Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: I-526 Insurance; The Criteria and The Coverage. By Mark Freitas, Bruce Rosetto and Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: I-526 Insurance; The Criteria and The Coverage. By Mark Freitas, Bruce Rosetto and Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

    I-526 Insurance; The Criteria and The Coverage

    by


    Kurt Reuss: Marc, what criteria do you use to decide whether or not a project is coverable under your I-526 policy?

    Marc DiFanti: When we look to underwrite these policies and do our due diligence, we really look at it from two standpoints.

    First, of course, is the strength of the project. We look at the project as a whole and its viability and its likelihood of success and how it can work going forward.

    Secondly we would look at the team that’s been put together. Do they have a great securities council? Do they have a great immigration counsel? Do they have a great regional center with a great track record in the EB5 industry?

    For example, we’d consider Bruce Rosetto from Greenberg Traurig as great; that is, he's somebody who’s been in this industry for a long time and he and his firm have handled a large number of EB5 projects. When we see team members like him, and a whole cohesive team that knows the industry and can handle these types of petitions and filings and understands all the work that goes into it, we realize that they're projects that we want to insure and projects that are likely to receive acceptance from us.

    Kurt Reuss: That sounds like it could be a bit of a challenge to figure out who you want to enroll. Obviously, it comes down to the experience of the people involved.

    Bruce Rosetto: Marc, I think the underwriting criteria that you mentioned are excellent, but having said that, what if you make a mistake?

    Hypothetically, say there’s a regional center that you thought had a great track record which perhaps isn’t really as good as you believe. Perhaps it doesn't file all of its compliance reports because it doesn't file its I-924s on time.

    Now, the regional center becomes at-risk. Would the insurance then cover a denial by USCIS because the regional center failed?

    Marc DiFanti: Quite frankly, it would not be excluded under the policy and it would go along with the premise that the petitions were filed and subsequently denied by the USCIS for any number of other reasons. One of them could be that the regional center was on bad terms or bad grounds in what they had done and hadn't handled their business properly. 

    That's a possibility that we have occasionally run into during our due diligence process. That’s also why we conduct a fairly lengthy review. That review might be undertaken internally, at Mark Edward Partners, or else by our partners at NES, or by the underwriters at Void. The bottom line is we have a pretty lengthy review process, and it’s our intent to catch those issues as soon as possible.

    Bruce Rosetto: I think it makes a product better if you do a stringent underwriting due diligence, because it will make everybody feel that the product is going to be there when you need it.

    Kurt Reuss: Marc, In the instance where an investor’s I-526 petition is denied and you pay them back their $500,000 capital investment. I guess the refunding of the administrative fee is something that is between the regional center and the investor. Is that correct?

    Marc DiFanti: That is correct.

    Kurt Reuss: Then, what happens to that partnership interest that the insurance company has maybe taken over? Is that the situation? That you are now a partner in this partnership?

    Marc DiFanti: Yes. I think the important aspect to understand is that the policy provides for what we'll call a work out period. That's a function of the fact that, quite frankly, the insurance company doesn't want to become a limited partner or non-managing member of the project. For the most part, it’s very likely that the project doesn’t want the insurance company involved in any other capacity.

    There's an opportunity for the issuer to source a new investor and replace the denied investor. If that's not possible, the insurance company can step in, provide the return of capital under the policy and step into the “shoes,” so to speak, of the denied investor.

    From there, there are really two options: If the issuer has the ability to source a new investor, under the same terms of the offering, and replace the insurance company, then that's a more than welcome outcome. If not, then the insurance company remains in place of the denied investor and waits for a buy-out period at some point down the road.

    Kurt Reuss: Marc, I recently read a blog posting by Suzanne Lazicki, an update on USCIS denials. She mentioned that in Q3 of 2015, the I-526 denial rate was 8% which rose to 15% in Q4. That rate then further increased to 23% in the most recent quarter. Does that scare you at all? As far as the denial rates go, does it concern you that perhaps USCIS may now have a different approach towards the I-526 approval process?

    Marc DiFanti: It doesn't concern me, right now. Obviously, though, it's never good to see those statistics across-the-board. But we’ve spent nearly five years working to build a good product and do our due diligence in our underwriting so that we’ve reached a point where we feel comfortable with the product and the industry as a whole. We found during that period, when a project has the right team in place, those projects have a significantly lower denial rate than the overall industry as a whole.

    We feel that if we do our due diligence and our underwriting properly we can offset some of that by finding projects that will be more successful.

    This post originally appeared on EB5 Diligence. Reprinted with permission


    About The Author

    Mark Freitas Mark Freitas's career in the insurance industry has spanned over 30 years. As President and Chief Executive Officer of Mark Edward Partners, a national insurance brokerage firm headquartered in New York City, Mr. Freitas leads the firm’s business strategy and development. Along with the company’s traditional property and casualty practice, Mark Edward Partners creates and develops cutting-edge products and programs not readily available in the insurance marketplace.




    Bruce Rosetto Bruce Rosetto represents private and public companies, private equity funds, and investment banks. He has extensive experience in public company securities work, private placement financings, corporate governance, and alternate assets. His practice focuses on entrepreneurs and small to middle market public companies throughout the United States in a variety of industries, including life sciences, bio-tech, banking, real estate, environmental, manufacturers, technology, entertainment and many others. He also advises clients in connection with raising capital for and establishing regional centers to administer, projects qualifying for investment under the EB-5 Entrepreneur Investment Visa Program.




    Kurt Reuss Kurt Reuss provides all his clients with free access to due diligence reports as a licensed broker dealer representative with Primary Capital. Mr. Reuss co-founded EB5 Diligence as a way to provide his clients with the most thorough due diligence reports possible and works closely with investors to assist them in selecting a suitable EB-5 investment.


    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