Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Swamp EB-5 By Micah Morrison for Judicial Watch

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Swamp EB-5 By Micah Morrison for Judicial Watch

    Swamp EB-5

    by


    We’re hearing a lot these days about “draining the swamp” of Washington corruption but as every serious student of crime and punishment knows, the swamp is not one, but many. The swamp contains multitudes. It is Washington. It is New York. It is San Bernardino County. It is the “high places before Jerusalem”—meaning the worship of idols, meaning corruption is not a place but a practice, the lesser angels of our nature brought low by vanity and ambition, greed and delusion. Today, we look at one corner of that vast ecosystem: the federal EB-5 program.

    Congress will give EB-5 a new lease on life this week by slipping renewal of the controversial program into a continuing resolution. Administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it is formally known as the Employment-Based Fifth Preference Immigrant Investor Program. In plain language, it’s a green card fire sale for rich foreigners.

    Under EB-5, a foreigner pays $500,000 and is granted a green card, placing the purchaser and immediate family on a road to permanent residency in the United States. Silken middlemen on two continents speed the process. The stated purpose of the EB-5 program is job creation. Each $500,000 fee is supposed to be directed to projects in economically distressed “targeted employment areas” in the U.S. to create ten full-time jobs.

    Estimates of the funds generated by EB-5 in the last decade range from $15 billion to $21 billion. The cheap financing has attracted big time commercial developers and an industry to support them. But rather than flowing to hard-hit economic zones (Detroit, anyone?) EB-5 dollars have mostly gone to support glitzy projects in places such as Beverly Hills, Las Vegas, Miami, Manhattan, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and Nassau Coliseum on Long Island.

    As the New York Times recently noted, EB-5 “is increasingly supporting large luxury real estate projects, not the development in the rural and downtrodden districts that some say were the original targets of the program.”

    According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, the program has created “unique fraud and national security risks.” Hustlers around the world are hawking the precious U.S. visas. Sales have tripled in recent years. The GAO says funding for the visas could come through the “drug trade, human trafficking, or other criminal activities.” Those claims of ten-jobs-per-green-card seem sketchy as well. The reporting on the economic benefits of the program, the GAO warned, “is not valid or reliable.” Money flowing in from China is one of the main drivers of the program.

    EB-5 is a hit because the easy money benefits so many movers and shakers here in the U.S. That includes some prominent members of the incoming presidential team. Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, raised $50 million in EB-5 funds for a 50-storey luxury tower in New Jersey, Trump Bay Street. The tower adjoins another hi-rise condo, Trump Plaza Residence. Mr. Trump licensed his name to both towers but was not involved in the construction funding. Another Trump-branded project, a 33-storey luxury hotel and condo, is seeking $40 million in EB-5 funds, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    Democrats are closely tied to EB-5 as well. Senator Chuck Schumer is a fierce defender of EB-5 funds for major real-estate developers. At a recent Judiciary Committee hearing on improving EB-5, Mr. Schumer mocked the testimony of a witness who spoke about putting “the projects in only poor people areas.” Mr. Schumer added, “It won’t happen—it’s not how cities are structured.”

    Mr. Schumer is a longtime ally of the powerful developer and Democratic Party heavyweight Bruce Ratner, who built the Barclays Center sports arena and Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn with more than $500 million in EB-5 funds. Mr. Ratner is also in the EB-5 business on Long Island, where he has teamed up with a Russian mogul, Mikhail Prokhorov, to seek $90 million in EB-5 funds for the renovation of Nassau Coliseum.

    According to a Judicial Watch investigation, after leveraging more than $1 billion in taxpayer assistance and EB-5 funds to develop Barclays Center and Atlantic Yards, Mr. Ratner walked away from the project. He sold his stake in Barclays to Mr. Prokhorov for more than $500 million and transferred ownership of Atlantic Yards to a business controlled by the Chinese government for $208 million.

    In a little noticed twist, most EB-5 money appears to end up in New York City. No wonder Chuck Schumer loves it!  Recent data, cited by David North of the Center for Immigration Studies here and here, suggests that about 56% of EB-5 funds—more than $10 billion—went to the city, mainly Manhattan. Mr. North drilled down into a study by two New York University scholars, Jeanne Calderon and Gary Friedland, who painstakingly compiled data from 52 large EB-5 projects nationwide.

    Mr. North’s conclusion? The Obama administration is hiding a “huge tilt” of EB-5 funds to New York. The “Obama administration,” writes Mr. North, “…has refused to produce statistics on the distribution of EB-5 moneys geographically…. Whether the administration did this deliberately or not, the result has been to mask the enormous tilt of these funds—originally designed to serve depressed areas—to prosperous areas such as Park Avenue and Wall Street.”

    All this is perfectly legal, bringing us back to the question of our lesser angels, to the dilemma of corruption as ethical misconduct, not law-breaking. Some swamps are harder to drain—or even to map—than others. But over at ecosystem EB-5, the solutions seem pretty easy for a new president pledged to combat corruption. The system should be tightened to get rid of the grift. Investments should be directed toward towards truly needy areas in the United States. Mr. Trump should order his agencies to ensure full transparency on EB-5 statistics. And both the president-elect and his son-in-law should set an example of high ethics by getting out of the EB-5 business.

    This post originally appeared on Judicial Watch. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch.


    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