Folinskyinla

Ray:

I'm not in disagreement with that. And it might just too passive. But OP was not all that detailed on his plans -- my main point is that he should consult with legal counsel and there are situations where the investment might not be all that passive. Also, I think the case points out that there are other factors involved too.

In a firm I was in many years ago, we had a client who bought a bungalow court in Santa Cruz -- plan was to live in one unit and rent out the others on a weekly basis as sort of a motel. Guy had money up the kazoo from inheritance and could live off the interest income. His motive? -- he wanted to be able to surf every day. London approved the little sucker. His actual investment was in real estate and he didn't make much money -- but he did manage and direct, didn't need the income so marginality met. We heard back that much of the interview was a discussion of international surfing sites.

My point to OP is that there might be a kernel of doability in his plan. Nothing more.

meauxna

Well so what? Who are you to judge so definitively what is 'worth' pursuing and what is not? It reminds me of the older days of the marriage visa forum (it still happens on other immigration forums) where people are wedded to their idea of what is 'right' 'moral' 'worthwhile' 'too long' etc ad nauseum.
My general reply is "Best is relative to each family. What is best for me and mine may not be for you and yours.'
What's wrong with applying that here?

What I quoted from you are NOT 'facts', they are your opinions. Your 'job', if anything, is to let people know that these are things they might not be aware of, but should be.

The conversations just get more limited and closed here. Unplugging from Usenet and limiting participants to Brits only and a very few Aussies (cause you can't get rid of them) is hardly a way to keep current with the rapidly evolving practicalities on the street. It reminds me of some professionals who rail on at the group about regulations without being current on what is actually happening in Consulates. People interviewing for visas want reality-based info.
Don't think that means I am supporting what you've said here.

I, other moderators and admin would be pleased if we kept the tone of conversation a bit more polite in this forum. Rule 14 applies to this paragraph.

fatbrit

So you'd consider that the OP would be well advised to purchase the four cabins and apply for E2 status on the basis of this, I presume?

meauxna

lol, how on Earth do you draw that conclusion from my post?

I think that everyone should continue to advocate for thier opinion, if they feel strongly enough about it and can assist the OP.

The only thing I can think of that's equivalent is my opinion on the K-3 visa--if asked, I'd tell someone that I don't think it's a suitable visa, and I give my top 3 reasons why AND express that there are some families where the K-3 will be the best choice. I close with encouraging them to research what *I* think are the 'problems' with it and let them go their merry way.

fatbrit

Your post was unintelligible to me -- so I stuck to the OP's issue.

I then assume that, provided we don't discover the OP isn't a millionaire surfer or Norwegian with a type A personality who enjoys pushing it to the edge, you're not going for his proposal then? Or you're not expressing an opinion on his dilemma in any way?

I really am struggling here, Mo, to determine where you actually stand on the OP's question.

meauxna

In this case, I don't care about the OP's question, I am commenting on the answers.

But I am being paged to the Home Improvement Devil's Outpost, so anything more will have to be later...

Folinskyinla

Hi:

By the way, the Mother of Employee E-2 cases was Walsh & Pollard http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol20/3111.pdf. As you will note, this case is of the same vintage as Lauvik.

London had granted the visas and it was the former INS which was upset.

A good lawyer will marshall both of these cases if necessary.

Ray

Your words there are the answer "many years ago"

The London Consulate has become so different over the last few years
Their interpretation of the FAM is not the same as others ..

Folinskyinla

Ray:

I'm confused -- what is your point? Who are you responding to? I have not suggested that London is not being difficult these days. Please re-read this string -- just because others are putting words and thoughts in my posts that simply are not there does not mean that I posted them.

Ray

All I was saying what happened a few years back may
not fly now ..the criteria seems to have changed as the
E-2 became more popular .. although the numbers seemed to have fallen off now ..

Folinskyinla

Ray:

I don't think we are all that much in disagreement. I've never disputed that LND is quite strict these day. However, if you have some "law" [not just past practice] on your side, then there is some ammunition on your side.

I remember one senior Consular Officer publicly stating "As long as it is not marginal, the E-2 allows the alien to lose as much money as they want."

Also, as I have noted repeatedly here, most of the posters here ask questions relating to just one issue; usually the amount invested.

FWIW, the Healy & Goodchild case involved an investment of $15,000 -- to service a $307,000,000 contract.

scrubbedexpat099

I think Mr F is saying that if you are desperate enough there is always the possibility of a way, and there is always someone ho may be desperate enogh, even if we would not touch it with a barge pole.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

BTW, a mea culpa -- I meant "Walsh & Pollard". "Healy & Goodchild" is one of the mother cases on visa fraud. "Walsh & Pollard" is one of the mother cases on E-2 visas [cited at length in the FAM by the way].

Folinskyinla

Hi:

That is not what I am saying. You may not want to touch it with a barge pole and that is your privilege. All I am saying is that there might be a germ of a good investment and concomitant visa. Nothing more, nothing less.

We don't know OP's facts or actual intentions. It is quite common for posters here to make assumptions and give advice thereon. Very few hesitate to think that their assumptions for that particular individual may be wrong.

Ray

The difference being we layman answer the question as given
You as a trained lawyer will alway want every detail ..

I gave my opinion as I actually know someone with a group of the same
log cabins and who failed ..probably the person who is selling the 4 ..
the OP mentioned ...

And of course I did add my usual E-2 lawyers site