The New EB-5 RC Requirements Stressing That It Is a Form of Licensing

by Joseph P. Whalen









                                                                                          Dated this 6th day of August 2022.

I. Introduction

On March 15, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law P. L. 117-103, Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2022, which included within it the legislation known as the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA).[i]  The EB-5 RIA repealed the much earlier Appropriation Act of 1993, Sec. 610, which passed in 1992, and was the original source of the legal authorization for the Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program.  That authority had never been a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) until this most recent legislation.  This discussion is offered in a gesture of friendship from an interested member of the general public who has been involved in EB-5 cases for many years both inside and outside of government. 

Many things have been ordered changed because of this legislation but these changes like all changes take time. However, some things stayed the same.  There are gradations to the changes. Some are drastic while others are minor and still more are a mere codification of things that have come into being organically over the history of the program.


Previously, before the passage of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act in March 2022, the authorization and requirements for Proposals for Immigrant Investor (EB-5) Regional Centers were drawn from the section 610, paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. 102–395, title VI, §610, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1874 , as amended, and old INS regulations found at 8 CFR § 204.6 (m) (3) (i)-(v).  Then, over a decade and a half later, an application form and instructions were introduced. While the former statute and old Form I-924 have been repealed and retired, respectively, and recently replaced, their influence can still be felt. Many points drawn from the old statute, now outdated regulations, and retired form instructions, as well as the four administrative precedents from 1998, based on the old scheme, have been cherry-picked for useful contributions to the most recent legislation.


8 USC §1153. Allocation of immigrant visas

(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants

Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151(d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows: …

(5) Employment creation …

(E) Regional center program …

(iii) Establishment of a regional center

A regional center shall operate within a defined, contiguous, and limited geographic area, which shall be described in the proposal and be consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment within such area. The proposal to establish a regional center shall demonstrate that the pooled investment will have a substantive economic impact on such geographic area, and shall include-

(I) reasonable predictions, supported by economically and statistically valid and transparent forecasting tools, concerning the amount of investment that will be pooled, the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive such investments, details of the jobs that will be created directly or indirectly as a result of such investments, and other positive economic effects such investments will have;

(II) a description of the policies and procedures in place reasonably designed to monitor new commercial enterprises and any associated job-creating entity to seek to ensure compliance with-

(aa) all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive orders of the United States,    including immigration laws, criminal laws, and securities laws; and

(bb) all securities laws of each State in which securities offerings will be conducted, investment advice will be rendered, or the offerors or offerees reside;

 (III) attestations and information confirming that all persons involved with the regional center meet the requirements under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (H);

(IV) a description of the policies and procedures in place that are reasonably designed to ensure program compliance; and

(V) the identities of all natural persons involved in the regional center, as described in subparagraph (H)(v).

As will become clear when reading on about the previous requirements and peripheral, requirements, things have solidified.  Overall requirements are much more concerned with planning, oversight, monitoring, integrity, and compliance. USCIS will be demanding detailed plans, clear policies and procedures, transparency, due diligence, and will be looking for sound and valid reasoning across the board, as well as doable mechanisms to accomplish it all.

The great importance of a strong Business Plan and accompanying Economic Impact Analysis along with proper deal structure documents is not new. These basic building blocks for both requests for Regional Center Proposals/Applications and Regional Center affiliated immigrant petitions have been there since the earliest days of the “Pilot Program”. This tenor is reflected in the early AAO precedents from 1998 and the earliest court cases involving EB-5 petitioners and their associated Regional Center partners.

As far as I can find, it appears that the first formal I-290B Appeal of a Regional Center Denial was decided in 2008. Specifically, in the case of Coastal Washington International Investment Company, Inc. (CWIIC, Inc.), In re: CWIIC, WAC O8 184 50343 (AAO November 18, 2008),[ii] AAO upheld the denial, finding the Proposal woefully inadequate. The Chief of Service Center Operations denied the Proposal finding seven (7) distinct bases for denial. AAO withdrew only one of them, combined a few and Dismissed the Appeal.

Here are some excerpts from the above cited decision:

“The bases of denial included: (1) the appellant's failure to demonstrate that it existed; (2) the area where the investments would take place was not documented as a qualifying rural area as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e); (3) the vagueness of the appellant's business purposes due to the lack of identified investment targets (businesses) and evidence that these targets would participate; (4) the absence of evidence that the promissory notes available to participating aliens would be qualifying under the reasoning set forth in Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 191 (Cornm. 1998); (5) the lack of economic analysis and forecasting tools in support of the investments proposed; (6) the failure of the draft partnership agreement to address escrow accounts and how capital would be at risk; and (7) the failure to provide bylaws, operating agreements, offering memoranda or a breakdown of the $18,500 administrative fee.” P. 2


“A nonexistent entity cannot be designated as a regional center. In this matter, the entity originally identified as the proposed regional center still does not exist as a public or private economic unit. The regulations define a regional center as "any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment." 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). Specifically, CWIIC, LLC is organized as a limited liability company and not as a corporation as implied on the original business plan. The address for CWIIC, Inc. listed on the business plan and Form I-290B Notice of Appeal does not match the address listed for CWIIC, LLC on the certificate of formation. The fact that CWIIC, LLC now exists is not persuasive. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) provides that an applicant or petitioner must establish eligibility "at the time of filing the application or petition." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12) provides that an application or petition "shall be denied where evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence does not establish filing eligibility at the time the application or petition was filed." See also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971); Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Regl. Comrnr. 1977); Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Act. Regl. Commr. 1977); Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), for the proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") While the above cases involved immigrant petitions with priority dates, we note that this reasoning has been extended to nonimmigrant visa petitions, which do not have priority dates. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Regl. Commr. 1978).” P. 5 [Emphasis added.]

      If an applicant files, using a fictitious business name, then that entity must exist legally because if it doesn’t, then it has no legal standing to file anything with USCIS or anybody else for that matter. A legally nonexistent entity cannot enter into contracts and would have no real person to sign for it such as a partner in a partnership, a corporate officer, or a manager or executive with signatory authority based on their employment status and position description.

Under the heading “Business Proposal and Economic Analysis” AAO pointed out that these are critically important to the decisional process.  Ultimately, AAO concurred:

“… with Service Center Operations that the business plan is too vague. Simply limiting investments to four broad investment categories does not allow for an evaluation of the investment strategy. Clearly, an influx of "liquidity" can benefit a region, as the plan consistently asserts. Any influx of capital, however, adds "liquidity." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.6(m)(3) requires more evidence than merely an increase in liquidity aimed at one of four broad investment types. Service Center Operations was unable to evaluate whether the proposed benefits were realistic without more information specifically identifying the private and public sector entities that would be receiving and utilizing the investment funds and the specific loan or direct investment contract proposals. The petitioner has not provided such information on appeal. It appears that the plan was filed prematurely, before the regional center came into existence and began negotiating with local entities for potential projects. …” Id. P. 10 [Emphasis added.]

In AAO’s discussion of the partnership agreements, they observed the following.

“Service Center Operations concluded that the draft partnership agreement was insufficient to establish how the limited partnerships would qualify the participating aliens for classification pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act.” AAO further noted that “[b]eyond the concerns raised by Service Center Operations, the draft limited partnership agreement uses definitions that do not conform to normal accounting definitions.” Id. At p. 11

Lastly. AAO agreed with Service Center Operations (SCOPS) that the optional promissory notes had serious flaws and failed to meet the requirements set forth in Matter of Izzumi. All the points affirmed by AAO and in the initial denial remain valid points today. SCOPS did overreach a bit when the matter of escrow agreements was brought up but at that point, they had become ubiquitous in the Proposals we were seeing.


 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 as amended by section 402 of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000, provides:

(a) Of the visas otherwise available under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration. and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 11 53(b)(5)), the Secretary of State, together with the Attorney General, shall set aside visas for a pilot program to implement the provisions of such section. Such pilot program shall involve a regional center in the United States for the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.

* * *

(c) In determining compliance with section 203(b)(5)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and notwithstanding the requirements of 8 CFR § 204.6, the Attorney General shall permit aliens admitted under the pilot program described in this section to establish reasonable methodologies for determining the number of jobs created by the pilot program, including such jobs which are estimated to have been created indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports, improved regional productivity.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3) provides:

Requirements for regional centers. Each regional center wishing to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program shall submit a proposal to the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, which:

  • Clearly describes how the regional center focuses on a geographical region of the United States, and how it will promote economic growth through increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment;
  • Provides in verifiable detail how jobs will be created indirectly through increased exports;
  • Provides a detailed statement regarding the amount and source of capital which has been committed to the regional center, as well as a description of the promotional efforts taken and planned by the sponsors of the regional center;
  • Contains a detailed prediction regarding the manner in which the regional center will have a positive impact on the regional or national economy in general as reflected by such factors as increased household earnings, greater demand for business services, utilities, maintenance and repair, and construction both within and without the regional center; and
  • Is supported by economically or statistically valid forecasting tools, including, but not limited to, feasibility studies, analyses of foreign and domestic markets for the goods or services to be exported, and/or multiplier tables.

With the codification of so much of what had come into being throughout the history of the EB-5 program, the latest legislation is more of a synthesis or correlation of ideas from across the EB-5 spectrum. I remind folks that the good guys were doing these things already. That is after all where these best practices came from originally. To the uninitiated, some of the oversight and reporting requirements might seem onerous but these aspects of doing business are common practices outside of EB-5. The inclusion in the EB-5 legislation is in furtherance of ensuring that the EB-5 community is made aware and put on notice that they do not live in a void apart from the real world. It might feel that way, but it is not true.


Some of what follows is mandatory and some is optional. You can tell the difference by the language Congress chose to use. When something is mandated, Congress says “shall” or “will” or “must” or something equally forceful.  When something is optional, then the term “may” is utilized in the statute. The Form I-956, Application for Regional Center Designation will be use for initial designations and amendments to various aspects of the Regional Center designation. There is also the potential for a new form to be utilized by Regional Centers, New Commercial Enterprises (NCEs), and Affiliated Job Creating Entities (JCEs) to have a business plan, economic impact analysis, and associated offering documentation vetted. The resulting vetted project with an approval notice would amount to a marketable commodity as a packet of prima facie evidence of eligibility to be sold to alien investors. This should cost less than the I-956 because the regional center and all the people involved would have already been vetted, or the vast majority will have been. That grand total of people would encompass those individuals who have registered as promoters on whatever form is developed for that purpose regardless of which Regional Center they were originally associated with. A registered promoter could associate with multiple regional centers, NCEs, JCEs, and specific vetted projects. There should probably be a supplement for any newly associating people joining the project, with separate biometric fee and processing aside from new promoters who would have to go through that process on their own. A project-specific vetting should be less than for a full blown Regional Center amendment adjudication which is done on the main I-956 form. The registration form or form created for compliance with subparagraph H vetting requirements to block prohibited people would come in handy for project-specific adjudications. Without further ado, here is the subparagraph

(F) Business plans for regional center investments

(i) Application for approval of an investment in a commercial enterprise

A regional center shall file an application with the Secretary of Homeland Security for each particular investment offering through an associated new commercial enterprise before any alien files a petition for classification under this paragraph by reason of investment in that offering. The application shall include-

(I) a comprehensive business plan for a specific capital investment project;

(II) a credible economic analysis regarding estimated job creation that is based upon economically and statistically valid and transparent methodologies;

(III) any documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) or with the securities regulator of any State, as required by law;

[iii](IV) any investment and offering documents, including subscription, investment, partnership, and operating agreements, private placement memoranda, term sheets, biographies of management, officers, directors, and any person with similar responsibilities, the description of the business plan to be provided to potential alien investors, and marketing materials used, or drafts prepared for use, in connection with the offering, which shall contain references, as appropriate, to-

(aa) all material investment risks associated with the new commercial enterprise and the job-creating entity;

(bb) any conflicts of interest that currently exist or may arise among the regional center, the new commercial enterprise, the job-creating entity, or the principals, attorneys, or individuals responsible for recruitment or promotion of such entities;

(cc) any pending material litigation or bankruptcy, or material adverse judgments or bankruptcy orders issued during the most recent 10-year period, in the United States or in another country, affecting the regional center, the new commercial enterprise, any associated job-creating entity, or any other enterprise in which any principal of any of the aforementioned entities held majority ownership at the time; and


(AA) any fees, ongoing interest, or other compensation paid, or to be paid by the regional center, the new commercial enterprise, or any issuer of securities intended to be offered to alien investors, to agents, finders, or broker dealers involved in the offering of securities to alien investors in connection with the investment;

(BB) a description of the services performed, or that will be performed, by such person to entitle the person to such fees, interest, or compensation; and

(CC) the name and contact information of any such person, if known at the time of filing;

(V) a description of the policies and procedures, such as those related to internal and external due diligence, reasonably designed to cause the regional center and any issuer of securities intended to be offered to alien investors in connection with the relevant capital investment project, to comply, as applicable, with the securities laws of the United States and the laws of the applicable States in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of its securities; and

(VI) a certification from the regional center, and any issuer of securities intended to be offered to alien investors in connection with the relevant capital investment project, that their respective agents and employees, and any parties associated with the regional center and such issuer of securities affiliated with the regional center are in compliance with the securities laws of the United States and the laws of the applicable States in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of its securities, to the best of the certifier's knowledge, after a due diligence investigation.

(ii) Effect of approval of a business plan for an investment in a regional center's commercial enterprise

The approval of an application under this subparagraph, including an approval before the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, shall be binding for purposes of the adjudication of subsequent petitions seeking classification under this paragraph by immigrants investing in the same offering described in such application, and of petitions by the same immigrants filed under section 1186b of this title unless-

(I) the applicant engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or criminal misuse;

(II) such approval would threaten public safety or national security;

(III) there has been a material change that affects eligibility;

(IV) the discovery of other evidence affecting program eligibility [that] was not disclosed by the applicant during the adjudication process; or

(V) the previous adjudication involved a material mistake of law or fact.

(iii) Amendments [Contingency plans for vetted EB-5 investment offerings.]

(I) Approval

The Secretary of Homeland Security may establish procedures by which a regional center may seek approval of an amendment to an approved application under this subparagraph that reflects changes specified by the Secretary to any information, documents, or other aspects of the investment offering described in such approved application not later than 30 days after any such changes.

(II) Incorporation [Whether requested or not, IPO will compare previous and current documents in search of fraud, especially “bait and switch” tactics.]

Upon the approval of a timely filed amendment to an approved application, any changes reflected in such amendment may be incorporated into and considered in determining program eligibility through adjudication of-

(aa) pending petitions from immigrants investing in the offering described in the approved application who are seeking classification under this paragraph; and [Immigrant Visa Petition (I-526E)]

(bb) petitions by immigrants described in item (aa) that are filed under section 1186b of this title. [Petition to Remove Conditions (I-829)]

(iv) Site visits [To be paid for via the Integrity Fund in subparagraph J.]

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall-

(I) perform site visits to regional centers not earlier than 24 hours after providing notice of such site visit; and

(II) perform at least 1 site visit to, as applicable, each new commercial enterprise or job-creating entity, or the business locations where any jobs that are claimed as being created.

(v) Parameters for capital redeployment

(I) In general

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe regulations, in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5 (commonly known as the "Administrative Procedure Act"), that allow a new commercial enterprise to redeploy investment funds anywhere within the United States or its territories for the purpose of maintaining the investors' capital at risk if-

(aa) the new commercial enterprise has executed the business plan for a capital investment project in good faith without a material change;

(bb) the new commercial enterprise has created a sufficient number of new full time positions to satisfy the job creation requirements of the program for all investors in the new commercial enterprise, either directly or indirectly, as evidenced by the methodologies set forth in this chapter;

(cc) the job creating entity has repaid the capital initially deployed in conformity with the initial investment contemplated by the business plan; and

(dd) the capital, after repayment by the job creating entity, remains at risk and it is not redeployed in passive investments, such as stocks or bonds.

USCIS will need to see comprehensive plans with all supporting documentation to render a fair and well-informed adjudication decision. The first consideration involves the honesty and integrity of the people who want the establish a Regional Center. Congress is obviously aware of the poor character of a highly visible minority of “bad actors” who have tarnished the names of the majority of reputable people who have become involved in the EB-5 Regional Center Program and individual projects over the decades of EB-5’s existence. Once it has been established that reputable people are involved, there remains the question of whether or not they posses the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to run a Regional Center and whether or not they have viable projects to offer to alien investors.[iv] Even if in possession of the required KSAs, the projects they offer, even if potentially profitable have to be EB-5 compliant and generate enough jobs and other positive economic effects to qualify the alien investors and their families for EB-5 visas. Lastly, these folks need to have contingency plans to account for delays. Regardless of whether delays are cause by an economic downturn, a natural or manmade disaster, a lapse in program authorization or processing delays, the money must remain at risk and in something that is likely to benefit the overall economy. Redeployment contingency plans are a must in the EB-5 world. This could involve having multiple developers or potential partners waiting in the wings with viable EB-5 compliant projects waiting for an opportunity to come to market. Afterall there is a limit to the number of visas available and the number of EB-5 investors available at any given moment.


USCIS also must realize its true role in the overall process. In reality, USCIS is overseeing licensing of service providers who will (ideally) be offering EB-5 compliant investment opportunities in exchange for the privilege of gathering up a large amount of cheap capital.  Even with the annual fees and costs of submitting individual projects for review in advance of alien investors submitting individual petitions, in the aggregate, it remains cheap financing with low financial expectations in terms of return on investment (ROI).  The alien investors are looking beyond the greenbacks to their green cards. Their ROI will be in the form of educational opportunities and better futures for their children and extended families; social, economic, religious, and political freedoms form themselves and their families for generations to come. They may be escaping an intolerant, overbearing, authoritarian regime, poverty, crime, political and religious violence, and an overall poor quality of life.

IPO is tasked with facilitating the process while monitoring for EB-5 program compliance and guarding against bad actors.  USCIS will also be creating a registration system for “promoters” which is also akin to licensing. USCIS will be the agency that initially accepts or rejects the promoter seeking registration and who might potentially be “listed” in a publicly available manner yet to be determined.  It will likely be another online database. I wonder if USCIS will collect biometrics and issue some form of registration card? If it were a photo ID with the photo online, that would protect against groups of crooked people all using the same name. It’s not like it would require brand new technology. USCIS will also be performing audits of and/or site visits to Regional Centers, NCEs, and JCEs.

5 USC § 551 Definitions. [5 USC is the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)].

For the purpose of this subchapter-

(8) "license" includes the whole or a part of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission;

(9) "licensing" includes agency process respecting the grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification, or conditioning of a license;

(10) "sanction" includes the whole or a part of an agency-

(A) prohibition, requirement, limitation, or other condition affecting the freedom of a person;

(B) withholding of relief;

(C) imposition of penalty or fine;

(D) destruction, taking, seizure, or withholding of property;

(E) assessment of damages, reimbursement, restitution, compensation, costs, charges, or fees;

(F) requirement, revocation, or suspension of a license; or

(G) taking other compulsory or restrictive action;


(11) "relief" includes the whole or a part of an agency-

(A) grant of money, assistance, license, authority, exemption, exception, privilege, or remedy;

(B) recognition of a claim, right, immunity, privilege, exemption, or exception; or

(C) taking of other action on the application or petition of, and beneficial to, a person;

In the adjudication most similar to a regional center designation application AAO likened that other adjudication to licensing.  Form I-905, Application for Authorization to Issue Certification for Health Care Workers is filed by groups or institutions seeking USCIS approval to issue required documentation to certain intending immigrant and nonimmigrant healthcare workers, after evaluating their education and any required medical licensure required for their USCIS petition approval. In In Re: LIN 05 243 70001 (AAO November 9, 2006), AAO addressed the applicant’s request for authorization to issue certificates by characterizing it as licensure. I say a request for designation is also licensure.

“In the space on the Form I-905 application labeled “Occupations for which you are seeking authorization” the applicant entered, “[NAME REDACTED] is one of the partner and member [sic] of evaluation team. We need approval of all medical profession.” The applicant did not otherwise state the medical positions it is seeking licensure to certify and did not demonstrate that its evaluators are competent to certify the educational credentials of those medical professionals seeking such certifications.” Id. at p. 7 [Emphasis added.]

USCIS and AAO are already familiar with the adjudication processes necessary for granting licensure to perform a task for aliens seeking professional assistance for very specific immigration law requirements. The provision of a packet of prima facie evidence of eligibility including an Approval Notice for a specific project in support of an I-526E petition by an alien investor sure looks like a valuable service to me.  And the process employed by IPO to reach an adjudication decision sure looks like a form of licensing to me. A USCIS-Designated EB-5 Regional Center sure behaves like a service provider serving intending immigrants. I say we need to call it what it is. It is licensure. As for the Registration of EB-5 Promoters, that too is specifically defined as a form of license in the APA. Promoters should be vetted and issued a biometric/photo ID card in order to keep them honest when promoting an EB-5 deal at an EB-5 event whether in the U.S. or more importantly in a foreign country. Registration should be verifiable, with photo, via an online database on the USCIS website.


The newest legislation is comprehensive but as it is further studied and incrementally implemented new issues are likely to arise. Maybe the reader can think of something else already? Flexibility in shifting from a failing project to a better one and transparency across the board are key elements to success in the EB-5 arena. Transparency in investment transactions not only keeps folks informed, but it also builds trust and builds reputations. Caution leans heavily towards seeking honest investment partners and service providers who are not afraid to be transparent in their interactions. Remember that a fool and his (or her) money are soon parted and as P.T. Barnum is reputed to have said, there’s a sucker born every minute. Try not to be a sucker and try not to sucker anyone else. You’ll sleep better. Like I always prefer to say, plan for the worst and anything less disastrous is a pleasant surprise.

That’s My Two -Cents, For Now!


i Codified primarily in 8 USC which contains the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and associated legislation, with the inclusion of reference to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and others such as broad references to law enforcement, public safety, and national security, other USC titles could potentially be affected.

[ii] Found at: %20Request%20for%20Participation%20as%20Regional%20Center/Decisions_Issued_in_2008/ Nov182008_01K1610.pdf      

[iii] Biographies could range from a single page write-up to a lengthy resume or curriculum vitae.

iii The terms, “alien investor”, “alien spouse” and “alien child” are all specifically defined in this statute.

About The Author

Joseph P. Whalen is an independent EB-5 consultant, advocate, trainer and advisor.

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