No announcement yet.

Article: September 10, 2014 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting Summary By Mona Shah, Esq and Yi Song, Esq.


  • Article: September 10, 2014 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting Summary By Mona Shah, Esq and Yi Song, Esq.

    September 10, 2014 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting Summary


    September 10, 2014 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting Summary

    Mona Shah, Esq.

    Yi Song, Esq.

    Today’s EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting (held on September 10, 2014), in Washington, DC. was the first EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting following the State Department’s critical announcement last month, relating to the unavailability of current visas for mainland Chinese nationals.

    Seasoned practitioners, eager for clarification on pressing issues such as the impact of the visa backlog, had high expectations of the event. Below is a summary of the meeting.

    EB-5 Program Updates

    The Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program Mr. Nicholas Colucci provided the program updates. USCIS as promised continued to hire and train adjudicators. Currently USCIS have 83 full-time adjudicators on board and another 10-12 new employees scheduled to start at the middle of October. The new adjudicators will review the incoming I-526 and I-829 petitions. The Service plans to have another round of recruitment. The staffing goal is to have 110 staff members under the EB-5 Program before the end of fiscal year 2015 (September 30, 2015).

    The three areas the Service intends to focus upon are: building the foundation of the program, increase customer services and the transparency and increase of performance and predictability.

    Three additional division chiefs were hired to supervise the EB-5 Program. They include a former USCIS officer with experiences in Adjudication Oversight and USCIS’ Office of Policy and Strategy; an immigration lawyer who worked at the Department of Labor and private practice in immigration law and an economist who has experiences in investment banking and consulting business.

    Customer Service and Transparency

    USCIS is not best known for providing a timely response. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Colucci stated that since April 2014, the Service has responded to 3,500 requests from stakeholders relating to the EB-5 Program. The authors have tried and tested the E-request system. We did receive a timely response, but it was of little substance. Nevertheless, the authors support the Services’ efforts to establish a functional mechanism to take in requests and provide a response in a timely fashion.

    The meeting also highlighted the fact that the Service continues to engage the stakeholders in the process of policy formation. The EB-5 Interactive will be established for USCIS to post filing tips, common reasons to issue a Request of Evidence (RFE), etc. The interactive forum will enable stakeholders to send questions, request clarification and to facilitate the efficient communication. Perhaps an iPhone app will be next!

    Inter-agency Cooperation

    USCIS will further strengthen their partnership with other federal agencies. Next week USCIS intends to hold an interagency symposium with 13 other federal agencies including the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of State, Securities and Exchange Commissions, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the federal banking regulators.

    An annual report will be released by USCIS at the end of this calendar year. The report will, include the average processing time, filing statistics and a macro review of the EB-5 Program.

    Further to expectations, the EB-5 Program has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry within the past few years. USCIS have partnered with the Department of Commerce to develop a comprehensive study of the economic impact of the EB-5 Program. The study will be released in the summer of 2015.

    EB-5 Filing and Visa Backlog

    Regional Centers will continue to file Form I-924A annually. 340 regional centers of 369 regional centers approved by September 30, 2013 filed the Form I-924A, 29 regional centers failed to file Form I-924A, which resulted in a receipt of a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Inactive regional centers are slowly receiving their marching orders as USCIS have issued 24 NOIDs to inactive regional centers, citing that they no longer serve the purpose of economic growth as provided in the regulations.

    The processing time for I-526 petitions is presently 13.1 months; for I-829 petitions it is 7.8 months and I-924 petition typically takes 7.1 months to be adjudicated. Without distinguishing the specific types of filing (Direct EB-5 I-526 filing, Hypothetical/Actual/Exemplar I-924 regional center filing), the adjudication time frame provides little guidance on what to expect. USCIS confirms that they are unlikely to provide a breakdown processing time any time soon. The filing of the electronic system ELIS will not automatically expedite the adjudication, as originally hoped. This is hardly surprising given the complexities in filing via ELIS.

    The reason given for the delays in I-526 processing was again as expected – a significant backlog due to a heavy case load. More than 8,000 I-526 petitions were received in the first 8 months of fiscal year 2014. Given the situation, an EB-5 investor from mainland China should file their I-526 petition as soon as possible, because according to the information provided by Charles Oppenheim, the state department visa office chief, the visa retrogression for Chinese investors will occur in May/June 2015.

    Visa Backlog Misconception

    The issue of visa retrogression impacts investors only from Mainland China. It is a misconception that the EB-5 visas have all been “used up” as the current visa number for mainland Chinese remains “current” on the October 2014 Visa Bulletin, released on September 9, 2014 by the State Department. Thus Chinese investors can continue to submit I-526 petitions and USCIS will continue to adjudicate these I-526 petitions. No visa interviews will be scheduled at the consulate from August 23, 2014 to September 30, 2014. From October 1, 2014 another 10,000 visas will be released reverting the situation from red back to green (normal). To quote USCIS, the visa backlog currently has “minimum impact” in Fiscal Year 2014.

    Holdback Account

    Recently, issues surrounding escrow accounts have been troublesome to even seasoned practitioners. During today’s stakeholder meeting, USCIS provided an approved specific case scenario for an escrow holdback account. The EB-5 project establishes two designated escrow accounts. The capital release term for the primary escrow account is upon the filing of the I-526. The secondary escrow account established, holds a percentage of the EB-5 capital. The purpose of this account would be to compensate investors in the case of an I-526 denial. The release term for the secondary escrow is upon I-526 approval. The said structure has been tested and approved by USCIS.

    As holding funds within an escrow account is not an EB-5 requirement, the authors agree with a comment made by a seasoned practitioner, that escrow should not be a USCIS issue at all!

    Portfolio of Investments

    USCIS also provided a specific case study for an investment portfolio scenario. Here, the New Commercial Enterprise, or NCE, establishes as a holding company. The EB-5 investment funds are initially invested into the holding company and subsequently deployed to a portfolio of businesses wholly owned by the NCE. As long as the minimum number of jobs has been created, regardless from which wholly owned subsidiary, the structure meets the EB-5 requirements.

    This scenario is a significant step forward for USCIS, who have traditionally taken a more simplistic view of funds established to minimize risks. Today’s information is valuable as the investors and the investment advisers are continually seeking feasible ways to minimize the investment risks for the EB-5 Program. The authors believe that the structure will have to be carefully crafted in order to avoid any USCIS rulings relating to the ambiguity of the nexus of the job creation and the funds.

    Under the said fund portfolio structure, there is a pressing question relating to the issue of construction jobs and construction timelines. If a combination of wholly owned subsidiaries can in aggregate, complete the job creation requirement, can the construction timelines also be combined and added up to meet the 24 month requirement? Under the current EB-5 rules, as the nature of construction jobs is temporary and seasonal, only if the construction timeline exceeds 24 months, can direct construction jobs be counted. The authors are of the opinion that it is unlikely USCIS would accept such a scenario, where the construction timeline of a portfolio of businesses can be added up to make the 24 months benchmark.

    Questions Unanswered

    During the Stakeholder Meeting, which is always well attended, more questions were raised than answers given. Most of these unanswered questions related to visa retrogression issues (for mainland China). The issues are pertinent and will require clarification from USCIS in the very near future.

    In a visa backlog situation where Chinese Direct EB-5 investors, who are either investing in their own job creating entities or in a non-passive pooled investment project, need to travel to the US to manage their business either through active daily management or through policy formulation. With the visa backlog, investors may not be able to enter the US years after the I-526 has been approved. It is unclear whether they can enter the US on a B1/B2 or other non-immigrant visa given that they have clear immigrant intent. It is also unclear whether aging out children from China will receive preferential treatment due to the current visa backlog and likely visa retrogression.

    Should there be significant Chinese retrogression, how long would direct jobs need to be maintained? The authors believe that there is no statutory basis to “maintain” the jobs. The jobs need to be “created” and the investment capital needs to be “maintained”. The reality is often at the time of I-829 adjudications; USCIS has been known to prefer that direct jobs be in existence and are evidenced by W-2 forms and payroll records. The visa backlog may prolong the EB-5 process into 7-8 years.

    For regional center projects, the visa backlog affects the timing of the capital deployment. If the EB-5 process is prolonged to 7-8 years, most regional center projects obtain a term loan from the EB-5 investors for 5 years. Can they return the capital to the EB-5 investors prior to the I-829 adjudication? What about returning the capital to the new commercial enterprise, if not to the individual investor?

    Further, if a Chinese Investor is forced to wait 2 or more years before adjusting status, will an investor be allowed to file an I-829 petition upon entering the US, rather than wait 2 years?

    As the leading EB-5 practitioner, Mona Shah & Associates aim to identify the unresolved issues as well as to interpret the existing bodies of statutes, regulations and policies to better serve the EB-5 stakeholders in the near future.

    Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Mona Shah, Esq. 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, Esq. Yi Song, Esq. is an attorney at Mona Shah & Associates in New York City. She is also licensed to practice law in People's Republic of China. Before joining Mona Shah & Associates, she worked at a securities litigation firm in Manhattan. She clerked at China's high court - the Supreme Court of People's Republic of China. At Mona Shah & Associates, Yi practices EB-5 law and securities law and works on many successful EB-5 capital raising projects. She obtained her LL.B. degree from Beijing Foreign Studies University and she is a graduate from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. Her articles on EB-5 and securities law are published by LexisNexis, AILA,, ILW. Yi is a native speaker of mandarin Chinese. She speaks fluent English and basic French.

    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