## Facts

- Egil D. Lauvik, a Norwegian citizen, entered the United States as an E-2 nonimmigrant treaty investor after investing $150,000 as a down payment on a $375,000 motel/trailer park in Westport, Washington.
- INS admitted him for one year and later granted a one-year extension.
- Lauvik applied for a second one-year extension.
- In his first extension application, he wrote he came to the United States “to immigrate to U.S.A. and go in bussiness [sic],” and initially requested “4 more years till I get my citizenship,” later crossing that out and requesting “1 year.”
- In the second extension application, he reported weekly income of $212 and described duties including managing the business and performing repairs, renting rooms and trailer spaces, yard work, and plumbing.
- The INS District Director denied the second extension, concluding (1) Lauvik did not intend to depart upon termination of status and (2) his duties were those of a skilled or unskilled laborer rather than a treaty investor.
- On two motions to reconsider, Lauvik submitted evidence of ties and assets in Norway, including a furnished home leased annually, a co-owned waterfront property, and bonds/bank accounts.
- The District Director again denied relief, reasoning that Lauvik’s U.S. investment was his sole income source and that this circumstance precluded treaty investor status.
- After exhausting administrative remedies, Lauvik sued; the district court granted summary judgment for INS and denied Lauvik’s cross-motion.
- Lauvik appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether INS reasonably found Lauvik lacked the required intent to depart the United States upon termination of E-2 status based primarily on his form statements.
2. Whether INS reasonably treated Lauvik’s hands-on work in the business as rendering him a skilled or unskilled laborer rather than a treaty investor.
3. Whether summary judgment for INS was proper given the record and the agency’s evaluation of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for INS and remanded.
- The court held that INS’s reliance on isolated, linguistically imperfect application statements did not adequately support a finding of disqualifying immigrant intent when viewed against other evidence.
- The court indicated that evidence of property and financial ties in Norway supported, rather than undermined, the intent-to-depart inquiry and was not reasonably treated as disqualifying.
- The court rejected the agency’s narrow view that substantial day-to-day operational involvement in a small enterprise necessarily converts an E-2 investor into a mere laborer.
- The court concluded that further proceedings were required to apply the proper legal framework to the facts.

## Legal Principles

- E-2 “intent to depart” determinations must consider the total circumstances; isolated phrases on forms, especially from an uncounseled applicant with limited English, are not conclusive.
- Objective evidence of foreign ties (property, financial holdings, ongoing connections) is relevant to nonimmigrant intent and must be weighed in a rational manner.
- Treaty investor status is not limited to passive ownership; significant operational participation in a small business may be consistent with being an investor rather than a laborer.
- Summary judgment is improper where the administrative record reveals substantial questions about whether the agency reasonably evaluated evidence and applied governing standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded because the agency’s denial of an E-2 extension rested on an overly literal reading of ambiguous application language and an unduly restrictive view of investor activity, rather than a reasoned assessment of the full evidentiary record.


Lauvik v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 910 F.2d 658 (9th Cir. 1990)