No announcement yet.

Article: America’s Untapped Multi-Billion Dollar EB-5 Investor Market The Oft Forgotten F1-Visa Holder – the International Student! By Trevor M. Saliba


  • Article: America’s Untapped Multi-Billion Dollar EB-5 Investor Market The Oft Forgotten F1-Visa Holder – the International Student! By Trevor M. Saliba

    America’s Untapped Multi-Billion Dollar EB-5 Investor Market The Oft Forgotten F1-Visa Holder – the International Student!


    Whether on the web, television, in the papers, or whether you watch Fox News or MSNBC, there are very few topics that politicians from both sides of the aisle can agree on. Arguably, creating more jobs for Americans and improving our economy is chief among those where all parties seem to agree. One solution for this increasingly fast growing, hot topic - the United States government’s Employment Fifth Based Preference Immigrant Visa Program, otherwise known as the EB-5 Program. The EB-5 Program has become a prominent and important financing mechanism for U.S. businesses and real estate developers. In fact, most would be surprised at how many local business or major real estate developments in one’s neighborhood is being funded throughout the United States utilizing the EB-5 Program.

    America’s Untapped US Student EB-5 Potential

    There are significant financial benefits to businesses to attract EB-5 capital, usually based on the lower-than-market borrowing rates and the far friendlier terms and covenants when compared to commercial banks or institutional lenders or investors. However, there is also start-up and structuring costs associated with this type of investment and, depending on the amount of capital raise, it can be quite significant and cost prohibitive for the small capital raise. While fees associated with professional advisors (such as lawyers and consultants) can be expected with any capital raise, regardless if it is EB-5 or non-EB-5, there are usually significant expenses associated with the marketing of such securities offerings. In most cases, these costs can be mitigated with the use of foreign migration agents who are “on the ground in their home country.” But, in order for any capital raise to be successful, there is usually a need for the key management team and their U.S. advisors to participate in the capital raise campaign. Enter, the “road show”. Only now, the road show takes place in a foreign country and usually to an audience that may (but more often does not) speak English.

    Nonetheless, there is no dearth of EB-5 investors funding projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars in America. Most of these investors domiciled abroad are the ones who have kept the program alive.

    Trevor M. Saliba

    A very interesting investor profile that is largely untapped for EB-5 is the enormous student pool that already exists in America. Every year, more than 700,000 foreign students on the average pursue their education in the US, with an all-time high of 819,644 students enrolled in 2012-2013. China comes out on top, with 25.4% of the student inflow in 2012, followed by India at 13.1% and South Korea at 9.5%.

    Foreign students are motivated to obtain an American education and in most cases some level of practical work experience in their respective fields prior to returning to their home countries. In most cases where a graduate level degree is being pursued,

    especially in the financial, technology and science

    sectors, the desire for employment post-graduation

    is of high priority to the student. However, the most common obstacle for these foreign students is the requirement for the employer to sponsor them through the requisite work visa. In an ever growing competitive environment, the student’s ability to enhance their own personal “marketability” for employment can be achieved by not needing their employer for visa sponsorship. A solution for this is in most cases, is the EB-5 program. By doing so, they are providing themselves a competitive advantage over their peers who do need visa sponsorship in order to be employed. Coupled with this motivation, is also the motivation of overall life planning for the individual as the EB-5 program will enable the foreign student the flexibility to travel and work within the United States on their own schedule and not be beholden to their employer’s stronghold over them as their work and residency status is dependent on their employment.

    Student visa holders are eligible to apply for EB-5 permanent residency under the same conditions discussed for foreign based investors. While not all of them with various demographic backgrounds are eligible or have the required minimum capital, a considerable number of them do qualify. However, in order to quantify to magnitude of the market potential, a conservative estimate can be used by making the assumption of only 1.0% of the average student inflow per-year, or 700,000 as referenced above, leaves a potentially untapped $3.5 Billion pool of EB-5 investment capital that is not being tapped. And this is just the beginning. Every year, a large portion of these students also enters the work force following graduation. As previously discussed, this represents another related pool of potential investors who have remained in the country on work visas, i.e. H1B, L1, etc. who now may have decided to remain in the United States and don’t wish to have their residency or work status at the mercy of their employer.

    Do you really need a Broker-Dealer?

    Invaluable to the EB-5 investment process itself and to the Businesses, Issuers, and Regional Centers involved in the capital raising process is (1) finding potential foreign investors, (2) finding qualified businesses seeking capital, (3) structuring the financing transaction and the overall securities transaction, (4) marketing the securities (5) closing the transaction and deploying the investment capital and (6) ongoing management and monitoring of the investment.

    The above activities may not seem to contradict the State and Federal Securities laws related to Broker Dealer registration, when undertaken individually. However, one would have difficulty arguing that when performed as a whole, Broker Dealer licensure is not only required, but by not using a licensed Broker Dealer you could be risking exposure of the entire transaction and parties involved to detrimental repercussions from regulators.

    Broker-Dealers are qualified participants in the market and are generally registered with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Since EB-5 deals involve sale of securities, it is prudent that the capital raise is assisted and overseen by SEC and FINRA registered broker-dealers. It is to be noted that though these securities are privately raised and held, may not trade on any exchange, and can be exempt from SEC registration, they still are regulated by the securities laws. The Broker-Dealers and Securities Lawyers are in the best position to advise on regulations that govern various aspects of the entire EB-5 process, even beginning with advertising the sale of these securities or soliciting an investor, whether foreign or domestic.

    For the proponents of EB-5 industry that continue to play in the gray area of not adhering to State and Federal securities regulations, or relying on the often misused and misunderstood Issuer’s or EG S exemptions as the foundation of why a Broker Dealer is not necessary in an EB-5 securities offering, one area that is indisputable is when the EB-5 securities offering is being made within the United States to foreign persons, the EB-5 securities offering must now rely on the REG D exemption; marketing to accredited investors. This would include individuals who are currently residing in the United States on varying Visas, including but not limited to work and student visas.

    Any party engaging in the above referenced activities, or even engaging in activities that include business development of providing services that raise capital investment, offering advice in regard to the structure, timing and form of the EB-5 securities offering on behalf of a third party requires either engaging a broker-dealer to conduct and oversee the securities offering, affiliate with a broker-dealer or register as a broker-dealer. This applies to Regional Centers, Marketing Firms, Consultants, Lawyers, etc.

    Advantages of US Based Foreign Investors

    The untapped student investor base poses multiple unique advantages to business owners seeking capital:

    1. Cost and Convenience: US Business owners are marketing to US based foreigners, which reduces language barriers. The travel involved to structure and market the deals are domestic, reducing overhead in time and cost. This gives the investors sourced the opportunity to have a close relationship with and deeper understanding of the business and/or investment transaction.

    2. Aligned Motivations: While businesses seek overseas’ capital, the student pool looks to enhance their chance of deploying their money to use, build a career through long term residency, and recoup the significant investment in their education. They are also in a better position to make informed decisions for deploying their family capital, since it’s almost always their families who provide financial support to students from their home countries.

    EB-5 Investment Trends

    The majority of the EB-5 investments today are funding real estate projects. Typical projects include hotels, resorts, commercial office locations, shopping plazas and nursing homes. Many foreign investors are raised in a cultural belief that an investment in real estate mitigates and improves the risk profile of the investment. Commercial real estate projects tend to easily meet the EB-5 job requirements, with jobs being created during the construction phase, as well.

    This trend actually indicates where to look for opportunity. Real estate investments tend to be larger size deals with internationally recognized corporations/intermediaries. However, huge areas of America in mid-tier cities are facing a “crunch” in attracting EB-5 investors, as their deal sizes are smaller. Smaller cities and communities can structure innovative deals/products that appeal to the investors and promote them through intermediaries or foundations. In addition, businesses with a proven track record and management that can demonstrate both job creation and business growth are also very appealing to the EB-5 investor, especially when the investor offers potential upside beyond the minimal annual return that is the standard in real estate financed structures.

    In conclusion, the untapped student market presents a huge potential that compliments the direct overseas sourcing of EB-5 investments, and represents a perfect partnership with foreign agents managing and sourcing foreign investors and U.S. based investment banks (Broker-Dealers), in addition to working with the foreign agents abroad, managing the overall securities transaction and sourcing U.S. based foreign investors. These untapped investors can fill the gap for the under-served, under-funded EB-5 markets, ultimately benefiting the US student population and American businesses.

    Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

     Trevor Saliba Trevor M. Saliba, is Chairman/ CEO of NMS Capital, a leading investment banking and asset management firm with a dedicated EB-5 Practice Group. He can be reached at

    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