Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Let’s Get The Facts Straight. By Matthew Gordon

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Let’s Get The Facts Straight. By Matthew Gordon

    Let's Get The Facts Straight

    by


    In the SEC’s recent charges against two unlicensed brokers in Florida, the SEC Order contained a misstatement of the law regarding the EB-5 program. Oddly placed in the ‘Factual Background’ section of the Order, paragraph 7 summarized the legally required investment amounts as follows: “An applicant investor is only required to invest $500,000 if done through a regional center.” The EB-5 program regulations require all investments to be of at least $1 million, unless the investment is made in a targeted employment area, which then allows for the reduced investment amount of $500,000. See 8 CFR 204.6 (f). Subsection (1) states the general $1 million threshold and subsection (2) states the $500,000 level for investments in targeted employment areas.

    One should not judge the SEC too harshly for this error. There are many ‘myths’ about what is and what isn’t the law relating to the EB-5 program. This same mistake has been made by many (even who participate in the EB-5 program). Hopefully the error in the statement of law as a part of the factual background section of the Order will not be a source of appeal for the accused to wiggle out of their just punishment. In future enforcement actions, the SEC should sharpen their understanding of the program as more sophisticated and better capitalized defendants may be able to escape punishment if errors are made. Hopefully, the SEC will appreciate that the EB-5 program is just a little bit different than typical investment markets. The confluence of immigration laws, federal securities laws and state laws can produce unexpected and unintended results. See my article published yesterday, entitled Miami Vice, for a more detailed analysis on this topic. Minor errors aside, to effectively regulate the EB-5 investment marketplace the SEC will need a deep understanding of how the program does (and doesn’t) work to get the right result.

    The SEC’s press release on the changes can be found here: http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-127.html

    A full copy of the order can be found here: http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?4601-News-SEC-Charges-Unregistered-Brokers-in-EB-5-Programs

    My analysis of the SEC’s actions and the interplay between the securities, immigration and contract law can be found in the article entitled, Miami Vice, found here:http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?4597-Miami-Vice-By-Matthew-Gordon.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Matt Gordon Matt Gordon is a the Managing Director of E3 Investment Group. He is a finance professional whose vision and passion is to help realize extraordinary value through the flawless planning and execution of strategy, financings and transactions that foster aggressive sustainable growth. Mr. Gordon is a licensed attorney, having practiced law with some of the most prestigious Wall Street firms, including Fried Frank and Sullivan & Cromwell. He is a member of the New York State Bar and holds SEC securities licenses.


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


    • Guest's Avatar
      #1
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      When I started with the INS in 1972, the investment amount was only $10,000. We had a lot of fraud from India because people would borrow the money, buy a cheap motel, and only employ the immediate family. The idea is to create jobs for American workers.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
    ImmigrationDaily

    08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    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.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    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
    ImmigrationDaily

    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
    ImmigrationDaily
    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
    ImmigrationDaily
    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.
    ImmigrationDaily

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

    by


    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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
Working...
X