Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Updates on Minors as Primary EB-5 Applicants, Part 2: Practical Steps. By Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Joseph M. Barnett, and Vivian Zhu

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Updates on Minors as Primary EB-5 Applicants, Part 2: Practical Steps. By Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Joseph M. Barnett, and Vivian Zhu

    Updates on Minors as Primary EB-5 Applicants, Part 2: Practical Steps

    by


    As previously written, the Chinese EB-5 backlog (nearly 30 months) creates a real age-out problem for children currently aged 15-20, whether acting as the primary beneficiary or the derivative beneficiary of a Form I-526 petition.  With the waiting line was established only a year ago and the Form I-526 adjudications taking over one year, the EB-5 community may not know USCIS’ position on the new and untested issue of whether minors may file as the EB-5 principal applicant.

    1. At the recent July 28, 2016 EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement, USCIS was asked specifically whether a minor may file as the principal applicant. USCIS indicated that there is no minimum age requirement in the EB-5 regulations and that a minor principal applicant can sign the Form I-526 without a parent’s or guardian’s signature required, which is consistent with its rule and policy regarding the Form I-485 Application to Register for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.  See 8 CFR 245.2(a)(3)(i).  However, USCIS also indicated that there are “practical issues” with regards to the capacity of a minor principal applicant to enter into contracts, which could call into question whether the contract is actually binding.  USCIS also cautioned that the evidentiary burden is on the minor principal applicant (or his/her legal guardian) to prove contractual capacity. (emphasis added) USCIS IPO Director Nic Colucci has indicated that further guidance will be forthcoming on this issue in the next few weeks.

    This is no longer a hypothetical issue.  Due to the Chinese EB-5 backlog, some Regional Centers and projects have begun accepting minors as the primary EB-5 applicants.  Chinese parents confronted with this problem who seek green cards to better position their children are now having minor children serve as the principal applicant.  To the best of our knowledge, no EB-5 investor has been denied approval of their I-526 petition solely on the grounds that the investor is not of legal age to sign a contract.  However, there is a heightened risk for the minor investor as USCIS may deny the child’s application, and the client must understand and accept that risk.  Below are some practical steps about how this is being accomplished.

    1. The first step is locating an escrow agent that will accept investment from minor investors.  In cases where the escrow agent will not permit minor investors, the Regional Center and project will need the minor to sign a “Minor Investor Escrow Waiver Letter” to allow funds to bypass the escrow account and be invested in a project account.
    1. The Regional Center and new commercial enterprise will modify terms of the investment offering for internal compliance as they relate to the acceptance of minors as EB-5 principal These documents include the escrow agreement, subscription agreement, and operating agreement, as well as a PPM supplement which explains the changes and lists additional risk factors associated to both the minor EB-5 investors and all other EB-5 investors.
    1. Some projects have selected to use Chinese law as source of law for purposes of contract execution and will require both the parent and minor to sign in the investment documents (and any amendment providing for PRC law). Parents will sign certifications indicating that they approve of the child’s investment decision and are co-signing all investment documents indicating their consent for their child to make the investment.
    1. For those projects not electing to use Chinese law as source of law, they are requiring parents and the minor to both sign a guardianship form, in which the parties certify that they’ve reviewed the PPM and investment contracts together and that the child fully understands the investment decision. The project may require the parent, as guardian, to sign the investment contracts on behalf of the minor.  Additionally, the project will require the minor to re-execute the investment contracts upon reaching the age of majority.
    1. For parent investors with pending Form I-526s whose funds are currently in escrow but now wish to gift his/her EB-5 capital to a minor child and refile a Form I-526 petition with the child as the principal applicant, it is important to communicate with the project (or its general partner or manager) on how to proceed. The ideal way of doing this is: (1) the Regional Center returns the investment funds to the original principal applicant; (2) the original principal applicant gifts the money to the child; (3) the child wires the money back to the project and signs the subscription documents as an EB-5 investor; (4) child files a new I-526 petition as the principal applicant; (5) parent withdraws his/her Form I-526 petition.
    1. However, it is likely that the project will reject a change of principal applicant because, in most cases according to the subscription contract, the EB-5 investment can only be returned if the Form I-526 is denied. Some projects may allow a change of principal applicant if the money stays in the project, in which case it will be more difficult (yet still possible) to show the gifting of capital and cancellation of the LLC membership of the original principal applicant.

    This post is designed to provide practical and useful information on the subject matter covered.  However, it is provided with the understanding that no legal, tax, accounting, or other professional services are being rendered or provided.  If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

    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.

    Vivian Vivian Zhu practices in the area of EB-5 and E-2 investment-based visa petitions. Ms. Zhu has several years' experience in corporate and securities laws primarily working with Chinese companies. Her experience includes reverse mergers, PIPEs, initial public offerings, follow-on public offerings and Exchange Act filings.

    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

    If you have any questions about this cutting-edge issue or want to schedule a professional consultation, please contact a Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP attorney to discuss your case.


    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

    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans. CNN reports on August 21 that 175
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • 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
    Working...
    X