Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: EB-5 Legislation – Where Are We Now? By Jeff Campion

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: EB-5 Legislation – Where Are We Now? By Jeff Campion

    EB-5 Legislation – Where Are We Now?

    by


    There are now two bills that have been introduced to reauthorize and reform the EB-5 regional center program which is set to expire on September 30, 2105. The first bipartisan legislation was introduced into the House by Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Jared Polis (D-CO). The second bipartisan legislation was introduced on June 4, 2015 by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Senator Leahy introduced the measure with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Both pieces of legislation are a good step in creating a workable framework so that the regional center program can thrive as it matures.

    As a member of the EB-5 Investment Coalition (EB-5IC), I have been fortunate to meet with Senators Grassley, Cornyn and Corker as well as with Representatives Amodei, Polis, and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) who is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

    Moreover, EB-5IC has had the opportunity to have several meetings with the staff of Senators Grassley and Leahy and Chairman Goodlatte among others. These have proved to be invaluable. In fact on Wednesday night we received some good news at our meeting with Chairman Goodlatte. He indicated that the House will draft a bill with a goal have it passed prior to September 30, 2015. Thereafter the House bill would be sent to the Senate for its approval. I asked Chairman Goodlatte if there was sufficient time for passage, and he indicated that there was. Moreover, he indicated that the Senate bill was very helpful in defining the framework under which a House bill could be passed and then sent to the Senate.

    Given the current state of legislation, there are some measures that can be taken to ensure that the legislation protects the stakeholders it is mean to protect while not accidentally adversely affecting them. Below, I address the measures I believe are most important.

    Authorize USCIS to Quickly Act on Criminal and Security Concerns. USCIS should have right to terminate regional centers for criminal activity or national security concerns and deny (or revoke) regional center applications (or already approved regional centers) when there is a significant risk of fraud and/or abuse. The same rules should apply to EB-5 petitions. However, there must be due process safeguards in place including the right to appeal such decisions. Moreover, with respect to investor related applications or petitions, if the investor is a victim of the regional center’s activity, the investor should be permitted to either: (a) continue with the project provided that the project’s associating with another regional center is plausible or (b) preserve his priority date and invest in another project within a certain timeframe along with other safeguards to protect an innocent investor.

    To provide the resources for enforcement actions, USCIS should be permitted to charge a fraud fee just like in the L-1 and H-1B context. This fee should not be a per regional center fee. Rather, it should be a more reasonable per project fee of $5,000 or a fee tied to the number of I-526 petitions. This ensures that the regional centers responsible for creating more work also are responsible for carrying the costs associated therewith.

    Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs). There should a be fair and balanced application of TEAs. It is important to note that a project does not only have an impact at the project’s job site or the census tract associated with it. Workers commute to perform services at the project site from areas that may not be located within the project’s census tract. In fact, many employees commute from TEAs to the project site. Legislation that minimizes the possibility of urban TEAs is harmful to EB-5. I would be happy to see USCIS: eliminate TEAs, make one investment amount for all projects, and require urban projects to create more jobs per investor than the other TEAs.

    Lastly, a TEA designation once issued should remain in effect until the project is fully subscribed. To do otherwise, puts a developer in a precarious situation in which it begins the project in reliance on EB-5 funds with a TEA designation and could later require the developer to either (a) amend documents for a project no longer in a TEA, or (b) worse yet not finish the project due to an inability to fund the project at the Non-TEA dollar amount.

    Requiring Business Plan Filings in Advance of Investor Filings. Requiring an I-924 (accompanied by the business plan and other organizational documents) to be filed prior to an investor filing the I-526 is reasonable. However, requiring approval prior to an investor filing is not workable under the current USCIS processing times. Many projects release funds upon filing of the I-526 so that the project can proceed. Thus, approval of those documents prior to investor filing is simply not workable and will cause many projects to stall or fail.

    One solution is to require an abbreviated project filing such as: a summary business plan that includes the principals (this allows USCIS to do background checks for bad actors), the TEA designation letter, and the initial economic analysis. USCIS could adjudicate in thirty (30) this type of documentation and then allow the project to begin its marketing and subscription process for investors. Thereafter, once the complete set of project documents are finalized, USCIS could require the project to file the I-924 exemplar petition. And, as a requirement for the investor to file the I-526, the investor would be required to include proof of approval of the abbreviated project filing and the I-924 filing.

    Grandfathering of Projects Already in the Marketplace. The legislation must address the fact that there are projects already in the marketplace now and others that will be launched before the legislation is passed. The legislation should have a liberal grandfathering provision that freezes: the investment amount, the TEA determination, and other components of the EB-5 raise that could be affected by the new legislation provided that the project has either: (a) an I-924 actual or exemplar filed or (b) an individual I-526 associated with the project has been filed.

    Though meaningful dialogue with stakeholders and other governmental agencies the EB-5 regional center program will continue to gain momentum by creating jobs while maintaining program integrity. I remain very hopeful, especially in light of Chairman Goodlatte’s comments Wednesday.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Jeff Campion

    Jeff Campion is an attorney that specializes in representing foreign high net-worth clients and their businesses. His firm continues this representation before the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Departments of Labor and State, and state employment agencies. His clients include individuals and families that have or currently appear on the Forbes List for the wealthiest individuals in Latin America. He regularly travels to Latin America to speak on complex immigration-related issues, including citizenship and immigration operations. Mr. Campion received his J.D. with Honors from the University of Florida College of Law in 1997. While in law school he also completed the coursework for a Masters in Arts Latin American Studies. He received his B.B.A. in International Finance and Marketing in 1993 from the University of Miami graduating Cum Laude with Departmental Honors and from the Honors Program. Mr. Campion speaks conversational Spanish and Portuguese.
    He is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and was a board member for the Miami Chapter of the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. Mr Campion is also a member of the IIUSA Best practices committee, a board member of the AILA Mexico chapter and is "EB5 verified" by EB5investors.com


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

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • 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
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      ImmigrationDaily
      PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
      08-13-2018, 02:21 PM
    Working...
    X