No announcement yet.

Article: The Second Blush: An EB-5 Securities Law Case to Watch By Matt Gordon


  • Article: The Second Blush: An EB-5 Securities Law Case to Watch By Matt Gordon

    The Second Blush: An EB-5 Securities Law Case to Watch


    It wasn’t so long ago that any action by the SEC related to the EB-5 field was worth an article just for the sheer novelty of the event. Unfortunately, those days are long gone as enforcement actions for purported garden variety fraud or broker-dealer violations now occur with regularity. Securities and Exchange Commission v Hui Feng et al. (case number 2:15 -cv-09) should have fallen into the unnoteworthy bucket if not for the defense being mounted by immigration attorney Hui Feng’s counsel. As described in the May 9th article published by Law360, Mr. Feng apparently does not dispute that he received commissions with respect to the EB-5 based transactions that took place, what he disputes is whether the investments should be treated as securities under the Securities Act of 1934.

    At first blush, it seems a foolish argument. The Securities Act applies to “investment contracts” by its own terms. In the precedent setting case Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), the Supreme Court defined an “Investment Contract” in which there is the “investment of money from an expectation of profits arising from a common enterprise depending solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party.” It seems that all EB-5 investments (at least in Regional Centers) would be securities for the purposes of the Securities Act given that under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), all capital must be made in ‘at-risk’ investments for the purpose of generating a ‘return’ (aka profit), as Regional Center based investments are always pooled investment vehicles where the investors have no role, hence relying solely on the efforts of a promoter. See USCIS Policy Memo PM-602-0083 at Pg 5.

    At second blush, maybe there is something to the counter argument that EB-5 investments are not securities. The Law360 article describes an argument made by Mr. Feng’s attorney that there was no expectation of profit as the ‘return’ (which was undoubtedly capped) was in all cases going to be less than the fees and costs associated with the investment. In essence, the argument is that the EB-5 investors’ expectations was that of a guaranteed loss, not a ‘profit’ as required under the Howie Test.

    Another possible argument (not raised in the case, but which I’m sure they will be happy to borrow) relates to the word ‘solely’ in the Howie Test. EB-5 investments cannot be completely passive investments. In 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j), all I-526 petitions are required “To show that the petitioner is or will be engaged in the management of the new commercial enterprise, either through the exercise of day-to-day managerial control or through policy formulation, as opposed to maintaining a purely passive role in regard to the investment…” It seems almost definitional that if an EB-5 investor cannot be ‘purely passive’ than that the investment into which the investor invested cannot be based ‘solely on the efforts of a or promoter or third party”.

    I won’t speculate on which way the court will rule, the important point is that this issue and ruling may affect far more than Mr. Feng as at least one large Regional Centers is under active investigation for federal securities law violations. Moreover, generally accepted ‘integrity’ language in draft EB-5 bills (that never seem to get their day in the sun) would explicitly define Regional Center based investments as securities under the Federal Securities laws. If Mr. Feng were to win, it could provide added impetus for Congress to finally act on long awaited and longer needed EB-5 reforms. This is a case to watch.

    About The Author

    Matt Gordon Matt Gordon's career spans business operations, finance and law. Mr. Gordon is a noted expert in the EB-5 field and is an authority on structuring EB-5 investments. He is the editor of the EB-5 Book, the legal treatise on the EB-5 program and a frequent lecturer to immigration attorneys. Mr. Gordon has participated in policy events, including those hosted by the White House and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

    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