No announcement yet.

Article: Is the EB-5 Regional Center “Pure” Rental Model Sustainable?. By Rohit Kapuria


  • Article: Is the EB-5 Regional Center “Pure” Rental Model Sustainable? By Rohit Kapuria

    Is the EB-5 Regional Center “Pure” Rental Model Sustainable?


    Over the last few years, there has been a remarkable growth in the number of EB-5 regional center designations. This rise was partially driven by the perceived demand for regional center geographic coverage. Real estate developers seeking access to EB-5 capital largely shied away from the administrative burdens and ongoing responsibilities associated with the regional center business. Setting aside the legal and rather insignificant government application fees, the barriers to entry in the regional center market have been low. USCIS actually simplified the process when, in the May 30, 2013 EB-5 Adjudications Policy Memorandum (“May 30 Memo”), it obviated the need for offering documents if the Form I-924 application was based on a “hypothetical” project. To put this in perspective, there were less than 25 I-924 applications approved in all of 2012 as compared with the few hundred that have been approved since the May 30 Memo was issued. Some of the dramatic increase in application adjudications could also be attributed to the efficiency with which the new Washington DC adjudicators are handling the I-924s in stark contrast with the confounding backlog applicants previously faced with the California Service Center. Whatever the reason though, the increase in I-924 designation numbers has not been welcomed by veteran regional centers that previously had a much stronger grip on the EB-5 market. Even more vexing for such veterans, however, has been a spike in the general acceptance and usage of the regional center rental model. To be clear, while there are different rental models with varying degrees of regional center involvement, the focus of this article is on the pure rental model (hereinafter simply referred to as the “rental model”).

    The prevailing wisdom, of late, has been that unless a developer is looking to develop more than a single project within a certain geographic area, especially in rather crowded regional center markets like New York City, one need only rent an existing regional center outfit as opposed to spending the time, energy, and capital to secure and maintain a new regional center designation. Developers who like the rental model often appreciate the regional center’s non-interference in the development process. After all, not all regional center principals have real estate development experience, and as such, are usually not in a position to dictate the development terms. Therefore, separate from (perhaps) an initial review and subsequent sign off on the project documents, execution of a regional center sponsorship agreement, and later communications to gather data for the annual Form I-924A and (hopefully) the Form I-829, leased regional centers are largely removed from the overall project process. From the perspective of the leased regional center, as long as it has conducted sufficient due diligence to vet the developer for possible fraud and other relevant infractions, the rental model could translate into a relatively painless transaction. Since the developer usually has its pick of regional centers, in this saturated market, a regional center’s demand for more involvement could mean losing out on the transaction.

    As of January 4, 2016, there were 790 approved regional centers around the country. While there is an expectation that this number will be, at least slightly, whittled down in the next few months, due to non-compliance with the annual Form I-924A requirements, there are likely still a number of new regional center applications currently pending to make up for such loss. Therefore, the 790 number is unlikely to be dramatically affected unless a legislative push comes into play.

    What seems to be clear from the 2015 legislative gymnastics is that regional center integrity is of great import to Congress. One need only scan through the first EB-5 bill introduced in 2015, entitled S. 1501 and sponsored by Senators Grassley and Leahy, and the last EB-5 bill, entitled S. 2415 and sponsored by Senators Flake, Cornyn, and Schumer, to get a hint of what changes are expected to be coming down from Congress. Irrespective of whether the above two bills end up dead in the water, the war drums in Congress are focused on Integrity. The path to such integrity will require greater regional center involvement in EB-5 deals. As such, I expect that these impending changes are going to have a consequential impact on the regional center rental model.

    For example, consider a few (non-exhaustive) requirements delineated in S. 2415 such as:

    1. The requirement that the regional center file exemplar applications that contain disclosures: of fees, pending or past litigation/bankruptcies/adverse judgments affecting any of the project associated entities, and conflicts of interest between any and all of the project associated principals. In order to ensure compliance with such requirements, regional centers will have to conduct extensive due diligence of the Developer entity and its respective affiliates. As such, the vetting process will necessarily have to be a lot more involved and likely have some expense associated with it. With regard to the aforementioned conflict of interest issue, barring use of a neutral third party General Partner or Manager of the new commercial enterprise, it is not uncommon, in the rental model structure, to find affiliates of the job creating enterprise managing/directing the affairs of the new commercial enterprise. As such, separation between the EB-5 Lender and EB-5 Borrower are not exactly clear cut. While securities attorneys have traditionally been the professionals pushing for appropriate disclosure in the offering documents, the relevant textual applications have not always been pronounced (and in some cases even missing). Regional Centers may soon be forced to take more focused positions on these requirements.
    2. The requirement that the regional center annually certify that both it as well as all project associated entities are complying with securities laws. Pause and reflect on this. It could be a scary prospect for leased regional centers because it is not a small burden. Leased regional centers are typically not involved in the securities offering, do not play any managerial role in the new commercial enterprise, and do not participate in the marketing seminars conducted abroad (or onshore if appropriate). Without such involvement, how exactly can a regional center make such annual attestations? If one examines some of the other proposed annual certification requirements contained in S. 2415, it reads like the Form I-924A on steroids. Contrast these proposed attestations with the current rules; you will notice that annual regional center compliance has, till date, been rather innocuous.
    3. USCIS site visits to the regional center and new commercial enterprise. For those regional centers that have assumed a mom and pop type office atmosphere and/or which do not have an official separation between the regional center entity and the principals’ other commercial enterprise(s), this possibility is going to be of some concern. One would assume that the USCIS officer, conducting the site visit, will closely review the regional center’s infrastructure. Typical rental regional centers that have failed to formulate and maintain appropriate infrastructure and more importantly, that have failed to ensure collection of applicable project and investor documentation, may be in a predicament. On this latter note, Nicholas Colucci appeared in front of the full Judiciary Committee on February 2, 2016. He was asked, by Senator Grassley, whether USCIS would be willing to conduct site visits to regional centers. Mr. Colucci noted that even if legislation is delayed, USCIS has already begun plans for random site visits and an audit program that he expects will go into effect sometime this fiscal year.

    The point of this article is not that the above outlined requirements are the most important considerations nor does this mean that S. 2415 will pass in its current form (in fact, small chance of this latter point); rather, the big picture issue is that Compliance has never been more important. As such, the key takeaway is a necessary focus on how Compliance measures will help address the Integrity issues weighing on the minds of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    In the context of this article, Compliance appears to be charging in the direction of greater regional center involvement in the offering process. After all, how else can a regional center meet its (proposed) annual certification requirements without getting more actively involved in the project’s lifecycle? How else will a regional center pass a random site visit without having its own, and the relevant sponsored Project’s, affairs in order for the USCIS adjudicator’s audit? Limited communications with the issuer of the EB-5 securities, in efforts to collect Form I-924A relevant data, might no longer cut it.

    This post originally appeared on © 2016 Klasko Law. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Rohit Kapuria Rohit Kapuria is an Associate Attorney in the Firm’s Chicago office and a member of the Firm’s EB-5 practice. 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.

    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