No announcement yet.

Article: First USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting with Director Nicholas Colucci By Mona Shah and Yi Song


  • Article: First USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting with Director Nicholas Colucci By Mona Shah and Yi Song

    First USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting with Director Nicholas Colucci


    February 26, 2014

    After a gap of 11 months, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finally held the highly anticipated EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting, the first since Director Nicholas Colucci took office. There was no indication of how many people were participating as the meeting was held telephonically. Critical issues such as regional center expansion, processing time, bridge loans, etc. were discussed during the meeting, followed by the usual round of questions and standard “we are not answering this...too fact specific…we are doing our best, give us a break” type of answers. Notwithstanding this, we did feel that this session was particularly informative. Below is a summary of the key issues and clarification discussed by the USCIS and the stakeholders.

    Adjudication Centers: California or DC:

    USCIS confirmed that from February 14, 2014, I-924 regional center petitions and I-526 alien entrepreneur petitions will be adjudicated in the Washington, DC field office. Forms I-829 removal of condition and the I-485 adjustment of status petitions continue to be adjudicated at the California Service Center.

    Processing Times:

    USCIS stated that the average processing time for I-526 (Alien Entrepreneur petition) and I-829 cases (Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Condition) is 11 months, which reflects an average processing time for both regional center cases and direct EB-5 cases. When asked if the processing time for direct petitions was considerably shorter than for regional center petitions, USCIS’s polite response repeated the average processing time. Our practical experience is that regional center cases are taking approximately 16-18 months, approved RC petitions around 8 months and stand-alone / direct EB-5 petitions 11-12 months. The processing time for I-924 regional center petitions is now at 12 months.

    It was intimated, however, that due to the loss of 35 staff members (from the CA Service Center) the processing times would temporarily increase. One frustrated caller complained that his clients had been waiting for almost 2 years!

    Public Engagement:

    USCIS has started drafting revised EB-5 regulations. The Service stated that it would welcome comments and suggestions on the proposed regulatory changes. In an attempt to move into 2014, it appears that USCIS is encouraging public engagement through social media. USCIS announced its intention to launch a new cloud sourcing tool called “USCIS Idea Community”. It will allow stakeholders to post ideas and comments about the EB-5 Program. Wow!

    In another announcement, again showing a desire to move towards efficiency and the preservation of our trees, USCIS stated that the Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), which was launched May 2013, will be used to reduce paper work. A few direct EB-5 I-526 documents have already utilized ELIS. Regional centers will also shortly provide an electronic version of organizational, transactional and offering documents in the document library. Upcoming webinars will be held in the following weeks about the features of the document library.

    The “Hypothetical” Regional Center:

    Ever since the release of the May 2013 memorandum, excitement over the hypothetical regional center has not ceased. However, there remained considerable confusion over how much detail was actually required, leaving practitioners guessing. At the Stakeholder’s meeting, it was clarified that a regional center with an actual project, once approved, will receive deference for the Matter of Ho compliant business plan and econometric studies, in stark contrast to a hypothetical project. In the past few months, a tremendous amount of regional centers have been designated as a center with a hypothetical project. At this time, most EB-5 Investors and agents do not really understand the difference, eventually the penny will drop. Once USCIS accelerates the processing time, it is recommended that a potential regional center file with an actual project and receive deference at the I-924 level. A hypothetical regional center will not be approved unless it submits verifiable details to prove economic growth and job creation; however, the level of verifiable details for the hypothetical regional center is obviously not as stringent as the regional center with an actual project.

    Expansion of Regional Center Geographic Areas:

    This is another topic that has caused considerable confusion, even to seasonal practitioners, as USCIS has not issued any clarification since the vague reference made in the May 30, 2013 policy memorandum. At this meeting, USCIS clarified that the new area must be contiguous to the approved regional center geographic areas. A designated regional center in California will not be permitted to operate projects in New York. USCIS will review RC expansions on a fact specific basis by the preponderance of the evidence rule to ascertain if the proposed expansion will actually promote economic growth. The expansion of the geographic boundary may be demonstrated through evidence that the proposed areas is contributing significantly to the supply chain and the labor pool of the proposed project.

    Targeted Employment Areas (TEA):

    EB-5 projects must submit letters from designated state government agencies to verify the TEA. Questions were raised about the states that do not have a particular designated agency to handle the TEA designation. Under such circumstances, the submitted data by the individual petitioner shall meet the minimum requirements of the targeted employment area. Some states (e.g. New Mexico) do not issue TEA letters until the regional center is designated. For the I-924 petition, individually submitted data is also accepted.

    If a regional center project involves a collection of separate TEAs, the jobs can be counted as long as the job creating entity is primarily doing business in a TEA, though the jobs are not created in a particular TEA but in a collection of separate TEAs under the regional center.

    Redemption Agreement:

    If there is a guaranteed return of investment or return of a portion of the investment, depending on the terms of the redemption, issues may raise as to whether the investors’ capital is placed sufficiently “at risk”. Whether or not preferred equity will be considered a promise and thereby a redemption agreement is a topic for another day!

    Selling a Regional Center:

    The sale of a regional center is not prohibited. However, a regional center must notify USCIS within 30 days of any change of address, principals, operation or administration. The regional center must notify USCIS of the sale and USCIS may require the regional center to file an I-924A Amendment, the processing time of which is longer than the I-924 petition. If a project developer has a time sensitive case, the developer is better off by filing a new regional center rather than the purchasing a RC and filing an amendment.

    Bridge Loan:

    The replacement of bridge financing with EB-5 capital is permitted. The replacement is usually contemplated prior to acquiring the original non-EB5 financing. USCIS restated what was written on the policy memo, i.e. that even if EB-5 financing was not contemplated prior to acquiring the bridge loan, it may be allowed as long as the bridge financing is short-term temporary financing, in comparison to long-term debts. It may create complications for EB-5 projects trying to qualify as a troubled business, which use EB-5 capital to pay off the long-term debts. The project should consult experienced EB-5 counsel for details.

    Hotel Guest Expenditure Jobs:

    Hotel guest expenditures may be permitted. USCIS will review the underlying market studies used in the economic report. Possible evidence that the project can provide include: first, if the occupancy rates for hotel are high in an area, argument can be made that the new hotel serves the unmet demand supported by verifiable data and market studies. Second, the project can provide evidence to prove the new hotel is a differentiated product to a particular market segment and no comparable facility exists nearby.

    Mona Shah & Associates reserve and hold for their own use, all rights provided by the copyright law, including but not limited to distribution, producing copies or reproducing, sales of this document. This article is a general summary of complex legal issues. No legal advice is provided in this article. Please consult the securities attorney for advice applicable to your particular circumstances. All rights reserved by Mona Shah & Associates ©

    Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Mona Shah Mona Shah esq. is the principal of Mona Shah & Associates in New York City. The firm has assisted many Regional Centers and Investors in navigating this complex, nuanced and constantly changing area of immigration law. Mona has more than 18 years of legal experience in immigration law and extensive knowledge in EB-5 law. Mona's substantial litigation background includes her representation of clients in both state and federal courts. She has handled complex immigration law appeals before the US Circuit Courts of Appeal nationwide. Before coming to the US, Mona was a crown prosecutor in the UK. Mona has authored and published numerous articles and has spoken extensively both in the US and overseas.

    Yi Song Yi Song Esq. is an attorney at Mona Shah & Associates focusing on EB-5 and securities law. She is admitted to practice law in New York and People's Republic of China. She has authored many published articles on EB-5 financing and securities law. She practiced tax law in China and has experience in class action securities litigation cases. Yi is a graduate from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • 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
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM