No announcement yet.

Article: 7 Important Changes in the New EB-5 Form I-526 By Robert Blanco and Bernard Wolfsdorf


  • Article: 7 Important Changes in the New EB-5 Form I-526 By Robert Blanco and Bernard Wolfsdorf

    7 Important Changes in the New EB-5 Form I-526


    USCIS officially released the new edition of Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, which must be used starting June 9, 2017. The new edition helps implement the USCIS focus on transparency and integrity in the EB-5 program. The form increases from 3 to 13 pages and substantially adds to the important information required by investors and regional centers.

    Here are 7 features to understand about the new Form I-526.

    1. 5 years of Employment History and 5 years of Physical Addresses: Although this information is disclosed on Form DS-260 or Form G-325A after I-526 approval, USCIS is requesting this information earlier in the process. Applicants should ensure that the information is consistent with that listed on prior visa applications and in the source of funds documentation.
    1. Type of Investment and required capital: Question 7 asks petitioners whether the investment falls in an “Upward Adjustment Area,” which is not currently defined by existing regulations. The new version forces petitioners to choose whether the New Commercial Enterprise (NCE) and Job Creating Enterprise (JCE), if applicable, are located in a rural area or a high unemployment area as qualification for a Targeted Employment Area.
    1. Income and Net Worth: Petitioners are now asked questions about the type of investment contributed to the NCE. Some have posited whether this information was meant to refer to an NCE attempting to qualify as a troubled business, however, the heading clearly requests “Your Investment and Your Income.” Petitioners are also asked for their total gross income, net income, and net worth both currently and at time of investment. For many petitioners, this information is unnecessary to determine the legitimate source of funds.
    1. Composition of Investment: Perhaps the most confusing portion of the new version requires the petitioner to identify the composition of investment. This question exacerbates USCIS’s confusing guidance regarding the definition of capital. Although most petitioners invest cash into a U.S. business account for the NCE (Part 2, Box 9), it may be in the form of “debt financing” (under current USCIS interpretation) (Box 12), or in the form of stock or equity purchases (Box 13). Furthermore, petitioners are given the option to list the value of property transferred from abroad, with no option for property transferred from the U.S. (Box 11). It is unclear how a petitioner in one of these scenarios should answer this question.
    1. Source of Investment Capital: The new form requires petitioners to specify the source of investment capital. Again, indebtedness is listed as an option despite the many public debates within the industry as to the true definition of this term. Petitioners are in the awkward position of answering this question under different interpretations.
    1. Information about the NCE: Petitioners must list all owners and their percentage of ownership in the NCE and whether they are applying for EB-5 benefits. However, this information is not static and will be outdated as each investor files a new I-526 petition for the project.
    1. Amount of Capital Derived from Non-EB-5 Investors: This question does not include capital a project may raise through debt or other financing options and therefore, does not provide accurate information. It also does not specify whether it is asking for capital derived by the NCE, JCE, or both.

    With this additional information, we hope that USCIS will be able to adjudicate I-526 petitions more expeditiously and that the information will help create more transparency in the program. This form represents one big step forward in reforming the program and is exactly the correct approach. Fix the problems and don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. This program has brought over $21 billion in new capital since Fiscal Year 2014 and hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Hopefully this is one giant step towards improving the program.

    However, the new information requirements are far more strenuous for both petitioners and regional centers. What consequences will there be if a petitioner answers a question incorrectly due to the confusing nature of certain questions? Investors, regional centers, and their attorneys must carefully review the information provided on the form as incorrect or inconsistent information could have serious consequences.

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

    About The Author

    Robert Blanco 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. As a member of the firm’s EB-5 team, Mr. Blanco prepares cases for individual investors and advises U.S. businesses on how to structure investment projects under the regulations of the EB-5 program. He also represents clients before the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (, 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.

    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