You are hereFrequently Asked Questions / EB-5 Law & Related U.S. Law / [Q] Do jobs created have to be in the same underlying TEA area for non-regional center EB-5 case?
[Q] Do jobs created have to be in the same underlying TEA area for non-regional center EB-5 case?
[Q] EB5 Question regarding the targeted employment areas – the regs require that the investment must be made in a new commercial enterprise in a “targeted investment area”. And the definition of targeted investment area is defined by having a high unemployment rate or you also have rural area. Question – for the 10 employees – do they have to be in the same area or if the business in located in the TEA or Rural but jobs are somewhere else? I am thinking that by the definition of TEA and Rural, this would be circumventing the intent of the law?
I assume this is a non-regional center but TEA EB-5 case. The answer is "yes". Since this is a non-regional center EB-5 case, only direct jobs would count; therefore, those direct jobs created should be in the underlying TEA area in which the new commercial enterprise is located in. Otherwise, you can have a new commercial enterprise located in Hawaii and the jobs created in California. USCIS would not like that too much.
I have a question about direct EB-5 investment. Let's say I am preparing to invest 1M for direct EB-5. But due to the business feature , I have to do it this way:
I will make an 1M investment and create 10 direct jobs altogether with two subsidiary enterprises which belong to the new enterprise that I created for the direct EB-5 application. All these three enterprises are in different locations in the country.
Does this qualifies me as a direct EB-5 investor?
It could qualify, but whenever you divide the investment into to subsidiaries, examiners will scrutinize everything, so I would avoid this kind of structure.
There are certain issues involved which you don't want to avoid, such as one subsidiary receiving $100,000 but creating 9 jobs, but 2nd subsidiary receiving $900,000 but creating only 1 job. Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with this, but I would not be surprised if CSC examiner questions this arrangement.