Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: 9 Tips for Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”) EB-5 Site Visits. By Joseph M. Barnett and Bernard P. Wolfsdorf

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: 9 Tips for Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”) EB-5 Site Visits. By Joseph M. Barnett and Bernard P. Wolfsdorf

    9 Tips for Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”) EB-5 Site Visits

    by


    The Immigrant Investor Program Office (“IPO”) within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced during its April 25, 2016 EB-5 stakeholder call that USCIS’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”) will begin implementing three new compliance measures regarding the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program:

    (1) regional center audits,

    (2) investor interviews at the I-829 petition stage, and

    (3) site visits to the offices of regional centers, new commercial enterprises (“NCEs”), and job-creating entities (“JCEs”).

    When Fraud Detection and National Security officers arrive at your front desk, only to face a receptionist who hasn’t been briefed, it’s a potentially difficult predicament.

    Here are nine tips to prepare for, manage, and follow-up after a site visit from FDNS.

    1. FDNS site visits are either (a) indiscriminate and without warning or (b) based on suspected fraud or misuse of EB-5 capital. Accordingly, even the most meticulous and prudent regional centers, NCEs, and/or JCEs may be subject to a site visit.  This is particularly true as USCIS and Congress deliberate permanent “integrity” measures.
    2. Continuous and careful record-keeping in all areas of operations is essential not only for the I-829 petition purposes, but also for FDNS site visits. FDNS will likely demand to examine many different types of documents during a site visit, such as, but not limited to:
      • Corporate documentation of NCE and JCE, such as annual statements filed with Secretary of State or minutes of annual meetings;
      • Deployment of funds into NCE
      • Deployment of funds into JCE
      • Use of EB-5 capital by JCE;
      • Availability and use of non-EB-5 capital by JCE, consistent with business plan;
      • Financial statements and tax records;
      • Evidence of job creation or preservation;
      • Compliance manuals regarding federal and state securities laws;
      • Compliance manuals regarding regulations from the U.S. Department of Treasury;
      • Compliance manuals regarding, and contracts with, affiliates;
      • Compliance with an approved business plan;
      • Market analysis;
      • Status of pending litigation; and
      • Agreements with EB-5 investors;
    3. Create and implement an action plan in the event of an EB-5 site-visit by FDNS. Ensure all reception, security, and/or first-contact personnel are on notice of the possibility of a FDNS site-visit and ensure they know the primary contact to notify if/when a FDNS site inspector or any other government investigator arrives.  All employees in the action plan chain of command must understand and strictly adhere to the response plan.  It is recommended that one individual be designated as the primary contact for the FDNS site visit and one back-up contact in case the primary is out.  Have the FDNS site inspector wait for the primary contact in a conference room or waiting area.
    4. Request photo identification and a business card from the site inspector and make a copy. Have someone take down the key information as an FDNS “intake.”  Key information includes: date, location, agent’s name, badge number, agency, telephone, email, records requested, individuals requesting to interview, etc.  Insist that at least one individual (preferably the primary contact) accompany the site inspector at all time.  Where possible, the site inspector should not be permitted to wander around the premises on his or her own.
    5. If you are unsure of an answer to a question, do not guess the answer! Ask to respond at a later date so you can verify the answer rather than invent a response.  Under no circumstances should one guess or provide inaccurate information. Similarly, if you do not understand what documentation is being requested, ask for clarification – do not guess at what you are being asked to produce.
    6. Take detailed notes during any interview in the event any follow up is necessary. Be sure to make photocopies of any and all documents presented to the site inspector.
    7. If the company office or workplace is closed, the FDNS site inspector may stop in to adjoining businesses and inquire whether they are familiar with your place of business. The inspector may also take photographs of the exterior of the building, including signs, posted placards, etc.
    8. Regardless of whether the workplace is closed, the FDNS site inspector may research all information shared online regarding the regional center, NCE, JCE, or immigrant investors (e.g., social media, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Google, or public records, such as title or lien documents at the local Recorder of Deeds), so ensure whatever is shared online or publicly accessible is accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with any approved or pending EB-5 petitions.
    9. Periodically review your FDNS EB-5 site visit action plan. Make sure the primary contact knows the location of, and how to quickly produce, the documents that will likely be requested.  Conduct regular internal audits to ensure that everything is accurate, complete, and up-to-date.

    Being prepared for an EB-5 site visit by FDNS and establishing an action plan is essential.

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


    About The Author

    Bernard Wolfsdorf Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (www.wolfsdorf.com), 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.

    Joseph Barnett Joseph Barnett is licensed as an attorney in the State of Illinois and the State of Wisconsin and practices exclusively in immigration and nationality law. Mr. Barnett's practice focuses in the area of EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program and other business immigration matters. Mr. Barnett received his J.D. from Vermont Law School. Mr. Barnett may be contact at jbarnett@wolfsdorf.com

    For more information REGISTER HERE for a free webinar on June 9, 2016 at 7:00 PM PST (June 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM Beijing Time).


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      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). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    Working...
    X