Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Signs That EB-5 Will Prosper Under A Trump Presidency By Mona Shah

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Signs That EB-5 Will Prosper Under A Trump Presidency By Mona Shah

    Signs That EB-5 Will Prosper Under A Trump Presidency

    by


    Now that the dust has settled on what has been a tumultuous election cycle, the next question that everyone seems to be asking is: what will a Trump Presidency entail? An unconventional president-elect to say the least, Trump steamrolled past establishment skepticism to win the election – capturing the support of millions of Americans through a platform of tough action on immigration and a promise to bring back jobs to the economically neglected corners of the United States. With strong anti-immigration rhetoric having dominated the campaign, immigration attorneys are now left with the question of what a Trump overhaul of the current immigration system means for their clients. As EB-5 practitioners, we too have been bombarded with questions from both prospective EB-5 investors and those that have already invested.

    As the Trump campaign has not yet commented specifically on the EB-5 program, the short answer is that there is no answer. However, EB-5 stakeholders remain quietly confident that while there is likely to be a tougher stance on certain aspects of the immigration process, such as security screening and income auditing, for the most part, there are several indications that the EB-5 program will be viewed favorably by a Trump administration.

    To begin with, as a real estate mogul hailing from New York City, the real estate capital of the world, Trump knows how important the EB-5 program has been to the city’s fortunes. At the nadir of the Great Recession, the city was on the ropes and the unemployment rate among construction workers in the New York Metropolitan Area stood at a whopping 71%. Where traditional financiers were unable or unwilling to lend money for major construction projects, EB-5 capital stepped in and plugged the gap, helping to push projects that would have otherwise languished in the pipeline. Mansion Global have already predicted that foreign investors will likely cast a vote of confidence in U.S. real estate properties in the long run. Liam Bailey, head of residential research at Knight Frank, a London-based global real estate consultancy was quoted saying that: U.S. residential properties, as an asset class, has been favored among the world’s richest, thanks largely to the country’s relatively healthy economic fundamentals and business environment. The outcome of the presidential election will “hardly at all” have an impact on the luxury real estate market.[1]

    In addition, as someone who has built a winning campaign on the basis of bringing jobs to the United States, President Trump will think twice about turning his back on a program that has been proven to create and support jobs around the country. According to IIUSA, between FY2010 to FY2013, the EB-5 program supported 19,395 and 17,161 jobs in California and New York respectively; and the prosperity has not been limited to rich coastal states either – the program supported 2,547 jobs in Ohio and 2,958 jobs in South Dakota during that same period. Overall, during that period, the program supported an average of 29,300 jobs each year. Moreover, Trump is looking to tear up and end negotiations from free-trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Countries from these agreements are home to companies representing 90% of total inward foreign direct investment into the US.[2] If President Trump is indeed serious about ending these agreements while still bringing investment and economic prosperity to the United States, he is going to need to ensure that foreign investment continues to be welcomed here – which includes retaining the EB-5 program, having brought in $15.4 billion in EB-5 foreign direct investment since 2008.[3]

    Finally, Trump’s own name and brand has been licensed towards one of the large EB-5 projects in the New York Metro area: Trump Bay Street, a 50-story luxury rental apartment building being developed by Kushner Companies – led by none other than Jared Kusher, President-elect Trump’s son-in-law. This Jersey City project has raised close to a quarter of its $50 million funding from EB-5 investments. This project is not the only one in the EB-5 pipeline either. US Immigration Fund, the EB-5 regional center that was retained to seek investors, also announced a partnership last year to build and develop a Trump-branded golf course in Jupiter, Florida. In addition, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Trump is lending the Trump name to a 33-story luxury hotel and condominium EB-5 development in downtown Austin .[4]

    While President-elect Trump himself is not a partner in the financing of these developments, the fact that he has been willing to license his name out to these projects suggests at a minimum, implicit support for the program. Regarding EB-5 reform, it would be logical for Senator Grassley and his allies to make the case that Targeted Employment Area reform would help move projects from urban areas to the rural areas in which Trump has promised to create jobs.

    Finally, as the earlier fear of losing potential investors from certain countries has lessened, a Trump Administration has suggested lower taxes and more favorable conditions for foreign investment. “The shock of the result will be replaced by a more nuanced appraisal of the strengths of the U.S. markets—there is so much demand for the U.S. luxury market domestically and internationally, mainly due to the significant outperformance of the U.S. economy compared to just about every other developed world economy,” states Bailey of Knight Frank.



    [1] http://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/45527-trump-presidency-unlikely-to-thwart-foreign-investment-in-u-s-real-estate-experts-say

    [2] http://www.fdiintelligence.com/Locations/Americas/USA/Protectionism-Trump-and-the-future-of-FDI-in-the-US

    [3] Courtesy of IIUSA.

    [4] http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-branded-project-developer-in-austin-seeks-to-tap-immigrant-visa-program-1476911830

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Mona Shah, Esq. Mona Shah, Esq. has over 17 years of legal experience, with more than 13 years concentrated in U.S. immigration and family law and litigation. Mona’s extensive knowledge of all facets of U.S. immigration law, and her practical expertise ranges from specialist business petitions to complicated, multi-issue deportation and removal litigation. Her firm, Mona Shah and Associates, represents individual, high profile and corporate clients from all over the world. Mona is highly proficient and experienced in EB-5 law and practice, and is the author of a published book for investors on the EB-5 laws and procedures (EB5 for the Chinese Investor, available on Amazon). The second updated edition is scheduled to be published shortly. Mona is voted Top 25 EB-5 Attorneys by eb5investors.com and Top 10 EB-5 Attorneys by eb5info.com. She is also an adjunct professor at the Zicklin School of Business at Baruch University


    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