Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Long Live Direct EB-5 By Matt Gordon

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Long Live Direct EB-5 By Matt Gordon

    Long Live Direct EB-5

    by


    © 2018 Matt Gordon

    As of 12:01am on January 20th, the EB-5 Regional Center program ceased to be in existence. It is important to note that the non-Regional Center or Direct EB-5 program is completely unaffected. This is because the Regional Center program (initially a pilot program for the vast majority of its existence) was authorized in the Immigration Act of 1993, which put a three-year sunset on the program. The last full reauthorization of the Regional Center program was several years ago. Since then, the RC program has become a bit of a political football, with Congress kicking the can down the road with a series of short term reauthorizations that have become tied to the overall budget process as ‘continuing resolutions’. That process broke down Friday night without a new budget, new interim measure or anything else productive, thus leading to the shutting down of the Federal Government and with it the Regional Center program.

    The overall EB-5 program, having come about via the Immigration Act of 1990 is unaffected by the budgetary political squabbles. If the impasse persists, it’s completely imaginable that direct (non-RC) based petitions might see a significant reduction in processing time as the EB-5 unit in USCIS is client (fee) funded, and therefore also not affected by the federal budget. With the vast majority of petitions from the RC program, there are now a significant amount of (human) resources available for processing direct petitions.

    This is actually not the first time the Regional Center program took a legislative pause. All other times Congress reactivated it (retroactively), so no harm was done to the otherwise innocent petitioners. This most recent shutdown seems on the verge of ending, albeit until the next stopgap ends in February. It does being into the focus of the ultimate ‘what if’ question about the Regional Center program. What if it weren’t reauthorized? What would happen to all the people waiting for either the I-526 petitions or I-829 petitions to be adjudicated.

    The lack of authorizing legislation for the Regional Center program seems that it would be fatal to each. A regional center afford a petitioner the ability to count both indirect and induced labor creation in the project into which he or she has made an investment. Without the Regional Center program, the counting of all but directly created labor is illegal. Its safe to estimate that no Regional Center based projects premised sufficient labor creation in the direct category to cover their investors (perhaps with the exception of a lucky few). Given the detailed nature of the labor calculations in I-526 submissions, the USCIS adjudicating officers would easily see that the plan did not, of its own terms, create a sufficient number of jobs to support approval.

    The I-829 context is very similar. At that juncture, USCIS would not have the legal authorization to allow an investor to prove the job creation in his or her project based on the project’s compliance with its business plan as the plan’s job creation was premised on the econometrically calculated indirect and induced job creation. So again, the petition must fail.

    This is of course a horrible outcome for the Petitioners and would create a huge outcry, but it is the conclusion of the legislative process that allowed for this very possibility. Congress could have put in savings language in 1993 to allow USICS to continue processing petitions once the overall process had started, but they did not.

    It also gives rise to a flaw of the overall investment scheme involving regional centers. Every Regional Center based investment carries with it the ‘Legislative Risk’ that Congress will fail to reauthorize the program. The duration of an EB-5 petitioner’s immigration process was always greater than three years, given the processing times for the I-526 and I-829 petitions. These days, it’s probably closer to six. So even if Congress reauthorizes the program for a five-year period (as lobbied for by IIUSA and others), every single investor will face a moment when the entire legislative foundation underpinning their immigration hopes and dreams requires both Houses of the US Congress and the assent of the President in order to stay the course. That seems to be a rather significant risk, especially given how contentious all immigration related legislation is and is likely to remain for some time.

    In contrast, the original (direct) EB-5 program is free of this type of risk. Investors in direct projects version of legislative risk is where both Houses of Congress and the President all decide to kill the program. In all things, and especially legislation, action is a much less likely outcome than inaction, which is almost always a sure thing. So in this regard, direct EB-5 investors and rest easier and we can expect the Direct EB-5 program to enjoy a long life.


    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.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily
      The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
      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
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      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
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X