[HOT] Recent EB-5 Seminar in Boston

Said author did not attend but listened to MP3 tapes of various sessions of the above seminar. I thought it would be helpful to share some often-repeated remarks or observations made by EB-5 panel members. I heard panel members often say or express the below opinions or sentiments.

1. That USCIS needs to amend the Neufeld Memo, as it offers no logical guidance to what change constitutes "material changes", and the Neufeld Memo is an attempt to create a new law out of thin air.

2. That there will be many federal court lawsuits filed, in near future, against USCIS in connection with I-829 conditions removal issues.

3. That USCIS' adjudications often do not reflect the EB-5 law (composed of statutes, regulations and precedent decisions) but appear to go well beyond these parameters and require additional requirements. Note guidance memos issued by USCIS are not to be considered an established law, as noted at the end of guidance memos.

4. That USCIS is incorrectly relying and applying the Izumii AAO case and Chang 9th Circuit cases to hang its hat on its central argument that there can be no change after I-526 petition approval.

5. That many important EB-5 issues are not being decided in practical manner that reflect the real-world business environment and promote the job-creating purpose of the EB-5 Program.

6. That it might be prudent to avoid doing direct, individual EB-5 case by investing in a "troubled business" because USCIS indicated that all existing jobs -- not just 10 jobs per investor -- have to be "saved". Basically, a "troubled business" route is just too much trouble.

From our point of view, it's sad and disappointing that many important EB-5 issues have to be decided via federal lawsuits rather than by guidances which reflect real world situations. USCIS sometimes does not appear to take into account that there is a "good faith" and "substantial compliance" right to discretionary adjudications on the part of USCIS to approve those cases which have not misrepresented but "in good faith and substantially" have complied with EB-5 law. Where the EB-5 law is broadly written, we would argue that USCIS should exercise this discretionary right, especially in this economy in need of job-creation.