Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Korean Demand for EB-5 Surges – Will Korea be the Next Country to Face Retrogression and Have a Waiting Line? By Lauren Seo and Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Korean Demand for EB-5 Surges – Will Korea be the Next Country to Face Retrogression and Have a Waiting Line? By Lauren Seo and Bernard P. Wolfsdorf, Esq.

    Korean Demand for EB-5 Surges – Will Korea be the Next Country to Face Retrogression and Have a Waiting Line?

    by


    The EB-5 program has seen a surge of applicants in the last 5 years, with the vast majority from China. In Second place is Vietnam that will now reach its annual quota limit next month. But right behind is Korea, one of the early leaders in EB-5. The Korean market is both knowledgeable and supplicated in its understanding of the benefits of this investor program. Dwarfed by the Chinese market of the last 5 years, the Korean EB-5 market has recently experienced a “reawakening” primarily because its economy has grown. Uncertainty created by numerous short extensions has only added to this increased demand.  As a result, the recent surge creates the likelihood of a Korean Final Action Date, or cut-off date.

    Changes to the EB-5 program in the next few months are likely, either because of new legislation or the implementation of new regulations first proposed in January 2017.  Either way, it is likely to be more expensive to apply for EB-5 and more difficult to invest in top tier real estate projects as restrictions on Targeted Employment Areas become more likely.

    Also, U.S. immigration policy has shifted towards restrictionist policies, making other visa options even more difficult.  EB-5 applications continue to enjoy a relatively high approval rate.  In fiscal year 2017, USCIS approved over 92% of all I-526 petitions and 98% of all I-829 petitions—much higher than many other categories.

    Of the 140,000 employment-based visas that are authorized each fiscal year, 7.1%, or 9,940 are allocated to the EB-5 program.  In addition, no more than 7% of all visas may be issued to nationals of a single foreign state.  If demand from one country exceeds its per-country quota, a backlog will be created, delaying issuance of the green card. While no-one likes to be stuck in waiting lines, this can have serious consequences for applicants with older children, who may age-out and not be eligible to immigrate with their parents.

    Therefore, it has become critical to plan ahead and understand the rules regarding the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA)

    If the EB-5 conditional immigrant visa process is not completed prior to the investor’s children turning 21 years of age, there is a chance these children will “age-out” and not be ineligible for a green card. The CSPA permits certain derivatives to retain the classification of “child,” even after reaching age 21 years, but it does not account for all the time it can take for a visa to become available, if there are backlogs or a waiting line, thereby limiting its effectiveness.

    Often, demand for EB-5 visas grows when a country’s economy grows and when political instability increases. Of course, one of the biggest “drivers” is the opportunity to educate one’s children at top U.S. universities The Korean economy has been experiencing significant growth.  As a result, the demand for EB-5 visas in Korea is surging.

    In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 (from October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017), DOS issued 118 immigrant visas to EB-5 investors and their derivative beneficiaries, up from just 30 the year before. This massive 293% growth rate is not an accident.  Equally concerning is that Korea used 58 visas in December 2017 alone, the latest data we have available.  If Korea uses 58 EB-5 visas per month, that volume is sufficient to use up its entire annual quota.  In addition, there are 278 Korean applicants currently waiting for their final interviews—approximately 40% of the annual quota.  These two factors would result in Korean EB-5 category being oversubscribed and subject to a backlog. Since it can take two years from filing to interview, this massive surge indicates that we most likely have a significant issue.

    On average, it takes about two years from filing before the actual number of visas used is counted by the Department of State. Therefore, the numbers we can see presently merely represent the “tip of an iceberg”. The most recent data available shows Koreans filed 156 I-526 petitions in Fiscal Year 2016.  However, based on the typical family size of EB-5 applicants, each I-526 petition results in approximately 2.5 visas used, meaning we can expect these petitions to use 390 visas, or 55% of the per country limit in Fiscal Year 2018.However if the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 is compared to the first quarter of fiscal year 2018, we see a surge of almost 300%. This surge, if consistent means we will hit the annual quotas for Korea either in later FY 2019, or early FY 2020.

    The imposition of a waiting line for Koreans would have serious consequences, although it will not be as bad as the Chinese waiting line, which is currently at almost 5 years but, which may get to be twice as long.

    When established, the Korean Final Action Date will initially be the same as the Chinese Final Action Date but when October 1, is reached it will “recover” and be better than the Chinese Final Action Date, which is presently lingering in July 2014.  When a country uses up its entire quota of visas, any remaining visas not used by other countries can be allocated to applicants from the backlogged country.  However, these visas are allocated based on the applicants’ priority dates or I-526 filing date.  Because there are so many backlogged Chinese applicants with 2014 and 2015 priority dates, any Korean applicants who files now will have thousands of Chinese applicants ahead of them.  Essentially, Koreans will be able to use their 696 allocated each year, and then Korean applicants will be stuck behind Chinese applicants with earlier priority dates.

    If there were any lessons from the massive Chinese EB-5 backlog, it is this – if you want to apply for EB-5, don’t delay and file as soon as possible, not only to avoid a possible increase in the minimum investment amount, but also to avoid being stuck in a waiting line. This is particularly important for applicants with children about to turn 21 years old.  Given the filing volume and visa usage, a 20-year-old child may already not be safe, and as this gets worse, possibly even a 19-year-old could age out.  DOS has been generous in trying to warn investors but even with the Vietnamese, initially it was expected they would reach their quotas until later 2018, then it was April 2018, and now we are expecting to see a Vietnamese Final Action Date in next month in March 2018. Korean applicants who wait to file may find themselves stuck in a waiting line by the time their I-526 is approved two years after filing. That may be an extra year, or it may be an extra two years.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Tahmina Watson Bernard Wolfsdorf is a recent past President of AILA and Managing Partner of the top-rated Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP with offices in Los Angeles and New York. With 21 lawyers and 60 professionals, the firm is known worldwide for its excellence in providing value and top-quality global immigration representation. Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP has been described by Chambers USA as "a force to be reckoned with."

      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