No announcement yet.

Article: It’s All About Numbers By H. RONALD KLASKO


  • Article: It’s All About Numbers By H. RONALD KLASKO

    It’s All About Numbers


    This is not business as usual. EB-5, at least as we have known it, has reached a pivotal point. Action taken or not taken in the next couple of months will likely presage the future of the program.

    A sea change occurred about a month ago when the Department of Homeland Security Ombudsman’s Office issued a report confirming that the quota waiting list for a Chinese investor who invests today in the EB-5 program is likely to be in excess of 10 years. Although word had been getting out in China that previous estimates of 3 or 4 years may be unrealistically optimistic, an official document with the imprimatur of the U.S. Government confirming a decade-plus wait (which will only increase absent action taken to address the issue) foretells a precarious future for the Chinese EB-5 market.

    Yes, the EB-5 program could survive if regional centers and developers focus on India, Vietnam, Dubai, Brazil and other alternative markets. However, the magnitude of EB-5 capital raises – – and the magnitude of job creation produced by those capital raises – – would be on a vastly smaller scale. The ability of EB‑5 projects presently on the market to complete large capital raises, on which the project’s success is dependent, would almost certainly be compromised.

    Other than doom and gloom, what is the purpose of this blog? It is a call to arms for everyone interested in or involved in advocacy for the future of EB-5. If you care about this issue, tomorrow may be too late.

    Before I list the legislative options for addressing the numbers issue, I think it is important to mention a number of different public policy reasons why the waiting list issue must be addressed in any legislation.

    Congress and USCIS have been clear that the EB-5 program is not intended to be a passive investment program but rather a program in which the investor is required to be “engaged in the management.” How is an investor to be engaged in the management of an investment enterprise when the investor will not even be able to come to the U.S. for a period in excess of 10 years – – long after most projects that are receiving the EB-5 money and creating the jobs have been completed? This is a problem for regional center EB-5 investors; it is a virtual impossibility for direct EB-5 investors.

    Furthermore, USCIS has determined that the period during which the investment must be sustained at risk is two years following admission as a conditional resident. For Chinese investors, this means that the investment must be sustained – – if the Ombudsman is correct – – in excess of 12 years. Such an extended investment period creates greater opportunities for misfeasance or malfeasance that could result in more failed or fraudulent projects. This would obviously be counterproductive to Congress’ efforts to protect the program against such negative consequences through the enactment of integrity and transparency provisions.

    Finally, with a waiting list of 10-plus years, virtually every project will be long completed, and every loan long paid off, before the investor has completed the required sustainment period. This means that, in virtually every case, the investor’s funds would have to be redeployed to another project. From a public policy perspective and an investor protection perspective, this is not a good result. We want investors to perform due diligence before making investments, but investors have no ability to perform due diligence on an unknown project into which their money will ultimately be redeployed.

    For these reasons and others, the time has come to re-focus our advocacy priorities. In fact, I suggest that significantly increasing availability of immigrant visa numbers for EB‑5 investors as part of a long-term extension of the regional center EB-5 program should be our highest legislative priority. I suggest that we should be prepared to be flexible on virtually all other issues in order to attain this goal. Although I have no difficulty providing a laundry list of provisions that I do not like in pending EB-5 bills, or providing a wish list of provisions that I would like to see added, I believe that there are only two issues that could be considered program killers:

    • There can be no retroactivity of investment amounts or other substantive requirements to investors who have previously filed I-526 petitions; and
    • There can be no requirement of an approved exemplar petition before investors can invest in projects or file I-526 petitions.

    I am fully aware of the political difficulties in increasing numbers for any category of immigrants. I am also fully aware that, even if many other concerns are negotiated away, it is still a steep uphill climb. However, it is a climb that we must pursue because the problem will not solve itself. If legislation passes to extend the EB-5 program, and does not include numbers relief, there is no realistic likelihood that the issue will again be addressed in the near future. Quite simply, it is likely now or not for a very long time.

    There are many possible ways to address this issue. The following is a list in rough order of feasibility:

    1. Legislative language to make clear that the 10,000 EB-5 numbers refers to 10,000 investors and not family members. This is probably the most feasible alternative since it is already contained in the bill advanced by Senator Cornyn. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that a number of lawyers – – including myself – – believe that both the present legislative language and the legislative history can and should be interpreted to provide for 10,000 investors.

      Another way of accomplishing the same result is a technical amendment to the existing language of Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that 10,000 refers to investors.

    1. Reducing or eliminating the diversity visa lottery. Approximately 50,000 immigrant visas per year are awarded on a lottery basis to people with no particular skills or family relationships based on geographic diversity. Although I am fully aware that this program has prominent proponents, if we conclude that Congress does not have the appetite for adding additional immigrants, this may be the best solution. The diversity immigrant numbers could be allocated to categories with the longest backlogs, including family categories, Indian high tech and national interest EB-2s and, of course, Chinese EB-5s. It is not a question of whether it is a good idea to eliminate the lottery. It is a question of whether the lottery is more important than people performing work in the national interest of the United States, immigrants with high tech skills needed by U.S. employers, family reunification and job-creating investors.
    2. Recapturing unused employment-based immigrant numbers. There are over 100,000 employment-based immigrant numbers from past years that went unused. Some or all of these numbers could be allocated to the same categories mentioned above. The advantage of this solution is that it has been done twice before through acts of Congress.
    1. Providing a “special immigrant” category for investors who invest in projects deemed to be in the national interest. Various special immigrant categories, which are exempt from any immigrant quotas, already exist in the law. The most logical national interest category might be infrastructure investments. The idea of funding major infrastructure improvements in our country at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer shouldn’t be lightly discarded.

    If none of the above options is politically feasible, the fallback would be for Congress to create a new nonimmigrant visa category (the W visa) for foreign nationals with approved EB-5 petitions to come to the U.S. to “oversee” their approved investments for as much or as little time as they wish during the pendency of the immigrant visa quota wait. Presumably, this would not provide work authorization but would provide the ability for children to study in the U.S. This option also has the benefit of precedent. A special nonimmigrant visa category was previously created by Congress to allow spouses of permanent residents waiting for the family second preference quota to become current to enter the U.S. during the pendency of the quota wait.

    In the event that no legislative solution is possible – – a very unfortunate scenario indeed – – the only other option is litigation. There are at least two different legal arguments that can be advanced for the proposition that the existing law is being interpreted incorrectly. One legal argument is that the present Section 203(b)(5) should be read to provide for the immigration of 10,000 investors per year. The other would be an interpretation that Section 203(d), which applies to all immigrant categories, does not include dependent family members in the overall visa count. Even though I believe there is strong legal support for both arguments, the chances of success in any litigation must be considered, at best, highly speculative because of the deference that federal courts usually give to long-held administrative positions. However, even if the chances of success are only 15% to 20% (which I think is a conservative estimate), a 15% to 20% chance of striking gold with no risk of loss doesn’t sound too bad to me.

    But first…let’s focus on the legislative solution.

    The material contained in this article does not constitute direct legal advice and is for informational purposes only. An attorney-client relationship is not presumed or intended by receipt or review of this presentation. The information provided should never replace informed counsel when specific immigration-related guidance is needed.

    © 2017 Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP. All rights reserved. Information may not be reproduced, displayed, modified or distributed without the express prior written permission of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP. For permission, contact

    This post originally appeared on © 2017 Klasko Law. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Ronald Klasko H. Ronald Klasko (Ron) is widely recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country’s leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm has been chosen every year for the last ten years by the highly regarded Chambers Global 2015 as one of the top five immigration law firms in the United States; Ron himself is recognized annually as being in Tier One of immigration lawyers by Chambers Global and U.S. News and World Report. In addition, he has been included in the highly regarded Best Lawyers In America for two decades and has also been repeatedly selected for inclusion in Lawdragon’s/Human Resource Executive’s list of The Most Powerful Employment Attorneys Guide. Who’s Who Legal in Corporate Immigration named him as the most highly regarded immigration lawyer in the world.

    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


    • 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
      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
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      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