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.
Written by Joseph P. Whalen, a former government employee who is familiar with the INA.
The below is an honest opinion article written by another EB-5 practitioner.
Most EB-5 practitioners would agree with what the author says. The article points out very troubling concerns, such as:
1. USCIS not working together internally.
2. CSC not consistent in policies.
3. CSC unable to shorten the I-526 processing.
USCIS has released the schedule for 2012 EB-5 Teleconferences as follows:
According to many EB-5 practitioners, these teleconferences are not that helpful. Also, EB-5 practitioners agree that CSC does not appear to follow what USCIS says in these teleconferences. Lastly, USCIS picks out only those agenda questions they want to answer; in other words, USCIS avoids tough questions, or their answers are too general in nature.
One knowledgeable EB-5 practitioner made several good points regarding the above article which we would like to share:
1. What is wrong with "gerrymandering" when the the law permits states to make TEA determinations, and states are certainly free to certify TEA based on a "gerrymandered" map. The article would have been more informative if the article could show why or how the TEA designation was unlawful.
2. The article implies that New Yorkers are fully employed, while people in Vermont are living in the street. That is false. There are plenty of places in NYC, including and especially in central areas, where unemployment figures are high.
Whether the judge's ruling delays or causes a problem for the project really depends on the nature of the lawsuit and whether the lawsuit is asking for an order to stop any construction from taking place. What we are saying is that it really depends on whether the lawsuit has any merit.
[Q] I have several options for gathering the funds needed to invest for the EB-5. I wanted to know if I can use advances from credit cards to make it happen?
No. Review the definition of "capital" which excludes unsecured (personally-owned properties) loan.
For internal research purpose. Restricted access.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is becoming more relevant in EB-5 RC designations and job-calculation methodologies. Incorrect or inappropriate NAICS will lead to denials. Of course, USCIS will decide what is incorrect or inappropriate NAICS.
I-924a related questions and answers are published by USCIS:
For internal research purposes only on how returning LPRs are to be treated under INA, regulations, case law and policies in various factual contexts.
- Application for entry
- Abandon LPR status: factors and how to prevent
I am not sure I totally agree that the above conclusion should be drawn from the report -- I think a more apt conclusion that should be drawn is that some children of immigrant entrepreneurs excel educationally -- but nevertheless, the reports serves to point out important point.
Alabama tries to attract foreign investment by saying it is one of the most business friendly states, but look what's happening now:
Apparently, Alabama wants foreign investment but doesn't mind arresting their workers in non-immigrant visa status. Time to inform Honda, Hyundai and Kia -- all international companies doing business and hiring U.S. workers residing in Alabama -- that they are not welcome.
It's good to know that this kind of hearing is being held now. The EB-5 RC Program should not be just reauthorized but be made permanent if the Congress is serious about attracting EB-5 investments.
By Robert Devine: http://eb-5center.com/files/11-12-7DivineTestimony.pdf
By David North: http://eb-5center.com/files/11-12-7NorthTestimony.pdf
By William Stenger: http://eb-5center.com/files/11-12-7StengerTestimony.pdf
“Reauthorizing the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Promoting Job Creation and Economic Development in American Communities”
Senate Judiciary Committee
DATE: December 7, 2011
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen 226
For research purpose only. November 2011 info provided by USCIS. Change of address Attorney.
An important but very general "overarching" master guidance memo for review and comments. Definitely more business friendly and more flexible, but it all depends on how CSC will apply this revised memo. At the same time, the language is too general on many issues, and hopefully will get specific enough to be practically useful.
Some issues that jump out:
1. Material change. USCIS changed its position and is actually saying what we have been saying all along.