No announcement yet.

Article: The Chinese EB-5 Waiting Line Stretches to 26 Months (and Derivative Children Are Starting to Age-Out). By Bernard Wolfsdorf


  • Article: The Chinese EB-5 Waiting Line Stretches to 26 Months (and Derivative Children Are Starting to Age-Out). By Bernard Wolfsdorf

    The Chinese EB-5 Waiting Line Stretches to 26 Months (and Derivative Children Are Starting to Age-Out)


    This is the first of a three-part series on understanding the impact of the Chinese EB-5 waiting line on derivative children.  This blog only addresses issues relating to Chinese born nationals since only the China born or more accurately, persons chargeable to the China quota, are impacted.

    Part 1 will describe the emerging issues,

    Part 2 will describe the steps that need to be taken to try and protect children from aging out, and

    Part 3 will discuss potential administrative and legislative solutions.

    For more information on this topic, register for IIUSA’s Advocacy Conference April 20-23 in Washington, DC and listen to Charles Oppenheim, Chief of the Visa Control and Reporting Division, U.S. Department of State and Bernard Wolfsdorf on Friday, April 23 at 9 am.

    10 Things EB-5 Applicants Need Know About the Child Status Protection Act (“CSPA”) to Avoid Aging Out (Part 1)

    Just back from a month of speaking at seminars throughout China, Bernard Wolfsdorf provides the latest news and information for the EB-5 industry.

    1. Only cases filed before February 1, 2014 are being scheduled for final interviews in April 2016 in Quanzhou. We are presently about halfway through the cases filed between October 2013 and March 2014 (Q1 FY 2014 to Q2 FY 2014). However, the China cutoff date is now moving at the rate of only about one week per month.  From March 2016 to April 2016, visa movement slowed to a crawl as the China EB-5 cut-off date moved a mere 8 days from January 22, 2014 to February 1, 2014.  At this pace we may not get to March 2014 filings until July 2016 and we may not complete March 2014 filings until October or November 2016.
    2. To make matters worse I-526 filings steadily increased for the remainder of FY 2014 ending September 30, 2014. There were a total of 4,683 I-526 filings for the 6-month period from 10/2013-3/2014 (Q1 FY 2014 and Q2 FY 2014). However, during the next 6 months from 4/2014-10/2014 (Q3 FY 2014 to Q4 FY 2014) there were a total of 6,240 filings. This is an increase of about 331/3%. It could therefore take over 2 years to schedule all the FY 2014 cases for final interview. To get some perspective, in the past two fiscal years 2014 and 2015, only about 6,000 I-526 petitions were processed through to completion by the State Department, and maybe another 500 (guesstimate) by USCIS. With denial rates of between 10-25% and possible other attrition, the total number of petitions to be processed to completion is likely about 9,000, rather than the 10,928 actually filed in FY 2014. However, based on past visa issuance rates these 9,000 I-526 petitions will take about 3 years of quota to process to completion. This is because in the three Fiscal Years 2013, 2014 and 2015 the U.S. State Department issued visas based on only 8,500 petitions, plus another 500 petitions (guestimate) for USCIS. Therefore, about 9,000 total I-526 petitions resulted in almost three years of visa quota being used. The chart below shows we are presently midway through completing FY 2014 Q2. Most importantly it clearly shows how many visa petitions are ahead of those currently being filed.
    3. USCIS presently has over 21,000 petitions pending (representing $10.5 billion of capital invested with only $1.5 billion available annually for actually approved cases). We therefore have a serious waiting line problem for Chinese applicants and unless Congress acts soon to alleviate this quota backlog, the program could be in jeopardy, especially as many derivative children will age out.Blog EB-5 China Wait Line 4.5.2016
    4. With the larger number of I-526 filings in FY 2014 yet to be scheduled for final interviews, it is likely the China cut-off date will continue to move at the rate of about one week per month.
    5. Before the establishment of the China cut-off date, many EB-5 Investors were under the impression their children would be able to immigrate with the family, provided the I-526 petition was filed before the derivative child’s 21st birthday.
    6. With the increasing waiting line, this is no longer true as the Child Status Protection Act “CSPA” only permits the time the petition was pending to be deducted from the child’s age.
    7. If the Chinese EB-5 waiting line is longer than the I-526 petition pending time, (presently about 14-19 months for most cases) plus the time between the filing of the I-526 petition and the child’s 21st birthday, the child can still age out. This is despite the protection given by CSPA. For example, if the I-526 petition was filed one day before the derivative child’s 21st birthday on April 1, 2015, and the petition took one year to adjudicate, the child will likely age out because the EB-5 quota cut-off date backlog is now well over 2 years. The child’s only chance of being included under current rules is if the I-526 adjudication is delayed.
    8. Does it make a difference if the child was only 20 years old at the time of filing and the petition took 12 months to adjudicate? Yes. Here the derivative child gets to deduct 12 months from his or her actual age at the time of approval, plus an additional 12 months before his or her actual 21st birthday.  Therefore, the child essentially has at least 24 months from the time of filing to lock-in or ‘freeze” his or her age.
    9. Unfortunately, however, the waiting line as of April 2016 is now 27 months for final green card appointments.  Since the priority date in the example above is not current based on the Visa Bulletin Chart A, which is February 1, 2014, the child continues to age upon approval of the petition and will possibly age out.  This is because the child may be unable to lock-in or freeze his or her age by taking steps to “seek to acquire” permanent residence before reaching age 21. Upon approval of the petition, the child continues to age unless he or she can “freeze” their age. The final determination of whether a child is protected under CSPA is only made at the final immigrant visa interview.  In this case, the China cut-off date must advance by 14 months for this child to be able to “freeze” his or her CSPA age under 21 and become eligible to immigrate with his or her parents.
    10. Regardless of whether or not this child will age out, it is critical to take steps to “seek to acquire” lawful permanent residence status.

    For more details on the required steps, watch for our next blog to be published in about two weeks, also view our past webinars and,

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group. Copyright © 2016 Wolfsdorf Connect - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Tahmina Watson Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (, and the past national president of the 14,000-member American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Established in 1986, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP is known worldwide for providing exceptional quality legal services. With 19 lawyers and offices in Los Angles and New York, the firm was recently listed as a top-tier immigration practice by Chambers & Partners with several of the firm's attorneys listed in the 2015 International Who's Who Legal. Mr. Wolfsdorf specializes in EB-5 investment immigration in addition to the full range of global immigration matters.

    For additional information REGISTER HERE for our two-part Webinar Series: EB-5 Hot Topics Part 1 on April 27 at 7 PM PDT and Part 2 on May 25 at 7 PM PDT. These webinars will discuss these and other topical issues in the EB-5 arena.

    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