Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: USCIS Policy for EB-5 Redeployment and "At-Risk" Issues Discussed at IIUSA Conference By Ronald R. Fieldstone

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: USCIS Policy for EB-5 Redeployment and "At-Risk" Issues Discussed at IIUSA Conference By Ronald R. Fieldstone

    USCIS Policy for EB-5 Redeployment and "At-Risk" Issues Discussed at IIUSA Conference

    by


    At the October 2016 IIUSA Conference, I was on a distinguished panel of practitioners discussing the topic of redeployment issues. The panel focused on the current USCIS Guidelines that sets forth the concept of “at risk,” which is pursuant to the draft policy statement issued on August 10, 2015 and was discussed at both the August 13, 2015 and July 28, 2016 USCIS Stakeholder’s meetings.

    The panel first discussed the “at risk” issues and comments, including the following:

    1. USCIS has indicated that a loan can be repaid after the jobs have been created providing the funds remain “at risk.”
    2. It was clear that the “at risk” definition has not been defined by USCIS, who indicated during the July 28 Stakeholder’s call that it would eventually issue guidelines in its upcoming manuals.
    3. Certain practitioners have taken the position that once the jobs have been created the EB-5 funds do not need to be retained “at risk,” but that position at this time would be contrary to USCIS policy guidelines. USCIS has stated that the “at risk” requirement applies all the way through the I-829 process.
    4. USCIS has indicated that in its opinion money sitting in escrow, that is invested in a certificate of deposit, money fund accounts in U.S. government T-bills would not qualify as an “at risk” since there is really no risk of loss. Generally, pursuant to USCIS guidelines there must be a risk of gain and loss in the investment in order to qualify and meet the “at risk” requirements.
    5. It is noteworthy that at any point in time USCIS can issue its policy memorandum and establish to the “at risk” guidelines so that any offering documents and corporate documents should reflect the fact that there is an “at risk” requirement that has yet to be determined, but will otherwise be established at some point in time in the future. Therefore, the manager/general partner must have the right to re-invest proceeds that are redeployed in accordance the “at risk” requirement that have yet to be determined.

    The next item discussed was the securities and corporate issues related to redeployment:

    1. The primary corporate issue is providing the manager/general partner proper authority in the offering documents in the applicable operating/limited partnership agreement to redeploy funds in accordance with USCIS guidelines. It is our practice to not only provide that provision, but to list the types of investments that would be considered, such as marketable securities, marketable bonds, REIT shares.
    2. To the extent that funds are being managed in accordance with a portfolio type situation, the party managing the funds must be a registered investment advisor to comply with the securities law rules and regulations.
    3. To the extent that funds are redeployed in another real estate project, the issue here is whether that is a new securities offering and how to deal with same in the initial securities offering. Where there is a phase project it is much easier to define the redeployment in continuing phases of the project since all of the project information would have been disclosed in the offering documents. The best example would be a phase condominium project whereby funds repaid on a loan on one phase could be redeployed on similar terms and conditions on another phase. To the extent that the investment is not in the same project, but with the same developer, it is advisable to at least describe the nature of the investment and the parameters related to the investment such as limitations on loan to cost or loan to value and the amount of the developer equity that would be deployed. Again, the more information provided in the PPM, the less concerns there are that a new securities offering or investor consent would be required.
    4. To the extent that the funds are redeployed in a totally separate transaction involving real estate, then it is advisable to have an information statement sent to investors and have their approval in accordance with the provisions of the operating/limited partnership agreement. Usually a majority consent of investors would be required.
    5. In addition to the above-referenced complications, compliance with the Investment Company Act of 1940 needs to be addressed. This deals with the concept of trading in securities, which the SEC has indicated is applicable to EB-5 offerings. The common exemption is the so-called C(1) exemption where there are 100 or less investors. That would apply to the redeployment of funds in a securities portfolio fund. However, if there are more than 100 investors, then the original offering exemption would have probably been the C(5) exemption which is based upon mortgage backed collateral (which has been interpreted to include a first lien mezzanine loan). In connection, where there are more than 100 investors and the money is redeployed in a securities fund, the SEC has taken the position that there is a flow through rule that would apply, this requiring another exemption or registration of the 1940 Act. There is a liquidation concept whereby funds would be invested in a short-term manner based upon liquidating the proceeds until an I-829 adjudication is finalized as to each applicable investor. There are SEC “no action letters” dealing with this issue, and this potential exemption will need a thorough review on a case by case basis.
    6. In addition to immigration and securities/corporate issues, the other key issue is marketing.
      1. It is noteworthy that when funds are redeployed there are four (4) different parties that generally would share in the income earned. First would be the investor; next the agent; then the manager/general partner and the regional center. Each of the parties except the investor may be providing continuous services that otherwise requires some continuous compensation. From a marketing point of view, the key issues are what amount of the income is allocated to the investor and what amount to the agents. This is now a new negotiation issue with the agents, since once the loan is repaid (or with respect to a certain time period), the agent may or may not share in the income to the same degree. Another factor to be considered is the concept with a risk/return analysis. The investor makes one (1) “at risk” investment initially for which he or she receives a fairly nominal return. If the funds are redeployed in another higher risk transaction such as a real estate loan, then the question becomes whether the investor is being rewarded for taking a second risk. If the funds are invested in a securities portfolio, it would be presumed that the risk factor is less. In this regard, it would be interesting to analyze how the income would be distributed and to what extent income can earn a rate comparable to EB-5 loan rate while limiting the risk factor and providing for liquidity over time since the I 829 approval process is not fluid, but is totally dependent upon the timing of each investor’s status. This is especially true if the investors are from countries other than China whereby retrogression will not apply and therefore those investors would receive I-829 adjudication much faster than a Chinese investor based upon the current status of the visa backlog. To the extent funds are invested in securities and the potential for capital depreciation or capital appreciation, it would seem logical that if the investor is subject to the depreciation of the capital account, then the investor should receive all of the appreciation with respect to same.
      2. In conclusion, the whole concept of redeployment is relatively new and will be evolving over time as parties become more familiar with the related alternatives.


    About The Author

    Ronald R. Fieldstone is a partner in the Miami office of Arnstein & Lehr LLP, specializing in corporate/securities and taxation law. Mr. Fieldstone has published numerous articles and has been a lecturer in the fields of real estate, corporate/securities, tax law, and franchise law for the past 40 years. He currently practices primarily in the areas of corporate/securities and taxation law. He graduated from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in 1971 (magna cum laude) and received joint MBA/JD degrees from Wharton School and University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1974. Since 2009, Mr. Fieldstone has actively been involved in serving as corporate/securities counsel for multifaceted industries involving EB-5 immigrant visa investor offerings. He represents both developers and regional centers in EB-5 matters, currently in excess of 225 EB-5 projects with a combined capital raise of nearly $6 billion.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      Even though no measures against the EB-5 program have as yet been announced by the incoming Trump administration, the incoming Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, one of the new president's closest and most influential immigration advisers, has a record of bitter hostility to all forms of legal employment or business related immigration.

      In addition, his record of fierce opposition to civil rights for African-Americans and other minority US citizens is so controversial that over 1,100 law school professors, from law schools in every state in the union (except Alaska, which does not have a law school) have signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the committee to reject Sessions' nomination.
      See my January 3 ilw.com post:

      http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9619-...G-Roger-Algase

      If Sessions is confirmed, as appears likely, given the wide ranging investigative and other powers that the Attorney General has over immigration, there could be some rough days ahead for all forms of employment/business-based legal immigration in America as we know it, including but not limited to EB-5.

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 01-05-2017, 06:14 AM.
    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