No announcement yet.

Blogging: The Tampa City Council Supports the Development of an EB-5 Regional Center in Tampa by EB-5Investors Staff


  • Blogging: The Tampa City Council Supports the Development of an EB-5 Regional Center in Tampa by EB-5Investors Staff

    Bloggings On EB-5

    by EB5Investors Staff

    The Tampa City Council Supports the Development of an EB-5 Regional Center in Tampa

    The city council of Tampa, Florida met on March 7th to vote on a proposal by Councilwoman Yvonne Yolie Capin to create an EB-5 Regional Center in the city to attract foreign investment from EB-5 investors. Foreign capital would create more jobs without cost to U.S. taxpayers.

    EB-5 investors are attracted by the promise of U.S. residency. If they invest into an EB-5 Regional Center, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services will grant green cards to the investor, their spouse and children under the age of 21. For some investors, this is the only option for permanent residence in the United States. The majority of EB-5 investors are from China, but the program continually grows more popular all over the world in countries such as Taiwan, the Middle East and Latin America.

    An EB-5 Regional Center is specifically designated by USCIS to manage EB-5 projects. Regional Centers have existed since 1992 when they were approved by Congress under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. A Regional Center may be a private or public body and may receive various investments for multiple projects at once as long as each investment creates 10 American jobs.

    The Tampa city council approved Capin’s proposal by a vote of 4-3. The matter is now in the hands of the city’s mayor, Bob Buckhorn, who is hesitant about creating an EB-5 center in the city. Many cities and potential investors have become concerned about fraud since the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Intercontinental Regional Center Trust of Chicago (IRCTC) with fraud in February of this year for misrepresentation and defrauding 250 EB-5 investors of $145 million and $11 million (for administrative fees).

    Mayor Buckhorn is understandably concerned; however, this case should not reflect negatively on all Regional Centers (of which there are over 220 across the country). Capin believes that, if administrated carefully, an EB-5 center could be greatly beneficial to the city of Tampa. She has been pushing the proposal for months.

    Some of Capin’s colleagues disagree. Some of them feel that Tampa businesses should continue receiving EB-5 capital without an established Regional Center. For example, the 1912 federal courthouse in Tampa’s downtown is currently being renovated into a hotel with the use of EB-5 investments. Others, such as Council Chairman Charlie Miranda, do not condone the EB-5 Program all together, arguing that it is immoral for the United States to deem wealthy investors worthy of entry into the country while other would-be immigrants wait years before being granted a green card.

    Despite this opposition, Capin has support from within the community and some of her colleagues. Councilwoman Mary Mulhern agreed that Tampa should be focused on the creation more jobs. Meanwhile, the University of South Florida, the Tampa International Airport SEO Joe Lopano and Congresswoman Katy Castor were supportive of the creation of an EB-5 center in Tampa.

    Whether or not Mayor Buckhorn will approve the proposal is yet to be seen. Overall, many believe that a Regional Center would bring economic growth to the city and foster development with no cost to U.S. taxpayers in a way that would be beneficial for years to come.

    About The Author is a site for those interested in learning more about the eb-5 visa program and potentially looking for a regional center or immigration attorney.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM