You are hereForums / EB-5 Discussion Forums / Regional Center Programs/Projects / If you recouped your initial EB-5 investment amount, which EB-5 project was it?
If you recouped your initial EB-5 investment amount, which EB-5 project was it?
If you managed to recoup your initial EB-5 investment amount, in which RC affiliated EB-5 project did you invest?
- Login to post comments
I would focus on Regional Centers that are operated by developers that invest their own money in the projects alongside the EB-5 investors. That's usually the best vote of confidence, when they have their own skin in the game and have their interests alligned with those of the EB-5 investors.
That certainly would be a good indicator.
However, if part of the funding is from bank loan, the loan is either personally guaranteed or backed by other assets. Even though the developers might not have put in their own money, it is still some skin in the game.
entirely new issues for any development projects involving third-party tenants. Based on what was said during the June 22, 2012 Engagement with USCIS Chief Economist teleconference, it appears that the tenant-occupancy issue will have a negative effect especially on office space building projects. I actually sympathize with CSC examiners who have to shift through these ever-changing policies of USCIS. Frankly, if I were a CSC examiner, I wouldn't know how to decide some of EB-5 petitions because USCIS' own policies are so unclear and change so often.
They are finished - they do not create any employment except marginal regional construction impacts through induced and in direct jobs related to construction. If there is excess capacity they actually create negative employment impacts as they lead to excess capacity in a final demand sector of the economy-
but the office development projects appear to bear the blunt of any adverse consequences of the new tenant-occupancy implications. As I state in many places in this website, I just wish USCIS makes the EB-5 law more practical and easy to follow. In some sense, I really don't care so much what positions USCIS takes, as long as they make things clear. At least, the CA govt made their position on the TEA certification very clearly, so not many people are going to be confused. I might not like the CA govt's position, but it's easy to follow and comply. Of course, less number of EB-5 projects are going to take place in CA state, but if that's what CA govt wants, nothing we can do.
I am a college student and am currently working for a
private equity company that does real estate investments. I have had some exposure to EB-5 in the past but not much when it comes from the goals and desires of the Regional Center. The company I am working for asked me to give them a presentation on Eb-5 and how they could incorporate it into their services. I personally don't think it is feasible for them to do so but that will come later in the
presentation. I have done quite a bit of research and am still
conducting a lot more. I have a quick question for you and I hope you can help me out.
Given that the company I work for acquires properties and leases the spaces out to various companies, I am still curious to know how this could be considered creating jobs. If for instance, the company leases space to Google in one of their spaces, and this is a NEWLY acquired space
for Google, not a transfer of offices, couldn't the jobs then created within that space count toward the EB-5 investment project. I am confused because without the funds or loans provided by the private equity company to acquire the building in the first place then Google would have no
office space to expand. SO IT DOES SEEM THAT INDIRECTLY, the funds provided by the EB-5 INVESTMENT PROGRAM granted Google to expand it's offices and thus indirectly helped create jobs.
Would this pass when presenting to the USCIS that jobs have been created?
You can search this issue and what USCIS says you must prove (which are tough) in order to be able to count new tenant jobs. USCIS essentially says you must first prove that the tenant jobs are "new", not relocated jobs, and second, there must be substantial business or financial relationship between the building developer and the tenant. Under these requirements, just showing that Google would not have been able to expand without this new office building. I wonder if Google could show that they absolutely needed this type of office building and there was no similar office space in the area, whether they can do away with the second requirement. I am not even sure USCIS knows what its position will be in this scenario. We know the first requirement has to exist no matter what. Logically, if the real issue is the "nexus" question, then the fact that Google really needs the office space doesn't help establish the nexus between the EB-5 money and the new jobs, so I would say USCIS would consider this showing to be a third requirement, but this is just my guess.
The issue is really the level of "nexus" that USCIS feels must exist between the EB-5 money and the claimed new jobs. Frankly, I do see what USCIS is concerned about, and I cannot say USCIS is wrong. However, there is no question that USCIS has suddenly "altered" its position on this issue, causing a lot of time and effort to go to waste. One valid complaint is that USCIS administers through RFEs rather than advance announcements.
Hi,
I'm currently working for a private equity firm and am doing research as well on the viability of EB-5 as a funding source. Would you care to share findings?
d e e v i l b o y [at] outlook [dot] com
There is an EB 5 center in Fort Lauderdale that is actually doing exclusive one off business projects which include Real Estate to back up the investment and offered a much higher return than most. They also have a pending regional center which will incorporate all of the above. Its the first one I've seen like this. The site is www.americaneb5centers.com
links to any project, but are merely allowing certain posts for informational purpose.