No announcement yet.

Article: USCIS Takes a Swing at EB-5 “Redeployment”… and Strikes Out By Joseph Barnett


  • Article: USCIS Takes a Swing at EB-5 “Redeployment”… and Strikes Out By Joseph Barnett

    USCIS Takes a Swing at EB-5 “Redeployment”… and Strikes Out


    On July 24, 2020 , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) missed a huge opportunity to clarify its poorly written guidance from three years earlier regarding “redeployment” of EB-5 investment capital to meet the “at risk” requirement.

    Strike 1:

    USCIS blatantly reversed it policy regarding the ability of a new commercial enterprise to “deploy the repaid capital into certain new issue municipal bonds,” despite three years of stakeholder reliance and possibly one of the safest investment options that could be provided to EB-5 investors once the job creation requirements have been satisfied.

    Strike 2:

    USCIS now requires the redeployment to “occur within the regional center’s geographic area, including any amendments to its geographic area approved before the further deployment” “to meet all applicable eligibility requirements within the framework of the initial bases of eligibility.” Yet, the redeployment does not need to be within a targeted employment area, another initial basis of eligibility.

    Foul Ball:

    Until now, the redeployment was to take place “within a commercially reasonable amount of time,” a vague term providing wide leeway for USCIS adjudicators to deny cases. USCIS notes now that “12 months to be a reasonable amount of time to further deploy capital for most types of commercial enterprises but will consider evidence showing that a longer period was reasonable for a specific type of commercial enterprise or into a specific commercial activity under the totality of the circumstances.” USCIS deserves a foul tip of the hat for this footnote.

    Strike Three:

    No new regulation should have retroactive application since it contravenes fundamental fairness and due process concerns. Yet, USCIS states that “[t]hese clarifications apply to all Form I-526 and I-829 petitions pending on or after [date of publication].” Another swing and a miss: USCIS boldly (though incorrectly) claims: “USCIS considered potential impacts to petitioners and determined that such impacts, if any, would be minimal because this is merely a clarification of continuing eligibility requirements. USCIS is not changing any substantive requirements.” How can that possibly be the case? USCIS doesn’t think there would be any impacts? If pending Form I-526 petitions get denied based on this new guidance, it’s a substantive requirement. Will USCIS consider updating offering documents or modified company agreements to comply with this new guidance a “material change”?

    You’re Outta Here:

    On top of the substance of the policy (or its wanting basis in law – there is no “at risk” requirement at the I-829 stage, yet USCIS still indicates the clarifications apply to all pending Form I-829 petitions), what seems most disappointing from this new release is USCIS’ lack of process and input with EB-5 stakeholders before announcing new rules “meant to address potential confusion among stakeholders regarding prior language.”

    The issue of redeployment has become an irritant to many investors stuck in long visa backlogs whose EB-5 capital was properly used for job creation purposes but cannot be returned until two years of conditional permanent residency has passed. This new guidance just dusts up the plate more.

    It’s unclear how much deference this agency interpretation of its own regulation will be given when EB-5 cases get denied based on this guidance and challenged in federal court as arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory authority; and without observance of procedure required by law in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

    This new roll-out of policy exemplifies what’s wrong with USCIS’ administration of the EB-5 Program: Unclear policy guidance that contravenes plain language of the statute; policy goals that are disconnected from EB-5 investment realities; feigned concern about stakeholder confusion while asserting unchecked authority to promulgate as desired; failure to communicate with industry stakeholders prior to creating or implementing new requirements; and spending more time and resources towards poor policy instead of focusing on the adjudication backlog that plagues the government agency as a whole.

    While this guidance appears to be effectively immediately, it is possible to submit comments until August 6, 2020 and we recommend you submit your comments here . I can be reached with any questions at .

    WR is a world leader in global mobility using WRapid, the firm’s immigration management system Powered by Salesforce, to facilitate the movement of talent worldwide.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    Joseph Barnett is a partner at Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP and specializes in employment and business immigration cases, including immigrant petitions and non-immigrant visa applications for foreign entrepreneurs and investors, management personnel of international companies, individuals with EB-1 extraordinary ability, EB-2 national interest waiver, and alien workers. She also handles complex immigration cases such as protecting age-out derivative children under CSPA, mandamus litigation, consular inadmissibility, as well as preparing responses to Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny, and Notices of Intent to Revoke.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Home Page

    Immigration Daily


    Processing times

    Immigration forms

    Discussion board



    Twitter feed

    Immigrant Nation


    CLE Workshops

    Immigration books

    Advertise on ILW



    About ILW.COM

    Connect to us



    Immigration Daily



    Latest Articles


    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 08-07-2020, 03:20 PM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily  
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 08-06-2020, 03:57 PM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily  
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 08-06-2020, 03:40 PM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily  
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 08-04-2020, 09:44 AM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily  
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 08-03-2020, 04:13 PM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily  
    Started by ImmigrationDaily, 07-31-2020, 11:31 AM
    0 responses
    Last Post ImmigrationDaily