No announcement yet.

Article: New Standard for EB-5 Regional Center Terminations? By Joseph Barnett, Esq.


  • Article: New Standard for EB-5 Regional Center Terminations? By Joseph Barnett, Esq.

    New Standard for EB-5 Regional Center Terminations?


    The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Administrative Appeals Office has released a non-precedent decision regarding the Regional Center designation of South Dakota Regional Center. See Matter of S-D-R-C-, ID# 13768 (AAO Mar. 15, 2017). While a final decision was not issued, the AAO remanded the case to USCIS to “reconsider [the] decision and balance all the evidence of the positive and negative factors” to determine whether termination is warranted. This is an important development for the EB-5 industry, as the AAO appears to have created a new standard by which USCIS is to determine whether a Regional Center should be terminated.

    The applicable regulation regarding a Regional Center termination states that “USCIS will issue a notice of intent to terminate the participation of a regional center in the pilot program if a regional center fails to submit the required information or upon a determination that the regional center no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6). USCIS certified the case to the AAO to determine whether a Regional Center may be terminated, notwithstanding evidence of promoting of economic growth and the filing of annual Form I-924A updates to USCIS.

    In particular, USCIS asked the AAO for clarification on various “bad acts within the EB-5 program” may subject a Regional Center to termination. The AAO looked to regulatory history and determined that USCIS (through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)) mandates general oversight of the EB-5 Program’s integrity, including the requirement of a Regional Center to serve the purpose of the EB-5 Program. The AAO reasonably concluded that promotion of economic activity or economic growth is no longer sufficient to maintain Regional Center designation.

    “[C]ommon sense dictates that DHS cannot be compelled to maintain a malfeasant entity in the EB-5 program indefinitely and regardless of how egregious its acts may be. It would be absurd to suggest, for example, that USCIS could not terminate a regional center’s designation due to clear evidence of widespread criminal activity.”

    Accordingly, the AAO ruled that USCIS is to:

    “[B]alance all the equities on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a regional center is continuing to promote economic growth. Where both positive and negative indications of the promotion of economic growth exist, we look at all relevant documentation to reach a conclusion regarding whether, on balance, the regional center is continuing to promote economic growth.”

    Positive factors include:

    • Job creation
    • Capital investment
    • Positive economic impact
    • Prompt corrective action after learning of impropriety

    Negative factors include:

    • Mismanagement, theft, or fraud by the Regional Center or related entities
    • Diversion of investors’ funds from job creation activities
    • Lack of proper oversight or a failure of due diligence on the part of a Regional Center over related NCEs and JCEs
    • Criminal activity by the Regional Center or related entities
    • Negligent or reckless actions by the Regional Center or related entities (including turning a blind eye to illegal or fraudulent activities)
    • Failure to comply with U.S. securities laws and regulations

    Additionally, the AAO ruled that a Regional Center cannot immunize or absolve itself of responsibility for a third party company’s wrongdoing as management of the Regional Center through contract, concluding that the “implications of such a framework are plainly inconsistent with proper USCIS oversight of the EB-5 program.”

    Moreover, the AAO found that the issues of diverted funds are not exclusive to adjudications of EB-5 investors’ Form I-526 and Form I-829 petitions. Instead, the actions related NCEs and JCEs are relevant to the examination of the Regional Center’s continued promotion of economic growth.

    The new balancing test created by the AAO provides some additional arguments that Regional Centers may use in any pending or future termination action. With increased immigration enforcement and compliance occurring at all levels of DHS and the increasing number of designated Regional Centers to 880, as of March 6, 2017, there may be an increase of Notices of Intent to Terminate (“NOIT”) issued by USCIS. It is critical that Regional Centers hire experienced EB-5 immigration counsel to effectively respond to USCIS.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group. Copyright © 2017 Wolfsdorf Connect - All Rights Reserved.

    About The Author

    Joseph Barnett Joseph Barnett is an Associate Attorney at Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP and a member of the firm’s EB-5 and business immigration practices. He is licensed as an attorney in Illinois and Wisconsin and practices exclusively in immigration and nationality law. Mr. Barnett represents immigrant investors seeking permanent residency in the United States through USCIS-designated Regional Centers and investment in their own businesses. Mr. Barnett also assists developers with the establishment of complex corporate and financing structures for EB-5 capital. He works with economists, securities lawyers, business plan writers, and other professionals to prepare Regional Center applications, amendments, and project “exemplar” approvals.

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

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      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 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      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
      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
      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.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      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).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM