Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Soothsayings on Changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investment Program By Angelo A. Paparelli

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Soothsayings on Changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investment Program By Angelo A. Paparelli

    Soothsayings on Changes to the EB-5 Immigrant Investment Program

    by


    The talk of the nation – at least that segment interested in U.S. green card benefits available to foreign investors – is about the welcome or feared changes likely to occur in the EB-5 employment-creation immigration investor visa program. Scuttlebutt and divination have yielded a wide range of ever more restrictive, complex and burdensome changes that are foreseeable for this year.

    This article will add to this mix a few of the author’s soothsayings, derived from attendance at conferences, discussions with knowledgeable insiders, and a review of the plethora of differing bills and drafts emanating from both houses of Congress (or their respective staffers). Reader beware, however; some, none, but not likely all, of the predictioans below may happen. Nonetheless, preparedness for the unknown future is probably better than obliviously passing time, doing nothing and learning that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

    Continuation of the Regional Center program. Despite the oft-stated gripe that the EB-5 program allows foreign citizens to buy a U.S. passport, and subject to the connivery of malefactors, Congress will enact and President Trump will sign an appropriation bill or continuing resolution to extend the Regional Center program beyond its current sunset date (April 28, 2017). Sometime thereafter, broad reforms of the EB-5 program (predicted below) are likely to become law.

    No future for USCIS’s draft rules. USCIS’s January, 2017 proposals for new regulations, which among others would have significantly increased the minimum amount of investment, will never be promulgated in final form without substantial revisions.

    Extended longevity for the Regional Center program. Rather than the fits-and-starts renewals of the past few years, Regional Center investments will be given at least a five-year lease on life.

    Cough up more dough. EB-5 investors will no longer qualify with at least a $500,000 investment. Expect that investments minimums will increase to at least $800,000 or a $1.2 million.

    Enhanced transparency and more timely reports of material changes. Expect Congress to insist that Regional Centers, New Commercial Enterprises, Job Creating Entities, related parties, and EB-5 investors must disclose far more detailed data and documents than heretofore required. How USCIS will manage the filings and place them online (as Congress will likely require) remain to be seen.

    Submission and approval of exemplar business plans before I-526 petitions can be filed. As a practical matter, it makes sense to require that project-related documents and Regional Center designation or amendment requests be given a deferential green light before USCIS adjudicates individual investor petitions; but this exacerbates the immigrant visa quota backlog.

    Due diligence will become more than merely de rigueur. Individual non-investor participants will be required routinely to certify that — after internal and external due diligence reviews – entity-related filings fully comply with state and federal securities laws and all other applicable laws and rules. Anticipate also that regional centers and all other project participants (including their lawyers, agents or individuals in active concert with them) must describe policies and procedures that ensure law compliance.

    Audits and site visits will proliferate. Entity stakeholders should expect that their activities and records will face onsite or remote scrutiny for law and program compliance at least once every three years.

    No hidden payments. Expect that never again will the previously prevalent practice of burying or hiding fees paid to third parties, including migration agents, be countenanced.

    Well capitalized players only. Congress will assuredly gouge out ever-higher filing fees, including mandatory deposits into an enforcement-oriented integrity fund and more exorbitant petition filing fees). It will also provide for substantial monetary fines for EB-5 program violations and other legal transgressions – which may be paid only from non-EB-5 money. The heyday of thinly capitalized Regional Centers is over.

    No foreign governments or nationals allowed. Foreign governments, sovereign funds or state-owned enterprises will be allowed, directly or indirectly, to provide capital or be involved with a Regional Center, a New Commercial Enterprise, or a Job Creating Entity. Only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents will be permitted to own these entities.

    The U.S. securities laws will apply extraterritorially. Congress will at last put to rest the feeble claims that EB-5 investments are not securities or that securities jurisdiction ends at the U.S. border. It will also extend the SEC’s lasso to foreign migration agents and promoters.

    With expensive provisos, good-faith but swindled investors can keep their priority dates. Priority-date preservation must occur within a short window of time but only if cheated investors ante up another capital contribution of at least the minimum required investment. Money will talk but those with no more investment money will walk (or otherwise leave the U.S.), notwithstanding that hoodwinked investors put up their life savings to immigration under the EB-5 visa category.

    Set-aside TEA preferences will be established. Minimum investment amounts and more generous visa-number allotments (with rollover of unused visas) will go to EB-5 investors contributing capital to projects in rural or high-poverty urban areas, or to infrastructure or manufacturing projects. (The name of this movie is The Return of the Pork-Barrel Earmarks.)

    Fund administrators will proliferate. Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” methodology will come to the EB-5 program. Private plan and yacht builders beware: Money will not move unless independent administrators certify that EB-5 funds will go solely to their lawfully required destinations. Fund administrators will also be required and authorized to review all deal docs of the NCEs and JCEs and to provide timely reports to USCIS, the SEC, and EB-5 investors of any untoward or otherwise materially different activities than outlined in signed documents or governmental filings.

    New regulations, studies and reports will regularly be published. Inspectors-general and GAO reports on every nook, cranny and aspect of the EB-5 program will be publicly released. In addition, the Commerce Department will issue regulations outlining job creation methodologies and USCIS alone will determine eligibility for TEA classification.

    Some good news. Minors will receive limited age-out protection; concurrent submission of I-526 petitions and I-485 adjustment of status applications will be allowed as now occurs in other employment-based immigrant visa categories; USCIS must reduce processing times; and investors who have waited two years after filing I-526 petitions that are ultimately approved, and who then are either admitted as immigrants or adjusted to lawful permanent resident status will go straight to green card status without conditions.

    * * *

    As scriptures report, prophets often bring unwelcome news. As the last election proved, prognosticators – no matter that their conjectures may be based on metrics or gut instincts – can be wrong. Whether or not these predictions manifest someday, please be nice to me. Keep in mind the words of Yusuf Islam (Steven Demetre Georgiou, but commonly known by the stage name Cat Stevens) , in his unforgettable song, quoted here, clearly out of context:

    I was once like you are now, and I know that it’s not easy

    To be calm when you’ve found something going on

    But take your time, think a lot

    Why, think of everything you’ve got

    For you will still be here tomorrow

    But your dreams may not . . .

    Look at me, I am old, but I’m happy

    This post originally appeared on February 20, 2017 Nation of Immigrators


    About The Author

    Angelo A. Paparelli Angelo A. Paparelli is a partner in the Business Immigration Practice Group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. A Certified Immigration Law Specialist (CA), he is known among clients and peers for providing creative solutions to complex immigration law problems, especially those involving mergers and acquisitions. He also serves as an expert witness and consultant on immigration issues arising in litigation. Mr. Paparelli’s immigration practice areas include compliance audits; counsel and due diligence in mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring; immigration-related corporate policy formulation; permanent residence and citizenship; visas for executives, managers, scientists, scholars, investigators, professionals, students and visitors; PERM labor certifications; employment-based immigrant visa petitions; global visas and consular practice; legislative advocacy and immigration messaging; federal court litigation under the Administrative Procedures Act; waivers, white-collar immigration and asylum.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
      ImmigrationDaily

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      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.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      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
      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
    Working...
    X