No announcement yet.

Article: Immigrant Investor Programs around the World: How the U.S. EB-5 Program Stacks Up. By Lauren A. Cohen, Esq et. al.


  • Article: Immigrant Investor Programs around the World: How the U.S. EB-5 Program Stacks Up. By Lauren A. Cohen, Esq et. al.

    Immigrant Investor Programs around the World: How the U.S. EB-5 Program Stacks Up


    The number of countries with immigrant investor programs has increased dramatically over the past decade. Countries with such programs are located all over the globe, including Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean. What these programs have in common is the exchange of residency rights or citizenship for a sizeable investment in that country’s economy. Investors from around the world have been showing increased interest in these programs, reflected by the growing number of investor visas issued each year.


    Countries differ most significantly depending on the type of investment required to secure residency. There are two main categories. The first category consists of countries like the U.S., Singapore and the Netherlands, that require applicants to invest in the private sector in order to stimulate the economy and create jobs. A small subset of this group is admitting applicants solely on the basis of purchasing private property in that country. This option is most common among countries—such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Latvia—whose property markets were hit hardest during the 2007-2008 economic crisis.

    The second group consists of countries requiring investors to give money directly to the government in the form of a nonrefundable fee or low-interest loan (i.e. purchase of government bonds). The receiving state uses these funds for economic development and other public interest purposes. This group consists of countries in the Caribbean, Malta, the United Kingdom and Australia. [1]

    In addition to the type of investment, countries also differ dramatically with respect to the minimum threshold amount. For instance, as of 2014, the Dominican Republic required an investment of approximately USD $100,000, while Austria required about USD $10 million. [2] Eligibility requirements also vary, with some countries’ programs stipulating a minimum and/or maximum age, a certain minimum net worth (e.g. Canada currently requires applicants to have a net worth of $10 million), and the investor’s place of origin.

    The more popular programs tend to be in traditional immigrant destination countries, such as the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Naturally, the most popular destinations can afford to charge the most for their programs. As of this writing, the UK’s minimum threshold is GBP $2 million and Australia’s is $1.5 to 5 million, depending on the type of investment. The U.S. investment minimum is significantly lower—currently at USD $500,000 in TEAs and $1 million in non-TEAs. However, unlike the UK and Australia, the U.S. only allows investments in a private sector entity. Whereas the UK admits applicants who invest in government bonds and Australia allows money to be placed in federal or state bonds, managed funds, Australian companies, or in a combination of those assets; the U.S. EB-5 program requires that the investment be made solely in a private-sector business. Indeed, EB-5 applicants must demonstrate that their investment is “at-risk,” with no guarantee that the initial capital contribution will be returned to the investor in the future.[3]

    While the U.S. Congress is considering program reforms, the U.S. is not the only country altering its immigrant investor program. Though Congress has not significantly modified EB-5 laws or regulations of the EB-5 since the Program’s initial enactment in 1990 (and the subsequent addition of the Regional Center Pilot Program in 1992), many other countries have reformed their counterpart programs over the past decade by raising the investment threshold, modifying acceptable investment categories, and/or requiring riskier investments, among other changes. According to the International Law News, a publication of the American Bar Association,

    Trends among immigrant investor programs over the years demonstrate that they are moving away from conservative real estate investment options and becoming focused on ensuring that the investment is “at risk” and one that can stimulate the economy and create jobs. There may be several reasons for this shift within immigrant investor programs. Governments want to avoid the negative stigma that comes with public perception that the government is essentially selling green cards to wealthy foreign investors. An “at risk” investment, similar to a risky decision to invest in the stock market rather than simply depositing funds into a bank account, is a concept that all investors can relate to and understand.[4]

    Canada, the U.S.’s friendly neighbor to the north, is one such country making this shift. Canada had a longstanding immigrant investor program that admitted applicants on the basis of purchasing a 5-year government bond for $800,000. This program was terminated and replaced in 2015 with the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital pilot program, which requires a non-guaranteed (“at-risk”) investment of $2 million over 15 years.[5]

    If reforms are passed, the U.S. EB-5 program may move in the same direction as many of its counterpart programs, particularly if the investment threshold is increased, which seems probable. However, there is a good chance that the investment threshold will still remain lower than that of Canada, the UK, and Australia. In addition, with its rebounding economy, culture of innovation, and world-class educational institutions, the U.S. is likely to remain one of the world’s most attractive destination countries for investors.



    [3] International Law News,;;;;



    This post originally appeared on e-Council. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Lauren A. Cohen, Esq.

    Lauren A. Cohen, Esq. a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, is an attorney licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, and is an active AILA member. Lauren is a sought-after speaker with a stellar track record of success. Lauren has first-hand knowledge of the visa process, having herself immigrated from Canada. After spending several years working as corporate counsel in various industries while delving into the field of immigration law, Lauren decided to combine her legal knowledge and business acumen. The result is e-Council Inc., a company focused on designing professional Business Plans and offering a wide range of ancillary services for all types of business visas, with a special focus on turnkey EB-5 solutions for direct investment and regional center cases.

    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: 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
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      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