that we could get her E-2 visa approved. First off, Ms. Chen was a Taiwanese national, automatically qualifying her as a treaty investor. Expounding upon this, we showed with the Articles of Incorporation and Share Certificates that Ms. Chen was indeed 100% owner of the company and thus the company completely met the foreign ownership requirement.   Proof of Real and Operating Enterprise   In addition, we had to show that the company was a bona fide U.S. Corporation. This was challenging at first because the company had only recently been incorporated in the United States. We began this process when she first retained us. We helped Ms. Chen formally incorporate her business and helped her obtain the appropriate business licenses and sellers permits. We also helped her establish purchase agreements and contracts with Taiwanese companies looking to expand into the U.S., and we even created a CPA-certified business plan for her company, detailing her company’s projected growth and marketing strategies. We helped her list job openings for her company online, which resulted in the hire of two part-time employees, both of with whom she has become very close. We also helped her create an e-commerce website on which she had already sold numerous products, even before her visa was approved. Using all of this, we fully proved Ms. Chen’s company as “a real operating enterprise and not a fictitious paper organization”.   Substantial, Irrevocably Committed Investment   We also proved that Ms. Chen’s investment was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. We first established Ms. Chen’s total investment by referring to her financial statements. To help fund her company, Ms. Chen sold her house in Taiwan. In combination with her savings, she made an initial investment of $150,000 and eventually added another $100,000. By the proportionality test of federal regulation, because Ms. Chen owned 100% of the company, her investment of $250,000 was indeed substantial. In order to further the irrevocability of the investment, we noted that Ms. Chen had already incurred numerous expenses such as investing in equipment, design, accounting, and legal costs. She had also already signed purchase agreements and bought thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise to begin her enterprise. In addition, she had already signed a 1 year lease for the operating location of the business and hired 2 employees, thus demonstrating her full commitment to the endeavor.   More than Marginal Investment   A business submitted with an E-2 application must prove to return more than marginal revenue. Ms. Chen’s business is based in the San Francisco area, which posed a problem in terms of profit. In such a big city, the cost of living is relatively high compared with the rest of the state. In addition, Ms. Chen’s company must have high enough sales to compensate for the cost of operating, payroll, and eventual expansion. We helped Ms. Chen modify her business plan to expand her company’s offerings and earn a profit in the first year of operation. We helped her create multiple streams of revenue by increasing her company’s brand offerings and adding a marketing consulting service as requested service. Now, Ms. Chen’s company not only serves as a channel for Taiwanese companies to branch into the U.S., but it also sells American sporting goods to companies in Taiwan and offers marketing counseling. We proved Ms. Chen’s company is more than marginal by presenting her purchase agreements with Taiwanese companies, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in product.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   A key part of the E-2 Visa is that the applicant possesses the ability to direct and develop their business. Although she had no business experience to begin with, we proved that Ms. Chen was more than qualified to start and manage a business by providing copies of over sixty certifications and awards that she had earned throughout her marketing career. Included among these were her Ph.D. in Marketing and her Master of Arts degree in Economics. With such high achievements, we showed that Ms. Chen was fit to direct the operations of her business. Even though she did not have business experience, Ms. Chen displays a solid background in her business’s industry. With vast experience, we proved that Ms. Chen was, if possible, overqualified to run her marketing company.   Intent to Depart   An equally important part of the E-2 visa is that the applicant plans to return to their home country. There were many obstacles to overcome in proving Ms. Chen’s intent to return. She had sold her house in Taiwan to create investment capital, currently had U.S. citizen child, and had previously visited the United States with a high frequency. However, we were able to prove her intent to return by sharing a portion of Ms. Chen’s long-term business plan— she plans to help Taiwanese companies market their products to Taiwanese consumers. To do this, she would return to Taiwan to work closely with companies and their target markets.   Interview Preparation   Beyond the paperwork, we also helped Ms. Chen prepare for her E-2 Application interview. Ms. Chen began the E-2 Application process a bit timidly, as she had never attempted such an enterprise before. She feared her business plan would not be strong enough to impress the Taiwanese immigration officers. We helped her prepare for any and all questions that might be asked of her and her company, requiring her to answer as detailed as possible. She worked through over ten hours of practice interviews, answering a seemingly endless line of questioning. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Ms. Chen went for her interview. After her hours of preparation, she looked and felt substantially more confident than she had when she first began. After the interview had been completed, Ms. Chen was extremely grateful that we had prepared her for the exact questions that the officer asked, allowing her to pass smoothly.   Outcome   On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Ms. Chen’s E-2 Visa was approved.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Owner and CEO of a Marketing Firm specializing in Taiwan based imports is granted an E-2 Treaty Investor visa even though she had no experience running a business and had frequently visited the United States in prior years.

       SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Applicant: Ms. Yang  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Business: Import and Export of High-Quality Wine, Tea, Herbal Supplements  Position: Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer  Year Incorporated: 2016  Number of Owners: 3, including Ms. Yang  Investment Amount: $100,000  Challenges:  3 partners  Lease was only $300/month  Products require several licenses to be imported and sold, some of which are very strictly regulated and Ms. Yang was lacking, such as an alcohol license  Ms. Yang had no experience in starting a business  Ms. Yang had a previous U.S. Customs and Border Protection record for visiting boyfriend  Ms. Yang only invested $100,000 but was earning a $50,000 salary     Ms. Yang* sought assistance from Tsang and Associates in order to help her apply for an E-2 treaty investor visa so that she would be able to expand her company into the United States. Her company was a leading import and export company for exclusive high-end products such as wines, all-natural teas, and herbal products directly from Asia to be sold in the United States, being one of the only importers of these fine products into the United States market. She truly believed coming to the U.S. would open up a reliably lucrative audience for the company. If she was unable to obtain the visa, she would miss out on an excellent opportunity to increase her client base. If Ms. Yang’s visa was approved, she would use her solid business credentials and extensive shipping experience to develop and direct operations in the United States. As such, Ms. Yang came to Tsang and Associates hoping that we could help produce a complete and thorough application. We filed our petition on July 12, 2016 and received approval on July 24, 2016.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   1) The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country   2) The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and    not a fictitious paper organization   3) Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise   4) The investment cannot be marginal   5) Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise   6) Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status   National of Treaty Country   When Ms. Yang first came to us, we knew that we could form a strong petition. First of all, we noted that Ms. Yang was a Taiwanese national, which fulfilled the requirement that the national be of the treaty country. Initially, Ms. Yang only owned 50% of the company at the preference of the other partners, but at our attorney’s suggestion, we changed the partnership agreement and share certificate so that Ms. Yang owned 80% of the company. Even though owning 50% of the company would have been sufficient, the more the better for E-2 applications. This shift in ownership thus furthered the qualification for ownership by increasing her role, responsibility, and investment, while two other Taiwanese nationals shared the other 20%. We established that the company was completely under Taiwanese ownership, ultimately meeting the requirement of foreign ownership.   Real and Operating Enterprise   We also had to show that the company was a real and operating enterprise. This was a challenge because the company had not yet expanded into the United States. In order to tackle this requirement, we first assisted Ms. Yang in setting up her business in the United States. We acted as the company’s legal counsel and assisted in filing the company with the Secretary of State, acquiring a business license and seller permits, hiring a CPA to establish a business plan, negotiating contracts with suppliers, and facilitating the rental of an office. Through all this, we had access to signed contracts, the business plan, and photos of the office in order to establish that the company was not a “fictitious paper organization” nor an “idle passive speculative investment merely held for potential appreciation and value”.   Substantial, Irrevocable Investment   The next requirement we had to fulfill was that the investment was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking.” Initially, Ms. Yang’s investment totaled approximately $100,000 which was a cause for concern; because she initially owned only 50% of the company. In addition, the lease for the office space was very cheap, at only $300/month. In order to tackle this, we showed that $84,756 in expenses had already been accumulated in order to purchase goods and services for the business, mainly for goods that cannot be sold without licenses, furthering its irrevocable nature. We demonstrated that the company had already entered into contracts with the top reputable companies that produce the highest quality items. We then incorporated the USCIS proportionality test in order to show that this amount of investment in conjunction with the high ownership interest was enough to be considered a substantial investment, that the business was not “speculative, but is, or soon will be a successful enterprise as the result of the exercise of sound business and financial judgment”.   More than Marginal Investment   In addition, we had to show that the investment made was “more than marginal.” According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal if it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family, or if it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. We responded to this in two capacities. First, we helped create the company’s five-year business plan that projected increased profit each year beginning in 2016 at $151,000 until in 2020 when gross profit reaches $755,000. Construction of such a plan was absolutely crucial given that Ms. Yang, without the proper licenses, could not sell her goods. We showed that this growth would provide healthy revenue that not only can support Ms. Yang, but also provide for future company expansion. Furthermore, we showed that Ms. Yang’s company would directly create at least 9 full time and contracted jobs over the course of the five year growth plan. We thus established that the investment in the business was indeed beyond “marginal”.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   We then needed to prove that Ms. Yang would be moving to the United States to develop and direct her business, meaning that she would have a controlling interest in the company; she could not just be an ordinary skilled worker. Based on her prior experience in the marketing and finance fields, we were confident that she we could prove her directing interest. We demonstrated using her resume and career history that Ms. Yang indeed had previous employment with freight transportation companies and freight forwarders, allowing her to build and maintain strong rapports with overseas importers and shipping personnel. We further noted her experiences as the Vice President of several departments of several companies. We argued that these positions conditioned her for the marketing and business evaluations she would have to make as the CFO and COO of her company. We thus showed that Ms. Yang was indeed qualified to be the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the business. We then detailed her prospective job duties in the United States, including managing the budgets and overseeing all financial aspects of the company, implementing the overall business strategy of the company, and being the driving force behind measures for the company as the leader of her team. We emphasized that Ms. Yang possessed a unique skill set that was vital to the success of the company, allowing her to be heavily involved in developing and directing the business.   Intent to Depart   Lastly, we showed that Ms. Yang possessed numerous, extensive social and financial ties in Taiwan, and she maintained various financial and property interests in Taiwan. We were able to provide financial statements giving evidence of her financial connections abroad and also provide real estate property agreements to further demonstrate her holdings in Taiwan. We also showed that she had a boyfriend who was present in Taiwan as additional proof of her intent to return, further establishing that she did not have any intention of overstaying her visa.   Interview Preparation   Once the paperwork for this case was completed, we further assisted Ms. Yang in preparing for the interview. Initially, Ms. Yang was incredibly fearful that the interview process would go poorly. She questioned if she could adequately explain the cheap office lease, her low investment amount, her lack of business licenses, and her lack of experience in business to the satisfaction of the immigration officer. She was worried that they would deem her not qualified for the E-2 visa. However, we spent numerous hours with her preparing her for the upcoming interview; we conducted practice interviews with her, helped her answer questions with the appropriate details, and built up her confidence. By the end of the preparation, Ms. Yang felt comfortable with her interview. Thankfully, Ms. Yang felt well prepared for each questions that the immigration officer asked her and she passed smoothly.   Outcome   We filed the petition on July 12, 2016 and received approval on July 24, 2016.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Wine and Tea Import and Export Company CFO is approved for an E-2 Treaty Investor Visa. Despite not having several required licenses and a relatively low investment amount, we proved her commitment to the operation of the company through her sunk expenses and a projected 5 year business plan.

       SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Applicant: Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Industry: Dental Laboratory Engineering  Position: Mr. Hang- Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Wong- Chief Financial Officer/ Chief of Human Resources  Year Incorporated: 2012  Investment Amount: Hang- $100,000, Wong- $100,050  Challenges:  Company was not yet incorporated in the United States  Both principal investors (Hang and Wong) each owned 50% of the company and filed simultaneously  Mr. Hang had a dental degree but Mr. Wong did not, causing fears that the USCIS officer may believe that Mr. Wong was just using Mr. Hang to come to the U.S.  Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong were related through their families     Mr. Hang* and Mr. Wong* came to us at Tsang and Associates hoping that we could assist them in establishing their dental laboratory and help them acquire the ensuing E-2 Treaty Investor visas. The company was primarily engaged in making crowns, bridges, dentures, artificial teeth, and orthodontic appliances for the dental profession. They intended to target dental practitioners in Southern California, but were also reaching out to cosmetic dentists, orthodontists, periodontists, and prosthodontists. Both individuals desired to come to the United States in order to facilitate the company’s launch into the U.S. field, utilizing their experiences to stimulate the company’s initial 5 year growth phase. As such, we helped prepare both of their cases and filed two separate petitions simultaneously on January 22, 2013. They received their visas on February 5, 2013.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   1) The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country   2) The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and    not a fictitious paper organization   3) Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise   4) The investment cannot be marginal   5) Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise   6) Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status   Nationality of Treaty Country   When Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong first came to us at Tsang and Associates, we were confident that we would be able to get their E-2 visas approved. They each were principal investors investing about $100,000 into the company for 50% ownership and they were both Taiwanese nationals, fulfilling the requirement of treaty country ownership. We proved this using the company’s articles of incorporation and various corporate documents, qualifying the investors and those of a treaty country.   Real and Operating Enterprise   We also had to establish that the company was a bona fide U.S. Corporation. At first, Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong had not yet incorporated in the United States. Thus, we assisted them right from the start in helping them create a business plan for their company and helping them acquire contracts and invoices that we were able to provide as evidence of the company’s business. We also created an organizational chart detailing both Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong’s positions as managers and executives. We then provided their office agreements and marketing and sales information to further prove that the company was indeed a “real operating enterprise and not a fictitious organization.”   Substantial, Irrevocable Investment   Next, we were required to prove that the investment made by Mr. Wong was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. In order to do so, we showed through bank wire statements that indeed both Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong both invested $100,000 into the company. We utilized the federal regulation proportionality test in explaining that as 50% owners of the company, an investment of $100,000 would be enough to qualify as being substantial in nature. In order to further the irrevocability of the investments, we indicated that the funds committed by the applicants have already been used to secure lease agreements, purchase supplies used for office and workspace requirements, and day to day expenses in anticipation of the company’s launch date. We demonstrated that the funds invested have already been utilized for company advancement, and now there was no turning back.   More than Marginal Investment   Furthermore, we had to show that the investments made would be “more than marginal.” According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal in the cases that it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family or that it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. In tackling this requirement, we had a two pronged response. First of all, we hired a Certified Public Accountant to provide financial statements indicating that the investments made are indeed projected to reflect a profitable and lucrative business opportunity; the investment amounts would be exceeded within the first three years of operation and the company would only grow even more. We also showed with the business plan that we helped create that each of these investments would directly create 10 jobs within the next five years. We thus established that the investments were indeed “more than marginal”.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   We also had to prove that Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong were coming to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise, meaning that he would have to have a controlling interest in the company. According to USCIS regulation, ordinary skilled and unskilled workers do not qualify. As such we detailed both Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong’s background and proposed duties in the United States. For Mr. Hang, we broke down his resume and stressed that he had a specialty in Dental Laboratory Technology, also showing that he had extensive professional training and work experience in the health field. We established that Mr. Hang was indeed qualified for his role as CEO based on his direct experience with the endeavor and specialization. We explained his prospective duties to be performed in the United States which included being responsible for day to day management decisions, ensuring that proper processes and systems were in place, planning and directing dental services, and engaging in the continuous development of new products.  Likewise, we also detailed Mr. Wong’s background and resume. We had to prove that even though he was not of the dental profession, he had skills that were integral to develop and direct the company. There were fears that USCIS officers may believe that he was simply using Mr. Hang, his relative, as a means to enter the United States. In order to defeat these fears, we emphasized that he had great experience in journalism and covering medicine and science. We also highlighted his experiences in tourism and the education field which have led to multiple awards and extensive practice in marketing and economic development, working closely with the residents of a given community and local authorities to build up the best strategies and networking. We noted that these diverse experiences in addition to his highly valued skills and attributes were indeed vital to the success in his role as Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Human Resources. We further explained Mr. Wong’s proposed duties which included overseeing all the financial aspects of the company’s operations, controlling purchases and inventory, directing the information and technology aspects of the company, and directing and training the staff to ensure that the business would run smoothly.   Intent to Depart   Lastly, we demonstrated that both Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong had no intention of overstaying their E-2 visas, evidenced by their extensive social and financial ties abroad; we proved this by providing their household registration and personal bank account information, indicating their connections to Taiwan even while they are in the United States.   Interview Preparation   In addition to submitting the petition on their behalf, we helped to prepare both Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong for their E-2 interviews. When we first started, Mr. Hang and Mr. Wong seemed to be unsure of the interview, worried and concerned. They were extremely worried that the immigration officer would simply believe that Mr. Wong was using Mr. Hang in order to enter the United States given that Mr. Wong did not have a dental background in addition to the fact that they were related. However, we devoted hours of our time in helping both of them go through practice interviews and instructed them on how to provide the most detailed and effective responses to a wide variety of potential questions. After an extraordinary amount of practice, they felt much more confident in their ability to adequately answer any question asked by the Taiwanese immigration officers. On the day of the interview, they were both relieved that the interviews ran smoothly and that they had been prepped for the same questions by our attorney, allowing them to answer without fears and worries.   Outcome   We filed both of their petitions on January 22, 2013 and they received their visas on February 5, 2013.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Both CEO and CFO of Dental Engineering Laboratory file for and are approved for an E-2 Treaty Investor Visa simultaneously. Even though only one was skilled in dentistry, we demonstrated the necessity for both to come to develop and direct their company.

       SUCCESSFUL E-2 VISA CASE    Applicant: Mr. Chu  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Industry: Bicycle Distribution  Position: CEO and Majority Shareholder, Owner  Year Incorporated: 2015  Number of Dependents: 1  Investment Amount: $132,050  Challenges:  Company did not have any sales contracts in the United States  New company with no marketing experience  No retail stores were present in the United States     Mr. Chu* came to Tsang and Associates seeking assistance in applying for an E-2 treaty investor visa for his newly formed company, Bicycle Company. As the owner, majority shareholder, and CEO of Bicycle Company, Mr. Chu sought to come to the United States to facilitate the launch and anticipated growth of Bicycle Company. His extensive experience in management along with his knowledge of the U.S. and Taiwan market-places would be vital. Otherwise, Mr. Chu may miss out on an opportunity in the United States for his company to start a new chapter. As such, Mr. Chu came to Tsang and Associates hoping for help. We filed Mr. Chu’s E-2 visa application on November 2, 2015 and Mr. Chu received E-2 approval on November 11, 2015.   Keys to Success   In order for one to be successful in their E-2 visa application, there are several requirements that are necessary according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations:   The treaty investor must possess the nationality of the treaty country  The corporation must be a bona fide U.S. Corporation, a real operating enterprise and    not a fictitious paper organization  Capital invested must be substantial and irrevocably committed to the enterprise  The investment cannot be marginal  Investor must have ability to develop and direct the enterprise  Investor must have intent to depart following the end of E-2 status    National of Treaty Country   When Mr. Chu came to us at Tsang and Associates, we believed strongly in his case. First of all, it was clear that Mr. Chu possessed the nationality of a treaty country, as he was a citizen of Taiwan which has been a treaty country since 1948. Therefore, because 100% of Bicycle Company was owned by Mr. Chu, a Taiwanese national, this meant that the entire ownership interest of Bicycle Company fell under the foreign ownership requirement, satisfying the treaty country detail.   Real and Operating Enterprise   One of the more challenging aspects of this case we had to tackle was showing that the corporation was a bona fide U.S. Corporation. When Mr. Chu first came to us, this requirement was not fulfilled, as he had not yet incorporated Bicycle Company in the United States. This required much work on our part to satisfy. It had no retail stores in the United States and did not have any sales contracts so proving that Bicycle Company was indeed a real and active company was challenging. As such, we assisted Mr. Chu in incorporating Bicycle Company in an expedited manner and acquiring business licenses and leases as well as partnership agreements. In addition, we helped Mr. Chu form a much needed business plan, detailing the projected growth of the company as well as the creation of additional jobs. Furthermore, we provided an organizational chart pointing to Mr. Chu’s role as the CEO of the company. We even created the website for Bicycle Company and provided 3 months of maintenance following its creation to prove that Bicycle Company was continually doing business. We assisted Mr. Chu right from the start in his U.S. Company, incorporating it in July of 2015, indicating that Bicycle Company was indeed a “real operating enterprise” and not a “fictitious paper organization”.   Substantial and Irrevocable Investment   In addition, we were required to prove that the investment made by Mr. Chu was substantial and irrevocable due to USCIS fears that the investment is simply just a “risky undertaking”. As such, we noted that since Bicycle Company’s incorporation in July of 2015, Mr. Chu has invested more than $130,000 into the company for the initial stages of setting up the U.S. corporation. We emphasized that Mr. Chu had already incurred more than $53,000 in costs during this set up stage, evidenced by the company’s balance sheet and organizational costs. Moreover, we proved using the company’s commercial lease agreement and payment, that Mr. Chu had already committed to a five-year lease. Furthermore, introducing the “proportionality test” utilized by USCIS, we showed that Mr. Chu had indeed satisfied the proportional relationship between the amount invested by the investor himself and the cost of purchasing or creating the particular business; in fact, Mr. Chu had invested 100% of the $132,050 in investment money. Thus we were able to demonstrate that Mr. Chu was “unquestionably committed to the success of the business”.   More than Marginal Investment   In addition to proving that the investment made was substantial, we were required to prove that the investment was more than marginal. According to federal regulations, an investment is considered to be more than marginal in the cases that it either provides income that exceeds what is necessary to support the individual and the family or that it would make a significant economic contribution in the future. We were able to attack this with a two pronged response. First, we proved using the business plan that we formed, that there is substantial projected growth within the next couple of years, generating a very healthy revenue and allowing for additional expansion; this would be more than enough to provide for Mr. Chu himself and his wife. Second, we showed that the business plan projected to create 10 additional jobs by the end of the next couple of years, proving that the investment was not just marginal.   Ability to Develop and Direct the Business Enterprise   Another key point we had to show was that Mr. Chu was coming to the U.S. to develop and direct the enterprise, meaning that he would have to have a controlling interest in the company. According to USCIS regulation, ordinary skilled and unskilled workers do not qualify. Thus, we highlighted that Mr. Chu would be coming to the U.S. to oversee his company as the CEO and principal investor. We detailed all of his proposed duties. These included overseeing all financial aspects of the company’s operations, developing new marketing campaigns, controlling the costs of operations, increasing gross revenues, and managing the budgets. We demonstrated that Mr. Chu would be serving in a multi-faceted senior management position, that he would be instrumental in directing the business’s day-to-day operations and long term growth. We then furthered Mr. Chu’s qualifications for the job by detailing his higher education as well as his extensive experience with executive and managerial duties in the past.   Intent to Depart   The last key we had to prove was that Mr. Chu did not have any intention to overstay his visa. We did this by establishing Mr. Chu’s extensive social and financial ties abroad in Taiwan. We demonstrated using his bank account statements as well as his registration of real estate and deed of house in Taiwan, that Mr. Chu had property interests in Taiwan that would not simply be abandoned. Thus we were able to prove that Mr. Chu indeed had an intent to depart the United States following this visa duration.   Interview Preparation   After the completion of all the paperwork in this case, the last step was to prepare Mr. Chu for his interview with the immigration officers. Initially, Mr. Chu was fearful that did interview would not go well and that he wouldn’t know how to answer the officer’s questions. He was scared because his company did not have any sales contracts in the United States, he had no marketing experience, and because no retail stores were present in the United States. However, we constantly encouraged him and helped him prepare. We gave him hours of practice interviews and assisted him in coming up with the best answers to anticipated questions. All in all, Mr. Chu grew to feel comfortable with the upcoming interview. Once the interview came and went, he was very happy that there was no question that he was unable to properly answer. He passed.   Outcome   Our client’s E-2 treaty investor visa was approved on November 11, 2015 without any request for evidence. We then assisted both Mr. Chu and his wife in the ensuing interviews following visa approval.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Owner and CEO of a Bicycle Distribution Company applies and is approved for an E-2 treaty investor visa. Despite having no sales contracts and no retail stores present in the United States, we established a sound business plan pointing to the growth of the company. 

       SUCCESSFUL EB-1C CLASSIFICATION CASE    Petitioner: U.S. Machine Company  Beneficiary: Mr. Pang  Applying for: EB-1C classification  Business: Machine Tool Production and Distribution  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Position: Marketing Director  Year Incorporated: 2000  Revenue: $28,900,309  Number of Employees: 24  Challenges:  Mr. Pang performed several duties that were supervisory and not executive or managerial in nature  Affiliation was difficult due to indirect control by the Taiwan company  Two previous denials from two different attorneys     U.S. Machine Company came to Tsang and Associates hoping to file a petition for EB-1C classification as a Priority Worker- Multinational Manager on behalf of Mr. Pang*, who would serve as the Marketing Director of U.S. Company after serving in a similar capacity in Taiwan and for several years with L-1A status. Mr. Pang’s EB-1C classification had previously been denied twice after filings by two different attorneys. In 2010, the company filed for EB-1C classification with an attorney located in Rowland Heights, California; Mr. Pang was denied classification. A couple years later, the company again tried to file for EB-1C classification for Mr. Pang with a different attorney located in Diamond Bar, California; a denial was again received. Both denials were on the basis that Mr. Pang would not be primarily performing managerial or executive duties. Distressed, U.S. Company and Mr. Pang came to Tsang and Associates in order to finally gain approval of Mr. Pang’s EB-1C classification after two previous failures. We submitted the petition on June 24, 2013 and received approval on November 19, 2014.   Keys to Success   Initially, when Mr. Pang and U.S. Machine Company first came to us, we knew that this case would be difficult based on two previous denials of EB-1C classification for Mr. Pang, one from 2010 and the other 2013. However we strongly believed in our client’s case, that we would be able to overcome the reasons given for denial the past two times while not contradicting the previous two submissions. According to USCIS regulation, in order to qualify for EB-1C classification, one must prove a control relationship between the U.S. company and foreign company, and also that the beneficiary would be performing duties in a managerial or executive capacity.   How we proved the control relationship between U.S. Company and Taiwan Company   We first had to prove that according to USCIS requirements, that the U.S. Company “is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas.” However, there was a challenge due to the fact that the U.S. Company stock was owned by two companies that had different names than the Taiwan company. We demonstrated through stock certificates and stock ledgers that these two companies completely owned the U.S. Company but also proved that these two companies were both included under the main Taiwan Company of which the U.S. Company was a subsidiary. Thus we established that the U.S. Company was therefore completely owned by the overarching Taiwan Company, fulfilling the control relationship requirement.   How we proved that Mr. Pang’s proposed duties in U.S. Company were managerial or executive   This was the more difficult part of this case, as this requirement was the reason that the previous two submissions were denied. As defined by USCIS, managerial capacity consists of tasks including “managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization” and primarily “supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization.” Mr. Pang’s duties included several that were supervisory in nature and not qualified as managerial or executive, such as updating customer information, maintaining good customer relations, and making visits to customers. A previous denial cited that “from the descriptions of the job duties, it appears that many of the tasks which the beneficiary performs are not of a managerial or executive nature, but would ordinarily be performed by a general marketer, sales staff or other employees or contractors”. In order to combat this, we focused on Mr. Pang’s role as manager of the marketing department. We obtained expert opinion letters and employment verification letters demonstrating that Mr. Pang had the responsibility of managing and overseeing all of the marketing operations of the company and therefore formulating marketing strategies that would guide the company by directing activities and development; this proved that Mr. Pang effectively managed a major component of the company. In addition, we showed that in his position as Marketing Director, Mr. Pang essentially determined the direction and success of the organization. We also proved that as Mr. Pang was controlling the work of a Marketing Manager as well as a Sales Manager, Mr. Pang would be employed in a supervisory position over other supervisory and professional employees. Furthermore, we highlighted that Mr. Pang had control of personnel, including the right to hire and fire staff, along with supervising their daily activities.  Executive capacity is defined by federal regulations as “directs management of the organization or a major component of function of the organization”, “establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component or function”, “exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making”, and “receives supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization”. We indicated that in Mr. Pang’s role, he would be making all of the strategies of the marketing plan, making the decisions in this department, and establishing as well as communicating the goals and vision of the company to his subordinates. We showed that as a Marketing Director, Mr. Pang had the authority to exercise discretion over marketing operations, activities, and functions of the company. He was instrumental in managing the company’s complex marketing initiatives.   Outcome   The petition for EB-1C classification was filed on June 24, 2013 and we received the approval on November 19, 2014. Our client was relieved that finally, on the third try, the petition was approved.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Machine Tools Production and Distribution company Marketing Director applies and is approved for EB-1C classification. We were able to demonstrate that his primary duties were managerial or executive in nature, overcoming two previous denials from filings with two different attorneys.

       SUCCESSFUL L-1A EXTENSION CASE    Client: Ms. Kang  Applying for: 3 year L-1A Extension  L-1A status since: 2000  Business: Architectural Hardware Importing and Exporting  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Position: Director of Operations  Year Incorporated: 1999  Revenue: $285,000  Number of Employees: 2  Challenges:  Supervised employees were not managerial  Lacked organizational structure     Ms. Kang* came to Immigration Express seeking help in applying for an L-1A extension as a nonimmigrant transferee in order to continue her executive position in the United States. She had been granted L-1A status in the previous year to assist in the startup of the company in the United States and now wished to continue functioning in a similar capacity in furthering its growth even more. Otherwise, the company may simply not experience as much growth as it potentially could. As such, Ms. Kang came to us asking for assistance. We helped her file the petition on October 24, 2001 and received approval on November 13, 2001.   Keys to Success    How we proved the control relationship between U.S. Company and Taiwan Company   We first had to prove that according to USCIS requirements, that the U.S. Company “is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas.” We demonstrated that the company opened in the United States continued to maintain common ownership with its Chinese affiliate in Taiwan. We showed through the stock certificate and stock ledger entry for the company that all shares of common stock for the company have been transferred to the Taiwan company. We emphasized that there had been no business changes since the original L-1A approval the previous year. We were able to further prove the subsidiary nature of the company by demonstrating that the Taiwan company had offices in Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, and Manila, doing business in all offices, as evidenced by recent invoices of business and the most recent accounting report. In order to further the U.S. company’s first year of operations and their viability for the future, we included documents such as its bank statements from the previous year, its tax returns for the most recent years, its trade show information, along with a sample of its catalog and advertising mediums.   How we proved that Mr. Pang’s proposed duties in U.S. Company were managerial or executive   As defined by USCIS, managerial capacity consists of tasks including “managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization” and primarily “supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization.” Executive capacity is defined as “directs management of the organization or a major component of function of the organization”, “establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component or function”, “exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making”, and “receives supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization”. In proving this capacity, we first qualified Ms. Kang by highlighting her credentials in her education as well as her extensive experience in product development, trade regulations, export procedure, promotional strategies, and customer relations. Through a breakdown of her duties in the U.S. Company, we showed that she supervised the Financial Department, Research and Development Department, and the Business Department. We showed that in her extended time, she would be focused on developing domestic and international business connections, promoting the company via different outlets, identifying potential market openings, and developing various strategies for continued success. We emphasized Ms. Kang’s success over the past year in establishing and developing the company in the United States, and we thus proved that she would be functioning in a similar capacity and even more in a managerial and executive capacity in the upcoming years.   Outcome   We filed the petition on October 24, 2001 and received approval in less than 3 weeks on November 13, 2001.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Director of Operations at an Architectural Hardware Importing and Exporting Company applies for and is granted a 3 year L-1A Extension. We proved that her supervised employees were not managerial and we demonstrated her position in the company's organizational structure.

       SUCCESSFUL L-1A EXTENSION CASE    Client: Mr. Pang  Applying for: Second L-1A Extension  L-1A status since: July 20, 2009  Business: Machine Tool Production and Distribution  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Position: Marketing Director  Year Incorporated: 2000  Revenue: $28,900,309  Number of Employees: 24  Challenges:  Mr. Pang performed several duties that were not executive or managerial in nature  Affiliation was difficult due to indirect control by the Taiwan company     Mr. Pang* came to us at Tsang and Associates seeking assistance in filing for an L-1A extension. He had first gained L-1A status in 2009 and had already been approved for one extension previously. This time, we helped Mr. Pang file for his L-1A extension concurrently with an application for EB-1C classification for permanent residency. The criteria for both L-1A and EB-1C are nearly identical. Thus as Mr. Pang was awaiting approval for his EB-1C petition, he needed to extend his L-1A status during this interim period allowing him to continue to work outstandingly for the U.S. Company. We filed the extension on March 18, 2014 and gained approval within 3 months.   Keys to Success    How we proved the control relationship between U.S. Company and Taiwan Company   We first had to prove that according to USCIS requirements, that the U.S. Company “is the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas.” In order to demonstrate this relationship, we indicated with the U.S. Company’s Articles of Incorporation and tax returns of the previous three years, that the company is indeed a completely foreign owned U.S. corporation. However, there was a challenge due to the fact that the U.S. Company stock was owned by two companies that had different names than the Taiwan company. We demonstrated through the company’s corporate website, stock certificates, and stock ledgers that these two companies completely owned the U.S. Company but also proved that these two companies were both included under the main Taiwan Company of which the U.S. Company was a subsidiary. Thus we established that the U.S. Company was therefore completely owned by the overarching Taiwan Company, fulfilling the control relationship requirement.   How we proved that Mr. Pang’s proposed duties in U.S. Company were managerial or executive   This was the more difficult part of this case, as this requirement was the reason that the previous two submissions were denied. As defined by USCIS, managerial capacity consists of tasks including “managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization” and primarily “supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization.” Mr. Pang’s duties included several that were supervisory in nature and not qualified as managerial or executive, such as updating customer information, maintaining good customer relations, and making visits to customers. In order to combat this, we focused on Mr. Pang’s role as manager of the marketing department. We obtained expert opinion letters and employment verification letters demonstrating that Mr. Pang had the responsibility of managing and overseeing all of the marketing operations of the company and therefore formulating marketing strategies that would guide the company by directing activities and development; this proved that Mr. Pang effectively managed a major component of the company. In addition, we showed that in his position as Marketing Director, Mr. Pang essentially determined the direction and success of the organization. We also proved that as Mr. Pang was controlling the work of a Marketing Manager as well as a Sales Manager, Mr. Pang would be employed in a supervisory position over other supervisory and professional employees. Furthermore, we highlighted that Mr. Pang had control of personnel, including the right to hire and fire staff, along with supervising their daily activities.  Executive capacity is defined by federal regulations as “directs management of the organization or a major component of function of the organization”, “establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component or function”, “exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making”, and “receives supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization”. We indicated that in Mr. Pang’s role, he would be making all of the strategies of the marketing plan, making the decisions in this department, and establishing as well as communicating the goals and vision of the company to his subordinates. We showed that as a Marketing Director, Mr. Pang had the authority to exercise discretion over marketing operations, activities, and functions of the company. He was instrumental in managing the company’s complex marketing initiatives.   Outcome   We filed for the L-1A extension on March 18, 2014 and gained approval within 3 months, allowing him to continue to work until he gained his EB-1C approval later that year.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Machine Tool Marketing Director applies and is approved for his second L-1A extension. We proved that his duties were indeed managerial or executive in nature, and demonstrated affiliation between the companies despite indirect control.

       SUCCESSFUL L-1A EXTENSION CASE    Client: Mr. Wong  Applying for: L-1A Extension  L-1A status since: February 7, 2014  Nationality: Taiwanese (Republic of China)  Business: Machine Manufacturing  Position: General Manager  Year Incorporated: 2014  Revenue: $4,000,000  Number of Employees: 4  Challenges:  Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) after initial filing  We had no details of two previous submissions from other attorneys     Mr. Wong* came to Tsang and Associates seeking to file for L-1A extension in order to continue to work to build up the company’s new office in the United States. He had already had two other attorneys file for his case; however, we did not have any knowledge of what had already been submitted, forcing us to blindly submit our petition. Mr. Wong had been sent to the United States earlier in the year in order to open up a new chapter in the company’s story. Seven months had passed since the initial start-up and Mr. Wong needed to continue to be there to facilitate its growth and further expansion. Otherwise, the company’s new U.S. branch office would likely be stagnant without someone of Mr. Wong’s caliber to help. After helping Mr. Wong file for extension, we received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), meaning that we had to overcome USCIS presumptions and intent to deny the extension in order to prove adequately that Mr. Wong was indeed qualified. We received the NOID on September 22, 2014 and responded on October 20, 2014. Approval was received on October 31, 2014.   Keys to Success   When we received the NOID, we noted that its sole focus was challenging whether or not the petitioner had established that the beneficiary is employed in a position that is primarily executive or managerial in nature, as required by USCIS. However we believed strongly that Mr. Wong’s duties were indeed managerial. As such, we had to prove per USCIS regulations, that his duties entailed “managing the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization” and primarily “supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization.”  According to the NOID we received, USCIS noted duties such as “coordination of shipping with customs agents for clearance on overseas deliveries”, “training and managing local technical support”, and “directing and coordinating promotion of products and developing new markets” as not being managerial or executive. The NOID stated that “these duties do not appear to be consistent with those typically performed by someone in a managerial or executive position. The duties described are more indicative of an employee who will be performing the necessary tasks to provide a service or to produce a product. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity”.  Contrarily, we strongly disagreed and made clear that the reviewing officer’s assumptions were incorrect, but not without challenges. This was difficult to prove because there were only 4 employees present in the company, thereby forcing Mr. Wong to perform duties that were not managerial or executive in nature. We had to show that even in performing these ordinary duties, his primary duties were indeed qualified. In addition, we had to present evidence in a way that did not contradict any other previous submission. We had to do this blindly, without information about what was previously submitted. In order to do so, we demonstrated using a letter from the company as well as the company’s business plan, that Mr. Wong’s duties mentioned and much more, were inherently managerial in nature. In addition, we emphasized that the non-qualifying duties Mr. Wong performed were merely a small portion of his overall duties. We explained that Mr. Wong was fully engaged in the broader goals of directing and developing company growth and expansion, lobbying for new business contracts, and dealing with customer and public relations, all clearly managerial functions. Moreover, we proved that Mr. Wong indeed had supervisory duties over professionals, pointing to managerial work reports and the company’s business plan.  Furthermore, we highlighted the need for a manager of Mr. Wong’s caliber and experience, given that the company had nearly $1 billion in annual income. We proved that with the confidence of the officers, directors, and shareholders of the company, Mr. Wong was sent to assure that the U.S. company undergoes a successful commencement of operations and gets established on a sound financial footing with an adequate client base. Mr. Wong served as a liaison with the parent company and was responsible for implementing the goals and objectives of the parent company. In addition, we demonstrated that given the 7 months that Mr. Wong had been in the U.S. on L-1A status, he had not had enough time to show his strength in solidifying the U.S. platform. We showed that the company had achieved and even exceeded all of its milestones and experienced major gains, and is only pushing more and more forward in growth. We thus proved that it was imperative for Mr. Wong to oversee its operations as General Manager on continued L-1A status.   Outcome   We submitted the response to the NOID on October 20, 2014 and received approval on October 31, 2014.  *Name has been changed to protect client identity.

Machine Manufacturing Company's General Manager applies for and is approved for an L-1A extension. After receiving a NOID, we demonstrated his role as a manager was indeed managerial or executive in capacity, overcoming the reasons for the NOID.