No announcement yet.






    This post is part of e-Council Inc.’s “Spotlight” series, in which we feature successful EB-5 projects across different industries and business types. Some of the spotlighted businesses may be our clients’ while others are not, but all have one theme in common: SUCCESS Using EB-5 Capital.

    Charter schools are gaining in popularity as a means of improving the quality of public education in the United States. Such schools are helping to improve academic performance and close the achievement gap between students in low-income and wealthier neighborhoods. A little-known fact is that many successful charter schools have benefited and been built from EB-5 funding. In this post, we will describe the charter school industry and discuss what makes it a good investment option for EB-5 Visa applicants. Finally, we will offer some examples of successful EB-5 funded charter school projects.

    What are Charter Schools?

    Charter schools offer free, publicly funded primary- and secondary-level education that is managed by private organizations. Charter schools are differentiated from regular public schools mainly because they enjoy a flexibility and autonomy in the design and implementation of their respective curricula, while still being held accountable to state and federal academic standards. This allows charter school teachers the freedom to be more innovative while focusing on improving student achievement. Many charter schools emphasize a core academic subject by creating a school culture or adopting a theme, such as: Science Technology Engineering or Math (STEM) education, performing arts, career-readiness, language immersion, or meeting the needs of autistic students. In addition, while receiving taxpayer dollars, charter schools often benefit from the hefty support of philanthropic foundations and private donors, which is not typically the case for regular public schools.

    These characteristics make charter schools an attractive option for parents seeking the best education for their children, particularly those who are zoned for underperforming schools. Research has shown that charter schools are raising student achievement levels. Fifteen of 16 studies published since 2010 found that students in charter schools do better in school than their traditional public school peers. Children who attend charter schools are also more likely to graduate from high school than their traditional public school peers.

    According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, charter schools continue to disproportionately top the lists of America’s best high schools in Newsweek, US News and World Report, and the Washington Post. In fact, on these lists more than a quarter of the best high schools are charter schools. The popularity of charter schools explains why there are more than 6,700 charter schools across 42 states and the District of Columbia educating nearly 3 million children.[1]

    Why Invest in Charter Schools?

    In addition to serving a public good—that of raising student achievement—the positive performance of the industry makes it highly attractive to EB-5 (and non-EB-5) investors. According to an expert interviewed by the Washington Post, charter schools are a recession-resistant, stable industry with 12-14% growth a year (as of 2012). The demand for charter schools is very high, with hundreds of thousands of students being placed on waiting lists each year.[2] Another notable feature is that charter schools rely heavily on private funding, making EB-5 finds highly attractive to such institutions, particularly if traditional loans are hard to obtain. Charter schools seek funding to construct school buildings and premises, including playgrounds and fields, as well as to pay the salaries of teachers and support staff.

    Other attractive features include the fact that charter schools are approved, licensed, and funded by the government and that they qualify for government authorized tax-exempt bonds after two to three years of operations. Because of the staffing needs, charter schools are also likely to not just meet, but exceed, the jobs creation requirement.[3]

    Finally, charter schools have a solid track record of repaying their loans, making the loan repayment risk fairly low. According to Education Fund of America (EFA), an EB-5 investor group dedicated to U.S. public charter school investment projects, the likelihood of loan repayment is about 99%.[4] A study conducted by the Kaufman Foundation, “Debunking the Real Estate Risk of Charter Schools,” found that, on average, more than 94% of charter schools repay their loans.[5]

    Successful Examples of EB-5 Funded Charter Schools

    Several Regional Centers and finance funds have successfully channeled EB-5 cash into numerous charter schools around the country. For example, Education Fund of America (EFA) has provided funds to more than 20 charter schools over the last five years, comprising over $60,000,000 in EB-5 capital. The total student enrollment at EFA funded charter schools exceeds 15,000 children. One example of a public charter school funded by EFA is Champion Schools of Arizona, which was named “Charter School of the Year” in 2013 and 2014 by the Arizona Charter Schools Association. Other schools to which EFA has contributed funding include Thunderbird Preparatory Academy in North Carolina, which opened in 2014 with 542 students and received $3 million of EB-5 funds toward the $5.1 million needed to build the school. Another example is American Leadership Academy in Arizona, which opened in 2014 with 425 students and received $3.5 million of EB-5 funds toward the $6.5 million needed to build the school. Many of EFA’s schools have hit their enrollment cap by the second year.[6]

    Some Regional Centers specialize in funding the construction of new charter schools. For instance, GreenAccess is a Regional Center based in Jupiter, Florida that has helped to fund 18 charter schools as of August 2015 across the state of Florida.[7] Florida Overseas Investment Center in Miami has funded 16 charter schools with a 100% visa approval rate. Each of the 16 projects has provided a ratio of at least 12 jobs created per investor, exceeding the 10-jobs-per-investor minimum. More than half of the charter school projects have already obtained I-526 approvals.[8]

    [1] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,;IBISWorld Report, “Chart Schools in the US”;
    [4] Ibid.

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

    About The Author

    Shani Muschel

    Shani graduated from Stern College with honors in 2007, with a Bachelor’s Degree in English Communication. For the last several years, she worked as a Marketing and Public Relations specialist at a variety of firms. Having created successful business organizational structures, developed and spearheaded strategic marketing campaigns, and acted as dedicated project manager to over 200 clients, Shani has been tasked with marketing and developing e-Council Inc.’s business, contributing to business plan creation, and guiding the company’s processes.

    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