In re Walsh
Board of Immigration Appeals
20 I. & N. Dec. 60 (1988)
- Written by Eric DiVito, JD
Facts
The applicants (plaintiffs), two men who were natives and citizens of Great Britain, were automotive engineers seeking admission as treaty-investor employees pursuant to their E-2 visas. The applicants were employees of IAD Modern Design, Ltd. (IAD), a British-owned corporation. The applicants came to the United States as part of a contract between IAD and General Motors. Both men had a significant combination of education and experience designing transmission systems. The parties agreed that there was not a sufficient number of automotive engineers in the United States to meet the demand from manufacturers. IAD created a Michigan corporation, IAD Modern Design, Inc. (IAD Michigan). IAD Michigan rented office space, purchased office furniture, hired two United States citizen employees, and maintained a bank account of approximately $15,000. IAD Michigan helped to facilitate and expand contract relationships between IAD and American automobile manufacturers. Testimony was provided that IAD Michigan was expected to generate substantial revenue and to provide job opportunities in Michigan. The chief immigration judge granted the applicants’ admission. The Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) appealed the decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Milhollan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.