Kat33

I know this is a British forum but there seems to be so much knowledge here that I thought I would ask the question regarding E3 (Aussie) visa...

Hubby worked for a large multinational for 14 years before taking a redundancy 18 months ago. At the same time a number of colleagues (and family) moved to the US on L1B visas to work for the parent company. More than half of those have since successfully moved on to Green Cards with the support of the parent company.

In January hubby was approached by the US/parent entity to work in a specialist capacity in the US - the exact same job he held here and which they had been unable to fill. We decided to accept, on the basis that he would still qualify for an L1B visa having worked for 12 months of the last 3 years for the local company. This was all approved by the US entity, and took from early Jan to late March to confirm with their legal team that the L1B visa was doable.

We signed the employment contract at the end of March, at which time we were handed off to a Relocation Services firm. They in turn handed off all our documentation to a local US Immigration Attorney who this week advised us that he had 'made the decision to apply for an E3 visa as strategically it makes more sense'. His words.

Strategically for us it does not make sense. We have a 15 year old daughter who we want to avoid impacting too negatively - she plans to go to university. There is a clear path from an L1B visa to Greencard, however not from an E3.

Why would the immigration lawyer recommend an E3 over an L1B?

Essentially the move is a 'one-way ticket'. They will pay for us to move to the US, but not home again. So we have concerns about packing our entire life up to move on the E3 visa with no clear path.

Noorah101

Seems to me the lawyer can't just make the decision for you like that. Did he actually submit the paperwork for the E3 already, without your consent??

Rene

Kat33

Hi Noorah101 - we are trying to find this out but it seems that may be the case which is very concerning. From the responses we have received the lawyer has convinced the company HR rep that an E3 visa is a much better option for us, but no one is communicating with us as to why or how that decision was made.

We are very frustrated as we are extremely keen to make the move and had thought the visa process was sorted out once the company lawyers approved the L1B path.

I guess we are looking for ammunition to go back to them with as to why the L1B visa is a better option, particularly with a teenager in the later part of schooling. It was suggested that we 'save the L1B option for down the track' but this would not work as it would require hubby to return to Aus for more than 12 months to work for their subsidiary - who is winding up that side of operations here so there is no job anyway.

scrubbedexpat099

The Lawyer would be deciding on the basis of what is best for the Employer.

Kat33

Thats what we thought, but the Company lawyer approved the application for an L1B before the employment offer was made and it was the basis on which we accepted. And the company has a Blanket Petition in place for L1 visas which is what all of the Aussies we know there are on...
The lawyer recommending E3 was employed by the relocation company not the sponsoring company.

scrubbedexpat099

Nothing to do with the relocation company, I would just deal with the Employer/Lawyer.

Kat33

Unfortunately the Relocation company are the ones tasked with supporting the visa process so dealing with the Employers lawyer directly is not an option. The employers HR team seem quite happy to accept the word of the relocation companies lawyer at this stage which is frustrating. I just dont understand why an E3 would be preferable to an L1B especially where the Blanket petition exists. As far as we were concerned the next step was visa application - now it feels like we are back at square 1 while the type of visa is discussed for the second time.

ian-mstm

I'm guessing it's because he sees it as the easier path for you. On paper, your husband qualifies for the L-1B, but perhaps an 18-month hiatus appears more suspect than originally thought. Your husband was approached by the US entity - he wasn't approached to transfer by the UK branch he worked for. In other words, this transfer isn't being driven by the UK branch.


Where the doctrine of dual intent is concerned... just because dual intent is not specifically allowed, it doesn't follow that dual intent is specifically prohibited. In other words, and in spite of everything you might have read to the contrary, almost all visas allow for dual intent... including the E-3. If the US company is willing to sponsor you for green cards, they can.

Ian

DottM

That's not really correct. Talking from experience (having held an L1B visa) it really isn't that simple and I fear you may be confusing it with an L1A visa which converts to a GC very easily.

In order to convert an L1B visa you need to perform a certification of Labour. This requires the company advertising the position in several places over multiple mediums. The company is then responsible for proving to US immigration why none of the applicants were able to complete the job. There's the added catch that you can't use skills/qualifications gained during your employment with the company (if the company is prepared to teach/invest in the L1B visa holder why won't they do that for a US employee) and you can't be offering below market rate to deter qualified candidates.

I hope you get this all resolved but it's really not a simple process to convert from an L1B. I would push for the L1A if possible which does offer a very easy path to a GC.