Serving EB-5 investors in USA and Asia, with empathy and specialized skills gained through years of experience, our office focuses on quality rather than quantity.
No, USCIS deems that the geographic region must be contiguous. If there are several non-contiguous geographic areas in which someone wants to operate EB-5 regional centers, that person must apply separately for multiple regional centers.
During May 1st 2012 IIUSA EB-5 Conference held at Laguna Hills, CA, which we attended, there was one roundtable where IIUSA invited their four (4) "most successful" regional center general partners to be panelists and answer some questions from the audience. One question asked was how much EB-5 funds they raised up to now through their own EB-5 projects, and the answers went something like this:
$200 Million USD EB-5 funds
$400 Million USD EB-5 funds
$800 Million USD EB-5 funds
$1.3 Billion USD EB-5 funds
[HOT] Why can't USCIS set up a similar adjudication procedure for Regional Centers as the one for a patent application?
An experienced EB-5 practitioner informed me that he recently met a patent office examiner, and the examiner described to him how they process a patent application. Upon receipt, the patent office examiners email the applicant their name and contact info, they then have a call to discuss the case and the issues, they work to resolve the matter via email, phone and etc. Total engagement, effective two-way communications. The same experienced EB-5 practitioner practicing in Wash. D.C. then wondered why can't USCIS set up a similar adjudication procedure at least for regional center designation application, including I-924 amendment and pre-approval application?
Update: USCIS issues a pretty lengthy and substantive Q & A document from the meeting:
This Q & A includes questions involving tenant-occupancy related job creation issues which turned out to be more restrictive than said author initially anticipated. One of the reasons why USCIS issued this lengthy Q & A document after the meeting was because many EB-5 stakeholders complained at the lack of substantive answers provided during the teleconference.
In May 2012, USCIS released the most recent EB-5 statistics. You can find the PDF file at below link:
Note if a family has 3 family members who are immigrating under an EB-5 case, this means there will be 3 immigrant visas under EB-5 category allocated to and used up by the family.
For a good discussion on this issue, consider reading Susan's EB-5 Blog at the below link:
As the above link illustrates, the main problem with USCIS's administration of the EB-5 Program is that they constantly shifts their positions on many important issues or do not make their positions clearly, so that stakeholders and even USCIS examiners are left confused and everyone wastes their time.
My own view on EB-5 issues at this point is that USCIS' positions should be feasible in the real world of business and explain clearly.
We listend on this teleconference, and here's our take.
Director Mayorkas reiterated the "deference" policy of USCIS which should govern EB-5 adjudications. Many stakeholders present physically voiced their opinion that CSC examiners do not actually follow this "deference" policy, which is the problem. The deference policy basically says that USCIS will give a deference to how USCIS has adjudicated previously, unless there has been material change in facts or there is a fraud. There appears to be some confusion as to whether USCIS should give deference where there is a new project but the same repetitive investment structure has been followed.
[HOT] EB-5 projects use the same type of job-calculation methodology as Apple did to calculate direct and indirect jobs creation
Read the below link on the recent calculation done by Apple to show the total job effects it had on the U.S. economy.
I like to keep things simple, mostly because the simplicity makes it easy for me to understand concepts and take necessary actions based on my understanding. Many EB-5 practitioners also believe that USCIS should do the same and keep the EB-5 Program simple, because many aspects of the EB-5 Program has now become so complex that no one, including even some of the most experienced EB-5 attorneys, do not understand many of the issues of the EB-5 law or Program. Simplicity leads to predictability, and the predictability leads to less lawsuits and a greater trust. This means USCIS cannot and should not move the goal posts especially AFTER the ball has been kicked.
[Q] Can a LP be formed to purchase state revenue bonds to build let's say an infrastructure and qualify for a RC EB-5 project?
We have not yet seen an EB-5 project where a New Commercial Enterprise has been formed to just purchase state revenue bonds. If USCIS approves I-526s and I-829s for this type of project, it will be the first one, and all regional centers will copy the investment structure, that's for sure.
We can foresee many legal arguments on this issue, but we will keep it to ourselves at this point.
I-829 submission needs to evidence that all requirements for conditions removal have been met, and the list of documents that need to be submitted really depends on the economic jobs calculation methodology used and the underlying assumptions.
[HOT] USCIS issues an email explanation regarding "EB-5 Tenant Occupancy" related jobs and "excess demand"
On February 17, 2012, USCIS issued through USCIS Office of Public Engagement the below message regarding "EB-5 Tenant Occupancy" and "excess demand" issues. We are not certain what is exactly meant by the following language. We are also not certain why this email message was issued at all, unless USCIS/CSC wanted to provide an advance notice of numerous RFEs to come involving this issue. Will this policy be applied retroactively? Another uncertainty. I hate to be a RC operator who has to comply with all kinds of USCIS policy or interpretation changes that suddenly get issued without an advance warning! I am sure many Regional Centers are wondering what is the value of getting RC designations when USCIS can change the policies at any time.
As of Feb 1, 2012, according to the latest CSC Processing Times Report, it currently takes eight (8) months for CSC to adjudicate I-526 petition, even if no RFE is issued. This is absolutely too long, and is puzzling since the stated goal has been 3 months.
How can EB-5 projects wait that long to received capital? This kind of delay makes it very, very difficult for regional center projects to do business.
Note that if there is a RFE, it can easily take 4 months more on top of 8 months, which means the waiting time can easily reach 1 year.
Also, done with a very poor taste.
Wow, this kind of ad certainly is not going to help the Republican party.
For internal research purpose.
After I-829 conditions removal has been approved, naturalization application can be filed 5 years from the acquisition date of CPR. You can go to below link and see resources: