No announcement yet.

Article: EB-5 Due Diligence of Economic Impact Studies. By KEVIN WRIGHT, MICHAEL KESTER, RUPY CHEEMA, ROHIT KAPURIA


  • Article: EB-5 Due Diligence of Economic Impact Studies. By KEVIN WRIGHT, MICHAEL KESTER, RUPY CHEEMA, ROHIT KAPURIA

    Due Diligence of Economic Impact Studies


    Rupy, as someone who performs due diligence on a regular basis, how do you approach due diligence of economic impact studies?

    Rupy Cheema: We start off ensuring that the data in the economic impact study is consistent with the data in the rest of the project’s documents, i.e. the business plan, market feasibility study and the PPM. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at a project where we did not find inconsistencies between these four documents simply because the economic analysis happened at a certain point and then there’s different versions of documents floating around and the changes don’t get picked up. Those are some of the most common issues we find at the beginning of our review, just reconciling the discrepancies in the documents.

    One of the things we thoroughly look at is financial projections and the market feasibility of the project. If we feel that the projections are aggressive or overstated or that the market feasibility is more positive than perhaps it should be, and the revenue inputs are being used in the economic analysis, we would point out in our due diligence that those jobs may then be overstated. 

    As far as construction documents, we want to see that the construction expenses or costs used in the economic analysis are supported by other documents. If there is a construction contract available we’ll look for support for those numbers in the economic analysis.

    Then we rely on an economist to look more closely at the technical aspect of the economic analysis, such as regional impacts, excludable costs and questionable methodologies. 

    Kurt Reuss: Would you mind posing a question to one of our economists?

    Rupy Cheem: Sure. Michael, all of the topics listed on the displayed slide are things we look at in our due diligence. Would you please select and address one of them. 

    Michael Kester: I’ll talk a bit on the impact area under study. The multipliers that we use and the input output models are reflective of a certain defined area. For example, with RIMS II the smallest area you can order is a county. You can also order multipliers reflective of multiple counties, such as the counties that make up an MSA or a CSA.

    A couple of key issues about the impact area of the study are, as Rupy had just mentioned, construction expenditures and revenue inputs which need to be supported. The economic study should support the impact area it’s using which itself is reflective of the multipliers it’s using, which are typically supported by the commuting patterns or general movement of goods in the area, suppliers, etc. All of which shows where the inputs and the labor for the project are coming from, so it makes sense for us to use this area to study.

    For example, if you’re analyzing a McDonald’s or some very small restaurant and the multipliers used are statewide multipliers, then that’s something the USCIS could pick up on and question, whether a tiny restaurant could actually have a statewide impact. That’s opposed to say, a very large oil and gas project, where oil and gas workers travel far distances. In that case, a statewide impact area might be reasonable to argue, but the larger the area, of course, the larger the multipliers as you have less leakage outside the area of inputs to the project.

    Another thing to double-check regarding the impact area is the regional center your project is going to use and the county the project is in. If it’s not currently in the regional center’s geographic scope, it will hopefully be close enough to where the impact area could overlap. If you’re trying to run a project in California and you’re trying to run it through a Texas regional center, that’s a way to create a distance to try to cover. Just another thing to consider when we’re looking at a project, is if they’re renting a regional center or going through an existing regional center, what geographic scope does that have and how does that correspond with the impact area under study?

    Rupy Cheema: Kevin, let me pose this scenario and then ask you a couple of questions. Say you have a client who’s forming a regional center and they come to you for a business plan or an economic analysis. The developers provide you with the construction budget and the projections, which are prepared at a specific point in time. Do the economists undertake any kind of verification to see that the information provided is reasonable? Or do you rely solely on the information provided to you?

    Kevin Wright.: I’d say that you have to verify everything, regardless of whether it’s an exemplar filing or just simply a hypothetical plan; you still need to verify all of the revenue, then the construction budgets. Now, a lot of times in the regional center filing, it’s a lot easier. You might not need a full-on construction bid or a market study and you can get by with third party verification of a developer’s budget using, say, RS Means or some kind of other industry standard; one where you can compare costs per square foot and say, “Yeah, that’s works. That’s within reason.”

    The same thing goes for revenue projections, there are generalized HVS studies out there that are regionalized, so that you can compare the developer’s estimates to actual industry standards and come up with reasonable comparisons. If you’re trying to do an exemplar filing, and we have a lot of clients who try to use RS Means or some kind of generalized statement of revenue, but it’s not really advisable.

    If you’re doing a hotel or assisted living facility or something like that, I would suggest that you get a very specific market study that dictates those revenue numbers. Then get actual construction bids to come up with exact figures and that will be a lot more accurate and a lot easier to get through the system with a lot less questions from USCIS.

    Rupy Chemma: Rohit, many people don’t realize that you’re not only an immigration attorney but an economist as well. I’m curious, when you’re looking at the economic report, what are you looking for, from a due diligence standpoint?

    Rohit Kapuria: Quite often, it’s what you’ve already discussed, Rupy, and what you guys do on your end, as well. And you guys do a tremendous job of it so it tends to save us time if we see a report that comes directly to us. The reasonableness of the multipliers is something that we definitely pay a lot of attention to. Basically, what Michael talked about in terms of a McDonald’s restaurant, if they’re using multipliers they may count the entire state or count more than a fair share of number of counties. That, obviously, is going to ring a lot of bells for us and we worry about how the USCIS is going to react to it.

    Separate from the verification of the inputs, it’s what inputs are being used for the studies. So we really get into the nitty-gritty of the budget and there are certain items that jump out at you. It’s easy enough to see hard construction costs and soft construction costs, FF&E; those are basics that can be thrown into a lot of deals. That being said, if the developer simply provides the economist with the items, sort of in bulk, and doesn’t really break down the budget into a more detailed format, then it’s very difficult to parse out what items may be excludable and have been incorrectly included in, say, hard construction costs.

    Once that gets broken down we then look at what those numbers are and sometimes there are things such as service and warranty or legal and title, which depending on what the project is, may or may not be appropriate to include in this bid. Some economists differ in terms of whether they’re comfortable using it, some take the plunge and say, “Well, throw the kitchen sink and see how USCIS reacts to it.” And some, on the basis of previous RFE history with USCIS, might say, “Well, hold on. I’ve seen a couple of deals where this was questioned and so I don’t recommend using it.”

    From our standpoint, unless the job count is really tight, I tend to want to be as conservative as possible, just because why delay with an RFE down the line, which is just basically going to cost another four or five months of the project life, meanwhile investors are struggling. Sales and commissions are things that have been seen a lot more, particularly when we’re dealing with condos or apartments. Management fees are also inputs that we see a lot, which we’re relatively comfortable with. Things like legal and title, service and warranty, or HOA-related expenses, we kind of say, “Well, do we really want that? Do we really want to count insurance,” for example? Those are things that are up in the air for us.

    Rupy Cheema: What kind of job cushion do you like to see?

    Rohit Kapuria: If we’re talking about what’s marketable versus what we like to see from our end, that’s obviously different, and the more cushion, the better. I am seeing a lot of requests for things with 50% job cushion, and those are much easier to market. It used to be that 20% cushion was sufficient, but now that the market is flooded with a lot of deals the agents are becoming very picky. In a deal where it’s a small job number and the cushion is, let’s say, 15% or sub-15%, I start to get worried, because in the event the project is unable to meet their projections, then some investor is going to suffer.

    Now from a construction standpoint, if we’re looking at using hard and soft cost construction and if we’re looking at something that’s less than two years and so only indirect and induced jobs, I’m okay generally if there’s a cushion on those costs. But if we have to dip into, say, operations jobs just to get us over the hump for the job count, then I start to get really worried. Generally, that’s because from a construction standpoint the developer’s proposed budget is conservative, at best, and in most cases they are going to outspend it.

    On the operations side, if they don’t meet the projections they’re utilizing for revenue, then the investors could be in serious trouble. To answer your question about job cushion, it’s twofold. First, it’s what exactly is accounting for the cushion and second, in terms of a numerical proportion, I’d prefer to see the cushion above 30%.

    Rupy Cheema: So you’re saying that you prefer to see the job requirements being met mostly by construction spending and not having to rely on operations?

    Rohit Kapuria: Yes.

    Rupy Cheema: That’s interesting because we see a lot of projects that wouldn’t meet that requirement, that are relying on operations.

    Rohit Kapuria: Not to say that it’s not going to work, it’s just I worry about that potential. If they construct and they build, fine, they’ve created the jobs, but then if they don’t meet the projections on the operations side, then investors are going to be in trouble.

    Kevin Wright: I talk a lot with agents in China and they’ll have me recalculate things and they might say, “let’s just pretend for a moment that the ADR stays the same. If this is a hotel and the job count is X, and then we take away all the construction jobs and assume they’re all going to be created, well, you’re projecting that you’re going to have an 82% occupancy rate in this hotel, but what if you don’t? What if it’s much lower than that? What is the occupancy rate that’s needed for everybody to get a green card?”

    In China a lot of the larger agents have caught on to this, and that’s the calculation that we’ll sit there and do. It’s not necessarily accurate because as occupancy rates go up and down, your ADR would as well. If you assume the ADR’s the same, and then you just kind of do the math backwards, you can tell, a lot of times, we need a 42% occupancy rate for everybody to get a green card. Then they can make their determination of whether they’re comfortable with that or not.

    Rohit Kapuria: Kevin, do they ask you to reach out with these on the basis of a project being in a non-metropolitan area? For example, if you’re looking at a projection with an occupancy rate of, let’s say, 82% to use your figure, and it’s in downtown Manhattan, that could be a comfortable number just on the basis of what flag it is and what star level, so it may be entirely reasonable. But let’s say it’s a hotel in the middle of Indiana. Do you see them worrying about that more or less?

    Kevin Wright: Well, I tend to try and stay out of the conversation in terms of that portion of it, and say more directly, “Hey, here’s what the numbers say.” Whether you interpret that to mean that it’s okay because it’s in a better metropolitan area, obviously New York has a much higher occupancy rate than rural Indiana, but I leave those determinations to the agents and to the people who are reading it, and try to just do the math myself.

    This post originally appeared on EB5 Diligence. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Kevin Wright, Principal with Wright Johnson. Mr. Wright is considered one of the foremost experts on the EB-5 Immigration Visa program. As an accomplished researcher, analyst and professional author, Kevin has assisted many entrepreneurs in receiving Regional Center designation and subsequent approval of the specific projects that are developed and put into operation through the Regional Center mechanism. As an IMPLAN software specialist, Kevin has authored numerous econometric impact studies, in many divergent industries, that demonstrate the employment and economic impacts of these various projects to the USCIS. The Regional Center application process requires Kevin to have an expertise in business plan writing, econometric analysis, complexities of government reporting requirements all coupled with the “hands on” experience necessary to successfully work within this highly specialized industry.

    Micahel Kester, Michael Kester is the lead EB-5 economist at Impact DataSource, LLC, an economic research, analysis, and consulting firm which operates out of Austin, Texas. Since 1993, the firm has completed more than 2,500 high-quality economic impact analyses in all industry sectors throughout the country. In tandem with this specialty in fiscal and economic impact analysis, Impact DataSource provides economic analyses for developers seeking EB-5 funding, with Mr. Kester at the helm of the EB-5 team since 2012. The team of economists at Impact DataSource has successfully conducted over 60 comprehensive EB-5 economic impact studies over the past five years. Mr. Kester also oversees the firm’s TEA team, which has evaluated more than 1000 potential Targeted Employment Area sites, and helped clients to obtain 100-plus TEA certifications. Mr. Kester understands the evolving program requirements provided by USCIS and applies this knowledge to the economic consulting services and deliverables he provides to EB-5 clients. Specifically, Impact DataSource’s EB-5 services consist of Targeted Employment Area assessment, along with TEA analysis for designation-purposes. The firm also offers a preliminary EB-5 economic analysis, which indicates the possibility of TEA designation for the project in question, provides job creation numbers, and predicts how much EB-5 capital can be raised. The detailed EB-5 economic impact analysis which the firm provides for proposed EB-5 projects and regional centers relies upon USCIS-approved methodologies. One of the firm’s past approved studies also successfully utilized a special methodology which included indirect job creation both outside and inside the EB-5 regional center. Each report provides a comprehensive and objective perspective on employment impact, along with other economic impacts required for EB-5 approval. Throughout the process, Impact DataSource works collaboratively with project applicants, immigration attorneys, and the regional center. Prior to joining Impact DataSource, Mr. Kester worked as an actuarial healthcare consultant in New York City, for the company Deloitte. A native of Kansas, he graduated from Kansas State University with his bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.

    Rupy Cheema, Co-Founder and President of EB-5 Diligence. Ms. Cheema is the industry's leading authority on EB-5 due diligence, having extensively reviewed offering documents of the largest, most prestigious EB-5 investments in the market as well as small EB-5 offerings including franchise opportunities. Ms. Cheema’s career began as a business auditor for Canada Revenue Agency and then as CFO of two startups, including 13-years with Internet startup Ms. Cheema earned her CGA (Certified General Accountant) designation after graduating from York University in Toronto.

    Rohit Kapuria, Associate Attorney with Klasko Law. Rohit currently works with U.S. based developers to help structure EB-5 compliant projects, either through the creation of a Regional Center or else under the auspices of an existing Regional Center, to attract foreign capital for job creating activities in the U.S. In this capacity, Rohit works collaboratively with economists, business plan writers, securities attorneys, investment managers, and other professionals in preparing I-924 and I-526 petitions for filing with USCIS. Rohit also conducts immigration due diligence reviews of EB-5 projects for foreign investors. Rohit has a graduate degree in mathematical economics and prior to entering the legal profession, he worked in the non-profit sector as an economist and fund manager where he created and analyzed predictive donor fund models for capital campaign projects. Rohit is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

    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