Correcting the Record: A Difficult E-2 RFE, Overcome
Correcting the Record: A Difficult E-2 RFE, Overcome
An E-2 treaty investor approval that came only after a demanding Request for Evidence. The notice questioned nearly every element of the case, and in two places it rested on a misreading of the file. We had to correct the record before we could answer it. The petition was approved under premium processing.
An E-2 treaty investor approval that came only after a demanding Request for Evidence. The notice questioned nearly every element of the case, and in two places it rested on a misreading of the file. We had to correct the record before we could answer it. The petition was approved under premium processing.
September 14
September 14
Petition Type | Processing | RFE | Status |
E-2 Treaty Investor | Premium | Issued and Overcome | Approved |
Case Background
Case Background
The E-2 is the treaty investor visa. It lets a national of a treaty country come to the United States to develop and direct a business they have invested a substantial amount of capital into. It turns on hard financial proof: where the money came from, how it reached the business, and whether the business is real and thriving. Here is who she is:
A Canadian national who invested in and owns a US manufacturing business
The owner of a company that designs and builds custom vehicles to order, operating and growing in the United States
An investor who funded the business from the sale of her family's home abroad, capital that had to be traced step by step into the enterprise
A mechanical engineer by training, with a master's degree, professional certifications, and more than fifteen years in manufacturing, who controls and directs the company
Field: Business, as a treaty investor
The E-2 is the treaty investor visa. It lets a national of a treaty country come to the United States to develop and direct a business they have invested a substantial amount of capital into. It turns on hard financial proof: where the money came from, how it reached the business, and whether the business is real and thriving. Here is who she is:
A Canadian national who invested in and owns a US manufacturing business
The owner of a company that designs and builds custom vehicles to order, operating and growing in the United States
An investor who funded the business from the sale of her family's home abroad, capital that had to be traced step by step into the enterprise
A mechanical engineer by training, with a master's degree, professional certifications, and more than fifteen years in manufacturing, who controls and directs the company
Field: Business, as a treaty investor
The Challenge
The Challenge
1. The RFE questioned almost everything
The notice did not pick at one weak point. It challenged the lawful source of the funds, the path the money traveled, the size of the investment, whether the capital was truly at risk, whether the amount was substantial, whether the business was more than marginal, whether it was a bona fide enterprise, and whether she genuinely controls it. An E-2 has many moving parts, and this notice reached for all of them at once.
2. Two of the requests were based on a misreading
This is the part that made the response delicate. Two of the officer's requests rested on factual errors in reading the file, and three of the source-of-funds questions could not be answered as written until those errors were corrected. Answering them at face value would have meant chasing relationships and money trails that did not exist. We had to set the record straight, respectfully and with proof, before the rest of the response could make sense.
3. The money had crossed borders and moved through several hands
The capital originated abroad, moved between currencies and accounts, and passed through more than one affiliated entity before it settled in the business. That is exactly the kind of path USCIS scrutinizes hardest, and it had to be shown cleanly, with each step tied to the next.
1. The RFE questioned almost everything
The notice did not pick at one weak point. It challenged the lawful source of the funds, the path the money traveled, the size of the investment, whether the capital was truly at risk, whether the amount was substantial, whether the business was more than marginal, whether it was a bona fide enterprise, and whether she genuinely controls it. An E-2 has many moving parts, and this notice reached for all of them at once.
2. Two of the requests were based on a misreading
This is the part that made the response delicate. Two of the officer's requests rested on factual errors in reading the file, and three of the source-of-funds questions could not be answered as written until those errors were corrected. Answering them at face value would have meant chasing relationships and money trails that did not exist. We had to set the record straight, respectfully and with proof, before the rest of the response could make sense.
3. The money had crossed borders and moved through several hands
The capital originated abroad, moved between currencies and accounts, and passed through more than one affiliated entity before it settled in the business. That is exactly the kind of path USCIS scrutinizes hardest, and it had to be shown cleanly, with each step tied to the next.
The RFE and How We Answered It
The RFE and How We Answered It
We began by correcting the two errors, because everything else depended on it.
The first error: money going out, read as money coming in
The officer had taken a settlement statement showing the business buying its own premises and treated it as the sale of the property abroad. On that basis, the notice demanded proof of a relationship with the seller and a path of funds from that sale into the investment. We showed there was nothing to trace, because the document recorded money the business paid out to buy a building, not money that came in. There was no relationship to document and no path of funds to follow, because the transaction ran the other way.
The second error: revenue, read as expenses
The notice identified three amounts and asked us to justify them as business expenses. They were not expenses. Each was money the business received from a customer, the price of a vehicle it had built and delivered. We proved it with the company's own bank records, which showed the funds coming in, not going out. What the notice had read as spending was in fact the business earning.
With the record corrected, we traced the source of funds end to end
The capital came from the sale of the family home abroad. We followed it in a clean chain: the sale and its net proceeds, the deposit into her account, the international wire into the United States, and the deployment of that money into the business, with the dates and amounts tying together at each step. Where a figure did not match at first glance, we accounted for the difference exactly, so nothing was left unexplained.
Then we proved the rest of the case
We showed the invested capital was substantial, amounting to essentially the entire cost of acquiring the business. We showed the enterprise was far from marginal: its revenue had grown many times over across three years, it was strongly profitable, and it paid substantial sums to US contractors, an economic contribution well beyond supporting one family. And we showed she develops and directs it: she owns the company outright and holds full authority over it, and her engineering background places running a custom manufacturing business squarely within her competence, even though a delegate handles daily operations under her control.
We began by correcting the two errors, because everything else depended on it.
The first error: money going out, read as money coming in
The officer had taken a settlement statement showing the business buying its own premises and treated it as the sale of the property abroad. On that basis, the notice demanded proof of a relationship with the seller and a path of funds from that sale into the investment. We showed there was nothing to trace, because the document recorded money the business paid out to buy a building, not money that came in. There was no relationship to document and no path of funds to follow, because the transaction ran the other way.
The second error: revenue, read as expenses
The notice identified three amounts and asked us to justify them as business expenses. They were not expenses. Each was money the business received from a customer, the price of a vehicle it had built and delivered. We proved it with the company's own bank records, which showed the funds coming in, not going out. What the notice had read as spending was in fact the business earning.
With the record corrected, we traced the source of funds end to end
The capital came from the sale of the family home abroad. We followed it in a clean chain: the sale and its net proceeds, the deposit into her account, the international wire into the United States, and the deployment of that money into the business, with the dates and amounts tying together at each step. Where a figure did not match at first glance, we accounted for the difference exactly, so nothing was left unexplained.
Then we proved the rest of the case
We showed the invested capital was substantial, amounting to essentially the entire cost of acquiring the business. We showed the enterprise was far from marginal: its revenue had grown many times over across three years, it was strongly profitable, and it paid substantial sums to US contractors, an economic contribution well beyond supporting one family. And we showed she develops and directs it: she owns the company outright and holds full authority over it, and her engineering background places running a custom manufacturing business squarely within her competence, even though a delegate handles daily operations under her control.
The Outcome
The Outcome
APPROVED | RFE OVERCOME | PREMIUM | EVERY ELEMENT MET |
E-2 Treaty Investor | All requests answered | Premium Processing | Source, investment, and enterprise |
The petition was approved under premium processing. Every element the notice had questioned was answered, and the two misreadings were corrected without friction.
For an investor who had built a real and growing US business on lawfully earned capital, the approval confirmed what the evidence always showed. The difficulty was never the facts. It was making sure the facts were read correctly.
APPROVED | RFE OVERCOME | PREMIUM | EVERY ELEMENT MET |
E-2 Treaty Investor | All requests answered | Premium Processing | Source, investment, and enterprise |
The petition was approved under premium processing. Every element the notice had questioned was answered, and the two misreadings were corrected without friction.
For an investor who had built a real and growing US business on lawfully earned capital, the approval confirmed what the evidence always showed. The difficulty was never the facts. It was making sure the facts were read correctly.
Key Success Factors
Key Success Factors
1. We corrected the record before answering it
An RFE can be wrong on the facts. When two requests rested on a misreading, the right response was not to chase them as written, but to show, respectfully and with proof, what the documents actually said. Answering the question that was asked would have led nowhere.
2. We traced the money end to end
Source of funds is won with an unbroken chain. We followed the capital from the sale abroad to the business account, tied every step to the next by date and amount, and explained every figure that did not match on its face.
3. We answered every element, not just the weak ones
The notice reached for the whole case, so the response covered the whole case: source, investment, at-risk, substantiality, marginality, the bona fide enterprise, and control. Nothing was left for the officer to wonder about.
4. We proved the business was thriving, not merely surviving
Marginality is answered with results. Rapid revenue growth, real profit, and meaningful payments to US contractors showed an enterprise generating far more than a minimal living.
1. We corrected the record before answering it
An RFE can be wrong on the facts. When two requests rested on a misreading, the right response was not to chase them as written, but to show, respectfully and with proof, what the documents actually said. Answering the question that was asked would have led nowhere.
2. We traced the money end to end
Source of funds is won with an unbroken chain. We followed the capital from the sale abroad to the business account, tied every step to the next by date and amount, and explained every figure that did not match on its face.
3. We answered every element, not just the weak ones
The notice reached for the whole case, so the response covered the whole case: source, investment, at-risk, substantiality, marginality, the bona fide enterprise, and control. Nothing was left for the officer to wonder about.
4. We proved the business was thriving, not merely surviving
Marginality is answered with results. Rapid revenue growth, real profit, and meaningful payments to US contractors showed an enterprise generating far more than a minimal living.
Why Investors and Founders Trust OpenSphere
Why Investors and Founders Trust OpenSphere
OpenSphere prepares E-2 and other business immigration cases for investors and founders building companies in the United States, including complex cross-border filings and difficult Requests for Evidence.
Experience tracing source of funds across countries, currencies, and entities into a clean, documented chain
A proven approach to hard RFEs, including notices that misread the file and have to be answered with care
Skill in proving the full E-2 picture, from a substantial, at-risk investment to a bona fide, non-marginal enterprise
Whether you are investing in a new venture or an established one, OpenSphere can help you build a case that stands on its own.
Get your free visa evaluation at opensphere.ai
Note: Client details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality while preserving the essential facts of the case.
OpenSphere prepares E-2 and other business immigration cases for investors and founders building companies in the United States, including complex cross-border filings and difficult Requests for Evidence.
Experience tracing source of funds across countries, currencies, and entities into a clean, documented chain
A proven approach to hard RFEs, including notices that misread the file and have to be answered with care
Skill in proving the full E-2 picture, from a substantial, at-risk investment to a bona fide, non-marginal enterprise
Whether you are investing in a new venture or an established one, OpenSphere can help you build a case that stands on its own.
Get your free visa evaluation at opensphere.ai
Note: Client details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality while preserving the essential facts of the case.