Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: What does the October Visa Bulletin mean for EB-5 Industry? by Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Esq., Robert J. Blanco, Esq., and Joseph M. Barnett, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: What does the October Visa Bulletin mean for EB-5 Industry? by Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Esq., Robert J. Blanco, Esq., and Joseph M. Barnett, Esq.

    Six Things to Know about the August 29, 2016 EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement

    by


    Yesterday the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) published the October 2016 Visa Bulletin, the first visa bulletin of Fiscal Year 2017. The cut-off dates published in the DOS’ Visa Bulletin each month indicate whether an immigrant visa or green card is available for foreign nationals with approved immigrant visa petitions. Because of per country limitations the wait varies depending on the applicant’s country of birth and the visa preference category.

    Due to the surge in EB-5 Form I-526 petition filings over the last few years, particularly from Mainland China, many foreign investors anxiously await the information in each month’s Visa Bulletin to determine if they are eligible to proceed to the next step of their EB-5 immigration process and apply for conditional green cards. The October Visa Bulletin is significant because it represents the beginning of the immigration fiscal year when the new annual allotment of visas becomes available.

    The October 2016, Chart A Final Action Date (FAD) cut-off date for Mainland China advanced only one week from a September 2016 date of February 15, 2014 to February 22, 2014.

    This slow forward movement is consistent with the pattern we have seen over the past several months. Applicants chargeable to Mainland China whose priority date, or I-526 filing date, is earlier than February 22, 2014 may be scheduled for a final interview at the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou. If lawfully present in the U.S. and otherwise eligible to adjust status, they may file Form I-485 Application for Permanent Resident Status. All EB-5 applicants who are not subject to the Mainland China quota remain “Current” and will continue to have a green card immediately available and are subject only to routine processing delays, not to a quota-based waiting line

    The big surprise is that the, the Chart B Date for Filing (DFF) cut-off date retrogressed almost a full year from May 1, 2015 to June 15, 2014. Introduced as part of President Obama November 2014 Visa Modernization Executive Action proposal to reform our immigration laws, this Chart B was introduced to ensure all visa numbers are fully utilized. This is the first time since the DOS began publishing this Date for Filing – Chart B last year that the cut-off date has moved at all.

    The reason for this is because of the large number of approved petitions at the National Visa Center currently waiting for interviews. For this reason forward movement of Mainland China cut-off dates in future is likely to be slow.

    Section E of the Visa Bulletin confirms that the EB-5 category will likely see “slow forward movement” for applicants chargeable to Mainland China through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2017.

    In the next few days, USCIS will announce whether applicants may file an application to adjust status in the U.S. if their Priority Date is current according to the later cut-off date listed in Date for Filing-Chart B, or whether they have to wait for a visa to be “available” under the Final Action Date-Chart A.

    If USCIS opens the door to Chart B filing of adjustment, this will allow individuals who are physically present in the United States and eligible to adjust status to file their second stage adjustment of status to green card applications effective at the beginning of October 2016. Applicants for adjustment of status are also eligible for work and travel permits that take about 90 days to process.

    USCIS has only allowed foreign nationals with employment-based petitions (such as Form I-526) to adjust status based on Date for Filing-Chart B in October 2015 and in November 2015.

    Since the EB-5 Regional Center program is scheduled to expire again on September 30, 2016, the corresponding I5 ($500,000 investment) and R5 ($1 million investment) subsections of the EB-5 preference category are listed as “Unavailable” in the October Visa Bulletin. When Congress acts to extend the Regional Center program as it has on numerous occasions in the past, Chart A will automatically become “Current” for all countries other than Mainland China, which will have a cut-off date of February 22, 2014. This is identical to last year’s October Visa Bulletin when an extension was required. No new Visa Bulletin will be published as the changes will automatically be implemented.

    With the September 30, 2016 sunset date rapidly approaching, the EB-5 industry is anxiously waiting for signs of legislative activity. An EB-5 bill is likely to be introduced within days but it may be a placeholder bill as there appears there is not enough time for Congress to pass a substantive bill this month or in the “lame duck” session after the election. Many expect the Regional Center Program will be granted another short extension via a continuing resolution until January 2017 when the new Congress will be ready to provide much needed reform.

    This post is designed to provide practical and useful information on the subject matter covered based on current law, regulation, and policy; changes to the law, regulation, or policy may modify what can be done when an EB-5 project fails. Further, this post 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.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Esq., Robert J. Blanco, Esq. and Joseph M. Barnett, Esq.: 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 Barnettis licensed as an attorney in the State of Illinois and the State of Wisconsin and practices exclusively in immigration and nationality law. Robert Blanco specializes in business and employment immigration cases. He prepares both immigrant and non-immigrant petitions for skilled workers, executive managers, high net worth investors, and people of extraordinary ability in the arts, sciences, and business. Mr. Barnett's practice focuses in the area of EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program; EB-1A foreign nationals with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; and other business immigration matters


    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: 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
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    Working...
    X