EB-5 Updates

Understanding the Audience: Senator Leahy

The FY2022 Appropriations Act is the nearest-term hope as a vehicle for regional center program authorization, and I hear that all sides are committed to grasping that opportunity. (The appropriations act is due by December 3, 2021, and could well be delayed by Congressional fights unrelated to EB-5. But I’m relieved to hear that EB-5 negotiators are not counting on delay, but still hustling to be ready to catch the opportunity as soon as it could possibly come.) The appropriations opportunity focuses attention on Senator Leahy, who has a gatekeeper position as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. What are Senator Leahy’s interests and motivations when it comes to EB-5 legislation?

Senator Leahy is a long-time regional center program champion. His website celebrated in 2013 “Senator Leahy was the driving force behind every reauthorization since enactment.” He is also passionate about program integrity and reform, and long instrumental in EB-5 legislative efforts. The successes and difficulties of Vermont Regional Center have colored his efforts. Over the decades, Senator Leahy has published thousands of words about his EB-5 interests. I’m sharing below notes that I made when reading articles tagged with the “EB-5” category at leahy.senate.gov. I hope that reviewing Senator Leahy’s perspective can help shape advocacy that’s responsive to his priorities.

Senator Leahy’s EB-5 perspective as expressed in articles posted at leahy.senate.gov

Regional center program authorization

Integrity Measures

• Promote accountability and transparency
• Prevent fraud and address national security vulnerabilities
• “Improve accountability of applicants, project managers and the projects themselves”
• “I remain committed to doing more to protect investors and to root out fraud within the program, such as increasing fraud investigations and requiring additional oversight of investor funds.”
• “Our proposal would require background checks and third party oversight of funds.  It would create protections for defrauded investors. It would ban foreign government ownership of an EB-5 company.”
• “Congressional action is required to rectify documented fraud and national security vulnerabilities within the EB-5 Regional Center Program. The bipartisan EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2021 establishes new disclosure requirements for EB-5 regional centers in order to protect investors and certify regional center compliance with program rules. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to perform regular audits of and site visits to regional centers.”
• “I will not support mere window dressing.  Proposals that do not require transparency and accountability for every EB-5 project are just that.”

TEA Incentives

• Protect “central purpose of promoting investment in rural and economically challenged regions” by “reining in abusive gerrymandering”
• “The incentives that Congress created to promote investment and create jobs in rural and high unemployment areas—the sole reason why I championed this program—have been rendered obsolete through economic gerrymandering.”
• “The fact that a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills can use gerrymandering to claim it is located in a distressed community is troubling.  But the fact that this type of abuse now represents almost 90 percent of the entire EB-5 program is appalling.  And an untold number of these luxury developments would be pursued regardless of EB-5 financing, casting doubt on whether the program is creating any jobs at all.”

Investment amounts

• Modernize EB-5 by providing “a much-needed increase” to “inadequate investment levels.”

Visa Relief

• (The website posts do not discuss this topic. Leahy’s co-sponsored bills have included age-out protection and concurrent filing. He has spoken warmly about the general goal of protecting investors, but not discussed EB-5 visa relief.)

Industry Prejudices

• “Small but powerful corporate interests must not be allowed to derail improvements that can help our most distressed communities. They must not be given credit for window-dressing reform proposals that do little to change the status quo.” (2/2/2016)
• “Gluttonous, shortsighted corporate greed blocked these critical reforms.  Greed that was given a voice by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Republican leadership has allowed a couple of powerful developers who exploit this program’s flaws to derail critical reforms.  I find it shameful: the worst abusers of this program have been given veto power over its reform.” (12/08/2016)
• “It’s really unfortunate that a bipartisan bill supported by the overwhelming majority of EB-5 stakeholders was blocked at the behest of a small minority that blindly opposes much-needed accountability and transparency in the program.” (6/25/2021)

This history can be a resource for people speaking with Senator Leahy today. Assuming industry can’t all to agree to just ask Leahy to attach Leahy’s own proposed EB-5 reform bill to FY2022 appropriations (of if only!), let’s at least carefully frame the alternative proposed EB-5 legislation in Leahy’s terms. Show him how any alternate TEA provisions and integrity measures still check his priorities for distressed and rural areas, accountability, and transparency. Identify and preemptively concede any proposed language that projects the opposite message. Discuss the integrity measures that likely mean much to Leahy in light of the Vermont RC case: fund administration, investor reporting, and regional center audits (previously not included in the industry bill). In choosing the advocacy approach, be cautious to navigate Leahy’s unfortunate image of parts of the industry. Speak to his goals, commitments, and existing knowledge. I trust that negotiators are being smart and strategic, and thinking in terms of audience. We can maximize the FY2022 appropriations chance by presenting language that makes Appropriations Chair Leahy able to respond “yes, this is something I want to help advance because it addresses my priorities and will help to protect my legacy in EB-5 and my reputation in Vermont.”

No news yet on RC program authorization

We remain, so far as I can see, in the position described in my previous posts about reauthorization efforts.

As previously discussed, we are waiting for a legislative vehicle to arrive, and for Congress to be willing to load an EB-5 bill onto that vehicle. Industry advocates are striving behind the scenes to make these conditions come true as soon as possible.

Industry hopes for a vehicle are currently focused on the FY2022 appropriations act, which is due by December 3, 2021, unless delayed again. (Delay looks likely, considering the number of contentious issues before Congress.) See Aaron Grau’s article A Lesson in Legislation for helpful background and definitions, and my September Updates post for examples of how omnibus timing has worked in recent years.

Industry hopes for an EB-5 bill are now focused on a consensus bill that has reportedly been agreed-to by EB-5 advocates, and presented to key members of Congress (who may also make changes). EB5IC has talked about this for awhile, and IIUSA acknowledged a consensus effort on October 1 (a significant development). The text of this consensus bill remains a tightly-held secret, possibly because it is agreed-upon and uncontroversial. The drafts I’ve seen show a revised version of S.2778 from last Congress. The bill is a holistic alternative to Senator Grassley and Leahy’s reform-focused EB-5 bill (S.831/HR 2901).

Considering the lack of fallback for reauthorization, I can only hope the best for the industry consensus EB-5 bill, whatever its quality, wisdom, and chances in Congress. This is what industry decided to ask Congress to pass as part of FY2022 appropriations, or the soonest available vehicle. It is the candidate.

The content of FY2022 appropriations is still being debated. So far, no EB-5 language was included in the Democrats’ preliminary draft FY2022 Appropriations bill text, which was released on October 18 by Senator Leahy as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. (Full text available here, the Republican reaction here. If there were a clean RC program extension, it would be together with the other immigration extensions on p. 62 of the Homeland Security bill. But a simple extension is not in the draft bill, and is not expected. All sides expect reauthorization conditional on program reforms, after Congress chose to break the cycle of clean RC extensions in December 2020.) It’s early days yet, and much negotiation remains before appropriations bill content gets finalized. Who knows, maybe Senator Leahy will decide that he likes and wishes to advance the industry alternative competitor to his EB-5 reform bill. Maybe other influences will prove stronger. We the public may not know until the last minute before passage whether EB-5 legislation of some kind (the industry’s hoped-for bill, or minimum investor protections) can finally get a seat on the appropriations vehicle. or another near-term vehicle. And we may not know until December whether “the last minute” for appropriations is indeed December 3, or a later date. (From what I’m hearing so far, a later date is likely.)

Considering the nature of the process, I do not expect to have anything very significant and unambiguous to report on EB-5 legislation before late November at earliest. It will probably be later, considering that the contentious appropriations process looks likely to extend beyond the immediate December 3 deadline. My next EB-5 articles, as time permits, will be on USCIS processing updates, visa availability, and due diligence. In the meantime, I am busy with my regular work of writing business plans.

While I do not expect much public information in the next month, I do expect intensive activity behind the scenes that advocacy group members may still have a chance to influence. If your life depends on this, join an advocacy organization to keep informed and involved. (Even better, join more than one group, to reduce vulnerability to messaging. And hold on to personal sense and knowledge, as defense against doublethink. One hears quite a bit of “2+2=5.”)

As a reminder, IIUSA posts updates on its blog, EB5IC reps post videos here, and AIIA has a blog here and holds regular donor update calls (with one upcoming this week Friday).

I have reopened comments, to facilitate input from readers. (As before, a reader’s first comment on this blog gets held for manual approval, while subsequent comments post automatically.) Let’s focus on what could be helpful, and language we would use face-to-face. Twitter can have the snap reactions, while advocacy groups are the best place to organize efforts and channel emotion toward constructive outcomes. Ideally, this small corner here can stay safe for thoughtful discussion and info-sharing, as it has been for many years.

USCIS Website Alert 10/4 Update

The EB-5 page at USCIS.gov has updated its alert regarding policy for processing during the regional center program sunset. I’ve copied below a redline that compares the Alert published on October 4, 2021 with the the Alert previously published on July 1, 2021. The major difference is that USCIS now gives a deadline for re-evaluating its “hold” policy (end of calendar year 2021), and states that Form I-765 and I-131 continue to be accepted and adjudicated for “these” (undefined) pending Forms I-485. The Alert does not say that USCIS will start denying petitions on January 1 if the RC program is not reauthorized by that time, but does warn that they’ll reevaluate at that point. Congress seems to need cliff-hanger deadlines to make them act, and USCIS is now offering one.

I haven’t enabled comments for this post, because I’ve noticed my blog discussion tending in an unconstructive direction. In lieu of commenting on this post, I encourage contacting legal advisors with any questions about the policy, and contacting advocacy groups to support efforts to expedite reauthorization and protect in-process regional center applicants and their investments.

— * —

USCIS Website Alert as of July 1October 4, 2021

Alert: Statutory authorization related tofor the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program expiredended at midnight on June 30, 2021. This lapsesunset in authorization does not affect EB-5 petitions filed by investors who are not seeking a visa under the Regional Center Program. Due to the lapsesunset in authorization related tofor the Regional Center Program, USCISwe will reject the following forms received on or after July 1, 2021:

• Form I-924, Application for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program, except when the application type indicates that it is an amendment to the regional center’s name, organizational structure, ownership, or administration; and
• Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor, when it indicates that the petitioner’s investment is associated with an approved regional center.; and
• In generalForm I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and any Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, associated with a Form I-485 application that is based on a Form I-526 filed by an approved regional center.

Until further notice, we will hold (that is, not act on) any pending petition or application of these form types that is dependent on the lapsed statutory authority until further notice.and was filed before the end of the statutory authorization. At the end of calendar year 2021, unless there is new legislation for regional centers, we will reevaluate whether to keep this hold in place. If we wrote to you were issued written correspondence regardingabout your petition or application on or before June 30, 2021, you should review theour written correspondence and respond by the due date (as applicable). Although USCIS is unable to we cannot review your response at this timeright now, we will receive and maintain thekeep your response for review if circumstances change.

We will continue tostill accept and review Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status, in the normal course,Form I-829, Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status, including those filed on or after July 1, 2021.

We will begin rejecting all Forms I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and any associated Forms I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Forms I-131, Application for Travel Document, based on an approved Regional Center Form I-526.

In addition, we will keep on hold (that is, not act on) any Form I-485 that is based on a Form I-526 for an approved regional center; the Form I-526* must have been filed before the end of the statutory authorization. At the end of calendar year 2021, unless there is new legislation for regional centers, we will reevaluate the hold. We will accept and adjudicate Forms I-765 and I-131 relating to these pending Forms I-485.

We will provide further guidance to the public if circumstances change or further guidance becomes necessary.

*Suzanne’s note: I guess this is a typo, and USCIS meant to say “Form I-485.” Otherwise, it’s puzzling.

I-829 alert for investors from the ’90s

In another nice indication that the Investor Program Office is trying to get EB-5 processing back in order, it has updated the EB-5 page at USCIS.gov with a new “Alert” — this one targeted to people with pending I-829 petitions that were filed before November 2, 2002, and based on I-526 approved 1995 to 1998. Apparently USCIS wants to finish processing a batch of I-829 has been held in abeyance for 20 years, and is calling for contact info so that they can schedule biometrics appointments. (There’s a story behind the long delay that’s not IPO’s fault — I described it at the end of a 2020 post, and now in a comment to this post.) Other EB-5 “Alert” language on the USCIS website remains unchanged, suggesting no near-term change to the applied regulations or to the processing freeze for regional center I-526 and I-485. USCIS is excellent at holding petitions in abeyance.

As a reminder, I-829 processing continues for regional center as well as direct EB-5 cases, even during the regional center program lapse. (“We will continue to accept and review Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status, in the normal course, including those filed on or after July 1, 2021.”) Current regional center program authorization is necessary to get a regional center visa, but not a condition to keep and remove conditions on that visa. Loss of regional center sponsorship does not in itself change I-829 eligibility. This Q&A from a November 2020 stakeholder engagement discusses the “what if” of individual regional center termination, and could also apply to the unlikely (we trust) event of regional center program termination.

(12) Q: Would a Form I-829 case adjudication be affected by the termination of its sponsoring regional center, if all other requirements have been met, such as job creation, etc.?

A: It depends on the facts of the case. An immigrant investor’s conditional permanent resident status, if already obtained, is not automatically terminated if the investor has invested in a new commercial enterprise associated with a regional center that USCIS terminates. The investor will continue to have the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with EB-5 program requirements, including through reliance on indirect job creation. However, there are times when the reason a regional center has failed to promote economic growth and USCIS has terminated its designation which may have a bearing on the I-829 adjudication. For example, depending on the facts of a particular case, if a regional center was terminated and there was evidence of misappropriation, such evidence could undermine the petitioner’s ability to make the showings required under 8 CFR 216.6. In such a scenario, it is not the termination of the sponsoring regional center that is affecting the I-829 adjudication but rather an evaluation of the applicable eligibility requirements.

September Updates (USCIS input, RFEs, legislation)

A few updates and resources.

USCIS Feedback: This week was the deadline for response to the nice USCIS “EB-5 Question” feedback request. I sent comments, and assisted with the list of questions on behalf of EB-5 investors submitted by AIIA.  

RFE Policy: USCIS today announced another extension to “Flexibility for Responding to Agency Requests.” For notices sent through January 15, 2022, USCIS will consider a response to RFE, NOID, and other notices received within 60 calendar days after the response due date.

IIUSA Forum: IIUSA has announced the schedule and speakers for its Virtual EB-5 Industry Forum November 2-11. Early bird tickets are available until October 1. All prospective and current EB-5 investors and international stakeholders are invited to participate for free, which is a great opportunity. I was just sorry to not see Charles Oppenheim on the schedule for his annual EB-5 update.

Chats with Charlie: Speaking of Charles Oppenheim, he continues to do excellent live chats monthly on the Travel.gov Youtube channel. The October Visa Bulletin chat last week did not directly address any EB-5 questions, but I’ll quote one important point: “Only a certain amount of water can go through a straw regardless of how much water you try to pour down it.” He was talking about the record-breaking number of EB visa numbers to be available in FY2022, and how Consulate and USCIS capacity will naturally constrain how many of those numbers can be issued. EB-5 visa availability for FY2022 is a wonderful 262,288*0.071=18,622, according to the September Visa Bulletin. If only those visas could be issued and reduce backlogs, rather than lost due to legislative delay and limited processing capacity.

Legislation: Two things happened this week that affect timing prospects for EB-5 legislation and reauthorization.

The House passed a Continuing Resolution that defers the deadline for the annual appropriations bill from September 30, 2021 to December 3, 2021. The appropriations bill is one hope as a vehicle for EB-5 legislation, and that particular hope is now deferred to December. (Assuming that the House CR passes, as there’s still some dispute over it, but we’ll know on Monday when the Senate takes it up.) The House and Senate appropriations websites discuss the detail and link to text. The House CR text does not mention EB-5, and does not cover EB-5 by default (as happened in the past) since RC authorization is not coupled with FY2021 appropriations. I do not blame industry for missing a CR opportunity for EB-5 legislation, because Continuing Resolutions are not generally opportunities for special interest items. CRs for the past five years at least have been budget-focused with just a few extra provisions for general-interest high-profile emergencies – as happened again this year. I expect to see the final appropriations bill (which is a large vehicle) a few days before December 3, or else to see another CR in December to defer the deadline into early Spring. (It’s also possible that Congress could finalize an appropriations bill well ahead of deadline — they just haven’t in the five years that I’ve watched the process so far.) Whether Congress will agree to attach something EB-5-related to the appropriations bill or another vehicle remains to be seen, and presumably continues to depend on what’s asked and who’s asking.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ separate attempt to attach immigration legislation to budget reconciliation had a setback, thanks to block by the Senate parliamentarian. The specific “Build Back Better” immigration legislation content was not very helpful for EB-5 (limited to benefit options for adjustment of status plus a visa recapture that couldn’t help much in practice thanks to that capacity straw Oppenheim talks about, and EB-5’s use-it-or-lose-it position for roll-over numbers), but the immigration effort was extremely significant. If passed, it could have cleared the path for EB-5 needs to be addressed. While Democratic leaders are still waiting to resolve the immigration issues that are on-brand and top priority for them and the Biden Administration (DACA, TPS, visa relief for immigrants working in the U.S.), there’s limited chance that they’ll put their weight behind immigration benefits that are not on their talking point list of priorities, including for immigrant investors patiently waiting outside the U.S. We need non-EB-5 immigration relief priorities to be addressed ASAP, because any deferral naturally further defers the chance for political capital spent specifically on EB-5. (For Administration priorities, see the White House blueprint for immigration, and my blog discussing visa relief proposed by the White House-backed U.S. Citizenship Act. The text of the immigration proposal advanced and stalled this month is available on the House Judiciary Committee website under Chairman Nadler Announces Committee Print for Full Committee Markup of Build Back Better Act. Roll Call’s 9/19 article Senate parliamentarian rejects Democrats’ immigration bid provides analysis, including quotes from the cast of Senators on whom we rely for EB-5 legislation. An MSN article from July Republican immigration proposal falls flat gives further background.)

Regional center program authorization and reform legislation should still theoretically have a near-term chance despite the immigration reform setbacks, because EB-5 legislation does not have to be an immigration bill in awkward precedence over stymied immigration priorities. EB-5 legislation can alternatively be an economic development and enforcement issue. But it depends on us, and what we ask for in legislation. We know that EB-5 investors need relief just as much as Dreamers and immigrant workers do, so it’s hard not to ask. If only the Administration’s immigration priority issues can be resolved as soon as possible, so that lawmakers can celebrate that win and move on to consider our benefit. Unless and until that happens, consider how much Congressional leaders can afford to give EB-5 and speak with the media about afterwards, beyond an enforcement-focused reauthorization such as Grassley/Leahy proposed.

Meanwhile, there’s apparently still time to think through EB-5 legislation. I’ve heard rumors and counter-rumors about possibly-finalized bills, was briefly hopeful, and then became the target of some personalized propaganda that gutted and mortified me. But I still have hope, because the EB-5 ecosystem includes good and smart people. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party, apply intelligent scrutiny and honorable pressure, and dilute the forces of myopia and cupidity. I’m particularly looking to regional centers to exert positive influence. The future depends on it.

We’re all in this together

This blog focuses on the technicalities of EB-5 for my small audience of industry insiders. Since I do not have a general audience, I do not think very much about messaging. But I realize that in focusing on details, I can tend to focus on the negative.  Particularly with respect to legislation and the regional center reauthorization debate, it’s easy for analysis to get stuck in distinctions and divisions and lose focus on the big picture of what we’re all trying to accomplish and why.

This post takes a step toward rectifying that balance, by stepping back to also look at the big picture of what unites our efforts as we try to make EB-5 work.

Regional Centers and EB-5 investors are in this together

In thinking about specific legislation, it’s easy to focus on details where regional center and EB-5 investor interests may be at odds. Both the Grassley/Leahy bills and the holistic faction bills have historically included a few divisive provisions that attracted just criticism. But, do not conclude from this that regional centers and EB-5 investors are on opposing sides when it comes to EB-5 advocacy.

In fact, the interests of regional centers and EB-5 investors are very closely intertwined, and they depend on legislation that maximizes each other’s chance for success.

EB-5 investors need legislation that keeps the EB-5 program viable for regional centers, because regional centers need to stay in business long enough for investors to complete the immigration process under regional center sponsorship. If regional centers lose authorization, are overburdened with costly regulation, and practically cannot continue to do business, that’s not good for them, and equally not good for investors whose immigration process and capital repayment practically depend on the regional centers staying business.

Regional centers need legislation that keeps the EB-5 program viable for their investors, because that’s the only path forward for investments. It’s not like regional centers have the option, in most cases, to simply return investor funds in case of disappointment. If the regional center honestly did its job and followed all the EB-5 rules, then investor funds are not sitting in a bank account, but rather deployed out in the economy funding job-creating projects. If the U.S. government bails on the EB-5 visa promise to investors, what can regional centers do? No regional center wants to find itself with investors trying to give up and withdraw en masse, especially considering practical limitations. Regional centers do not want to face lawsuits from investors who don’t have anyone else to sue, even if the regional center cannot practically force Congress to honor the visa promise or force investments to exit earlier than allowed by market conditions and investment agreements. For the sake of their own survival, regional centers have incentive to push legislation that helps their investors keep the immigration hope that underwrote the EB-5 investment.

These intertwined interests mean that all sides have valid reasons to be for and against aspects of the Grassley/Leahy bills, and for and against aspects of the holistic reform bills. The divisions among industry groups and compromises over legislation are not as clearcut as I might have implied in previous posts, when I focused on details and tried to set everything out in table form.  Certainly, there cannot be a conspiracy of regional centers against investors or vice versa, considering how interdependent investor and regional center interests really are in practice. “United we stand, divided we fall” is the simple truth when it comes to EB-5 investor and industry interests in reauthorization legislation. Any final legislation will be a compromise with some wins and losses, considering what’s practically possible and allowable by Congress. But I hope that every industry group is working hard to achieve compromise that will balance its own interests with the interests of groups on which it also depends. As an industry, we are truly in this together, and if any negotiators aren’t acting that way already, they must change.

Investors from around the world are in this together

There’s a historical fissure between EB-5 investors from China and other countries over advocacy around the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, which naturally divided immigrants from different countries and categories into those who benefit from and those who are hurt by the country cap law. But when it comes to reauthorization legislation, or at least grandfathering for existing EB-5 investors, people from all over the world have every reason unite to preserve the regional center immigration opportunity. The country cap discussion is valid and on-going, but it is separate from and need not derail cooperation to support reauthorization or at least grandfathering. And for the future, investors from other backlogged countries will shortly realize why they need to join the long-standing Chinese effort to push for visa relief.

The country, Congress, and the industry are in this together

Most important, I should re-emphasize the big picture that good EB-5 legislation is not just a win/win for regional centers and investors if it passes and a lose/lose if it fails, but a wonderful benefit to gain and a tragic loss to avoid for the U.S. economy, and for everyone in Congress who has additional jobs and economic activity and tax dollars in their districts thanks to EB-5 investors and investment. It can feel like Congress is against us and has to be begged and wangled, but if so that reflects Congressional ignorance more than fundamentally opposing interests.

Who gains from a program that has injected billions of dollars into the U.S. economy and created tens of thousands of jobs, with no tax-payer cost and indeed positive tax benefit thanks to attracting productive new tax-payers? Everyone. Who loses, if the U.S. government is seen to default on the promise that it used to attract that investment? Everyone. Who loses, if the rug is pulled out from under billions of dollars invested in on-going projects just as the economy is struggling? Everyone. Who should want a continued incentive for foreign investors to bring their entrepreneurial spirit and investment dollars to the U.S.? Everyone.

The real if not the perceived interests of Congress and the country as a whole are on the side of reauthorizing the regional center economic development program. We can rightly worry that Congress is not well-informed about those interests (and thank IIUSA, EB5IC, AAED, AIIA, and anyone else who is working hard now to inform their representatives about what EB-5 involves), but the interest certainly and demonstrably exists. We can call for reauthorization with a pride and confidence rooted in the fact that a healthy EB-5 program truly is a wonderful economic benefit for the country, and to the government that represents us.

The fight for EB-5 legislation continues

What is the path, timeline, and content for regional center program reauthorization legislation? This urgent question should be directed toward advocacy groups and official advisors, not to a business plan writer and spare-time blogger. But, a few notes and resources for reference, as we find ourselves in the drama-filled month of September.

The regional center program can be reauthorized as soon as (1) there is a vehicle to which reauthorization legislation could be attached, and (2) Congress agrees to reauthorization legislation that satisfies the EB-5 industry.

The first condition — available vehicle — potentially exists now, as Congress works on major funding and infrastructure bills. The industry’s best near-term hope for legislative vehicle for reauthorization may be the omnibus Appropriations Act, which is due to be passed by September 30 before the start of every fiscal year, and which must get passed eventually. (Here’s the recent history: FY2016 appropriations (due September 30, 2015) passed in December 2015; FY2017 appropriations was delayed until May 2017; FY2018 passed in March 2018, FY2019 passed in February 2019, FY2020 passed in December 2019, and FY2021 passed in December 2020.) The Hill speculated last week that the FY2022 appropriations act due the end of this month may also be deferred to December.

When Congress misses the September 30 deadline to fund the new year, as usual, they fill the gap with one or more Continuing Resolutions, which extend the deadline on the previous year’s appropriations act. CRs by nature are smaller and more limited than an appropriations act (fewer pages), and thus less hopeful for miscellaneous additions. It’s possible that a hefty EB-5 reform bill could be attached to a CR this month, but I’d be surprised. I assume that the larger appropriations act, whenever that passes, is the industry target for EB-5. (From 2015 to 2020, regional center program authorization was not specially mentioned in CRs, but extended by default in CRs thanks to RC authorization being attached to the previous year’s appropriations. This year, a CR deadline extension would not help in and of itself, because RC program authorization is now decoupled from the FY2021 appropriations deadline.) FYI my log of past regional center program extensions includes a list of continuing appropriations and appropriations acts for the past six years, with dates and links. Note that “610(b)” or “203(b)(5)” are search terms to locate EB-5 content in a bill. (The bare minimum language needed for reauthorization is this sentence: “Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) shall be applied by substituting [future date] for ‘’September 30, 2015’.” An EB-5 reform bill will include a sentence similar to “Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)) is amended…”)

The timing for the second reauthorization condition – agreement by Congress to industry demands – is an open question. I already discussed my understanding of the field in my post Sizing the Reauthorization Hurdle. EB5IC and AAED are still committed to advance an alternative to the sub-optimal Grassley/Leahy EB-5 reform bill — an alternative that would not only reauthorize the RC program but add provisions to make the program more viable. This ambitious agenda has powered through blocking the Grassley/Leahy bill in June, seeing the RC program expire, and missing the Senate infrastructure bill opportunity.  How long will it take for these ambitions to finally be either accepted by Congress or moderated by industry? Lobbyists realize that patience is limited, and are reportedly working very hard to get Congress to agree to reauthorization soon, before investors, USCIS and Department of State give up on regional center petitions and applications. (As evidence that “the last minute” has already arrived, a USCIS leaker tells me that 154 EB-5 investors withdrew their I-526 petitions just in the last two weeks. Action is needed soon to stop the bleeding.)

I see three theoretical possibilities for the content of reauthorization legislation: (1) what industry groups including EB5IC and AAED want (legislation not yet made public, but reportedly based on S.2778 from last Congress); (2) what Senators Grassley and Leahy want, based on their S.831/HR.2901; or (3) a reauthorization that simply extends the RC program expiration deadline short-term in connection with the appropriations deadline, with no attached reform provisions. I discussed these options in detail a couple months ago in my post EB-5 legislation and the question of options (Grassley’s S.831 vs. the “holistic” S.2778). Of these, only the first appears a practical possibility at the moment.

 #3 is what we got every year from 2015 to 2020: short-term extensions to give the industry more time to agree on EB-5 reform legislation. #3 looks less probable now, since Congressional leadership went out of their way in December 2020 to decouple RC program authorization from appropriations, ostensibly to force the EB-5 legislation that’s already been deferred for five years.

#2 also seems improbable, since Senators Grassley and Leahy have not demonstrated the power to overcome industry opposition to get their reform bill passed. True, Senator Leahy can claim credit as the “driving force” for all regional center program authorizations from 2003 through 2012, and IIUSA has been willing to support the continued Grassley/Leahy reauthorization effort. But EB5IC has celebrated success in blocking Grassley/Leahy EB-5 legislation since 2015 (with other industry groups including U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Roundtable), and industry most recently demonstrated the will and power to block the Grassley/Leahy reauthorization path in June 2021.

So we’re left to hope that Congressional decision-makers might eventually agree with what industry groups want with reauthorization. EB5IC and AAED report that legislation is drafted and ready to go behind the scenes, though the text has still not been disclosed to the public.  (“They love the darkness better than the light because____” “…because their bill text includes no poison pills for Congress and honors promises to industry stakeholders.” Maybe.) To be fair, Grassley/Leahy also tried to get their EB-5 reform bill passed last year without disclosing it until the very last minute. This is politics, apparently. EB5IC and AAED report having secured some key Congressional support for their legislation. We shall see whether the support is sufficient to get Congress to shortly attach reauthorization to a bill that will pass.

Whether the industry effort has universal industry support may be irrelevant at this point. The main issue and question is probably just Congressional support. (One thing I don’t know: whether industry forces that have kept entire public silence this time but influential in past legislative efforts (e.g. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Related Companies, and U.S. Immigration Fund) may exercise veto power behind the scenes. Since IIUSA’s bottom line goal is reauthorization one way or another, I think it would and could not stand in the way of any bill moving forward. But not sure about the others.) In taking control of the ball for EB-5 legislation and running with it, EB5IC and AAED are now positioned to be showered in gratitude or criticism, depending on how their play turns out.  

Note that public-facing messages from EB5IC and AAED can be found on the Pathways EB5 Vimeo site and the AAED wechat. (If anywhere else, please let me know and I’ll publish.)

Separate from the regional center program authorization issue, the EB-5 category could be affected as part of other immigration proposals being discussed now. See “Democrats make immigration case to Senate parliamentarian” (September 10, 2021) in Roll Call and “Chairman Nadler Announces Committee Print for Full Committee Markup of Build Back Better Act” (September 10, 2021) at house.gov (including link to the proposed immigration provisions). This particular immigration proposal promises limited EB-5 impact, and I’ll wait to analyze it until it makes any progress. But something like this is probably the best hope for EB-5 visa relief. EB-5 visa relief bundled with reauthoriation legislation would just make the reauthorization controversial, by making it a stand-alone immigration issue rather than an economic development issue. EB-5 visa relief theoretically has better politics and opportunity as bundled with visa relief for other visa categories that are immigration priorities for the Administration, and supported by other powerful industries. (My post from a few months ago discusses Analyzing potential changes to EB-5 visa availability.)

Meanwhile, a reminder for those negotiating for Chinese investor interests to examine examine “parole.” The prospect of parole with work authorization appears to be a key bargaining chip within the industry for EB-5 legislation, and also wreathed in hopes that do not match the highly conditional and temporary benefits in existing immigration parole programs. See the Congressional Research Service report on “Immigration Parole,” for an overview, and program details on the USCIS page for Parole for Individuals Outside the United States.

I’d also like to repeat my hope and trust that the visa-set-aide proposal has already been excised from the S.2778 template. (Set-asides meaning 3,000 EB-5 visas per year set aside for new TEA investors, and thus deducted from the pool historically leftover from low-demand countries and issued to the oldest backlogged Chinese visa applicants). Lobbyists have publicly disclaimed queue-cutting set-asides. But just in case anyone is tempted to keep pushing set-asides despite lingering visa backlogs, I suggest reviewing Shakespeare’s Richard III, Act 4 Scene 4 (start at line 210). See how Richard approaches his sister-in-law Queen Elizabeth, whose sons he has slain, to woo her daughter as his wife. Richard counts on Elizabeth’s ambition to make it work, and argues the past sacrifice can be covered by future benefit for her. But Elizabeth points out that her daughter “cannot choose but hate thee, having bought love with such a bloody spoil.” I like to think that Chinese migration agents would stand up like Queen Elizabeth, if asked to take a bloody spoil of set-aside visas to woo new investors. How wonderful if the China market could re-open with visas available for new investment! But that bright possibility must depend on visa relief not bought with visa pain for past Chinese investors. There must be good faith with past investors — not merely in intention (“but we did not mean set-asides to hurt, and we did mean other provisions to compensate” — a classic Richard III line), but in the real-world results of legislative changes. Ideally we could get backlog relief, which is essential to EB-5 program health and future. At minimum, let’s all keep responsible to avoid net backlog harm from any new EB-5 legislation. Long-suffering Chinese investors deserve good advocacy now, considering that they already committed billions of dollars and spurred creation of tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S. economy.

UDPATE: As this post ended on rather a low note, see also We’re all in this together.

Sizing the reauthorization hurdle

I’ve been overwhelmed with everything that could be written, in this period of unparalleled transition, opportunity, and existential crisis for the EB-5 industry and investors. I’ll start by getting out a few words on the elephant of regional center program reauthorization, so that I can move on to many updates about USCIS processing, policy revisions, visa numbers and timing, and direct EB-5. And my business plan writing day job, also.

Before I begin my editorial about reauthorization, note that I’m summarizing and commenting from a distance on what I’ve read and heard. You can get more information and direct involvement by joining an advocacy group. Regional Centers and service providers can join IIUSA and/or EB5IC to get educated and influence legislative efforts. For EB-5 investors, I recommend joining AIIA. This organization is off to an impressive start in getting meetings with Congressional staff and industry decision-makers, and holds regular video call updates to involve and inform even small donors. For Chinese investors specifically, I see that AAED has recently been the largest spender on EB-5 lobbying.

And now, my perspective on the outlook for regional center program authorization.

Question: When will the regional center program be reauthorized? Answer: after Congress agrees to the industry’s reauthorization wish list, or the industry backs down and accepts sub-optimal reauthorization legislation. Practically, September 2021 now appears to be about the earliest that reauthorization could happen, and the latest it should happen.

Everyone seems to agree that regional center program authorization can’t get passed as a stand-alone bill, but must get loaded onto one of the big legislative trains going through Congress. That could mean the infrastructure bill being finalized right now, or the budget reconciliation and appropriations bills that will come up in September. The disagreement comes with the question: how big a reauthorization bundle can and should we try to load onto a legislative train?  How small a bundle can the industry agree to present, and how large a bundle will Congress be willing to take onboard?

With S.831/ H.R.2901, Senator Grassley made a relatively small bundle: just reauthorization with integrity measures. Integrity measures are not fun for the industry, but they are politically uncontroversial. No Congressperson is going to get slammed in the media or face an election challenge for having voted for integrity measures. EB-5 industry groups dislike some details, but they unite in saying that they support integrity measures. The industry association IIUSA supports S.831 because it’s a small bundle, and thus relatively easy to fit on a legislative train. The industry association EB5IC opposes S.831 because it’s a small bundle, and thus leaves some important industry priorities behind on the platform. EB5IC accepts reauthorization and integrity measures, but wants that to be bundled together with programmatic changes to reopen new investment: TEA/investment amount changes and visa set-asides. AAED, the group lobbying particularly for Chinese investors stuck in a terrible backlog, wants reauthorization to be bundled with visa relief.

Both EB5IC and AAED see reauthorization as the prime and only near-term chance to get what they need on a legislative train, and thus they balk at allowing a smaller reauthorization bundle to proceed instead. But the things that EB5IC and AAED want to add to reauthorization are politically controversial, thus increasing the risk that legislative trains will pass by without accepting such large bundles.  A Congressman can get slammed in the media and his next primary for having been seen to support TEA changes that obviously benefit prosperous urban developers. If he supports additional visas or new admissions for EB-5, he’ll incite everyone who’s against immigration, and also spark opposition from everyone who’s in favor of immigration but wants the same benefits for different categories. The politically-costly legislative bundles contemplated by EB5IC and AAED would have some great benefits for the EB-5 industry, if only they could be passed, but they create a high political hurdle for reauthorization. The industry has previously agreed that that TEA and visa relief asks are desirable, but now disagrees as to whether they’re at all achievable.  

And thus the reauthorization fight so far has happened on the loading dock, with disagreements about what to try to get on a train together with reauthorization. When Senator Grassley, with IIUSA’s support, brought S.831 up for Unanimous Consent on June 24, Senator Graham, pushed by competing industry factions, blocked S.831 from passing the Senate. In their webinar on June 24 prior to the Unanimous Consent effort, EB5IC explained the reasoning behind this block: they said that they do support integrity measures, but do not want a long-term reauthorization that omits and thus defers their other priorities of TEA/investment amount changes and visa set-asides.  (Senator Grassley attempted to compromise by offering the industry a shorter-term reauthorization – 2.5 years instead of 5 years – but this was not accepted.)  EB5IC went on to reference their negotiations behind the scenes for alternative legislation, and foresaw the infrastructure bill as a possible vehicle, with Senator Schumer as a possible champion willing and able to heft a larger and more valuable reauthorization bundle onto that vehicle.

We spent the month of July waiting, wondering if the industry factions with the will and power to temporarily block the advance of the low-risk low-reward Grassley reauthorization bill would also have the will and the power to advance a more ambitious alternative path to reauthorization. Senator Schumer and his group finalized the text of the infrastructure bill yesterday. The text as of August 1 spans over 2,000 pages and covers a number of economic development programs. It does not include the regional center program. I’m sad but not surprised. With all the effort to rid the infrastructure bill of controversial elements, could Senator Schumer possibly have agreed to pick up a heavy reauthorization bundle weighted with controversial elements, as had been hoped? And yet would industry groups have allowed him to pick up less, considering their objectives for reauthorization?

If the infrastructure bill proves to be a missed opportunity, then industry groups should re-assess how much they can expect and afford to demand in the next reauthorization attempt.  If Congressional negotiators wouldn’t touch TEA changes and EB-5 visa relief in the infrastructure bill, would these asks have a chance to board the next legislative train? Senator Grassley’s S.831/H.R.2901 remains an option, if the industry can accept a medium-term reauthorization with integrity measures, and without other programmatic changes in the medium term. The option of a “clean” no-change short-term reauthorization with the September funding bill is impossible, if Senator Grassley has power to make good on his strongly-worded promise to block such a move. A clean long-term reauthorization is even less an option, since no one but IIUSA would support it. Senator Grassley would oppose it as long-term deferral of his priority integrity measures, while industry groups would oppose it as long-term deferral of their priority programmatic changes. So long as we get long-term reauthorization at all, it’s going to be a bundle of some kind – a bundle that’s a compromise between what the interested parties want and what the interested parties are willing to give. (I don’t bother to account for the majority of Congress and the public who hardly realize or care that EB-5 even exists, and who lack the interest or the power to affect RC program authorization.)

We cannot afford to miss the next opportunity for legislative vehicle. Senator Grassley has little reason to shed tears if the regional center program stays expired due to dissatisfaction with his bill, which he is supporting for his own reasons and not on behalf of constituents. Industry groups do have reason to seriously consider compromise on their priorities, if necessary to get authorization, and the Senators only involved as a favor to constituents have reason to listen to them. AAED’s investor constituents have already suffered greatly from RC program expiration, with long-awaited consular interviews in Guangzhou scheduled and then abruptly cancelled, U.S. jobs lost, and thousands of visas going to waste. Chinese investors have much to lose if reauthorization happens without visa relief, but likely even more to lose from forcing reauthorization to wait for the blue moon of achievable visa relief. Some regional centers are hardened by belief that the EB-5 program is dead with or without reauthorization, unless Congress adds programmatic fixes. But regional center constituents will suffer too if the program stays expired long enough to result in mass I-526 denials, investors fighting for exits for their capital, and wide reputational damage. Regional center EB-5 petitions and applications are being held in abeyance for now, not denied, but USCIS and Department of State may reassess that policy if the fiscal year ends on September 30 with no progress yet toward RC program authorization. That’s a lot of pressure on industry to get reauthorization legislation attached to one of the legislative vehicles available by September 2021, one way or another. Let’s be serious about making reauthorization as probable as possible within that informal deadline. Reauthorization runs genuine risk of continuing to miss the train indefinitely, unless we are realistic.

This is my understanding, based on what I’ve read and heard. You’re welcome to post dissenting views in the comments. But even better, take action that makes a difference. Get involved in advocacy, get the interested factions to hear your voice, and let good results prove you right.

And finally, because I’m a business plan writer and prefer tables to paragraphs, here’s an attempt to summarize the various interests and priorities in table form.

USCIS Policy Manual EB-5 Updates (regulations, reauthorization, indebtedness, CSPA)

The USCIS Policy Manual is a fluid online document that gets edited periodically, with and without notice, which is exciting and disconcerting. Being someone who likes to know the rules, I save copies of the PM at different dates, and redline changes. In July 2021, USCIS made several PM updates that affect EB-5. However, redline shows that the updates are minor, and reflect policy that’s been in place for awhile already. Here’s my document highlighting specific EB-5 content added to the PM in July 2021.

1. Regulations update. I’d wondered when USCIS would acknowledge the Behring lawsuit win by revising policy language about EB-5 investment amounts and TEAs. On July 15, 2021, USCIS made a minimal Policy Manual revision: simply copying and pasting the same “Alert” about the Behring lawsuit that’s on the USCIS website EB-5 homepage into the beginning of Policy Manual Volume 6 Part G, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. USCIS did not revise the body of the PM.  So if you go to Chapter 2 today, the body of the chapter still says that the EB-5 investment amount since November 21, 2019 is $1.8 million, or $900,000 in a USCIS-designated TEA, but the header alert clarifies that the required EB-5 investment amount is $1.0 million, or $500,00 in a state-designated TEA and “In other words, we are applying the regulations in effect before Nov. 21, 2019 in this chapter.”  With this update, USCIS takes another important step to officially acknowledge the Behring lawsuit outcome. At the same time, the minimal note implies that someone does not expect the outcome to last long enough to justify actually revising rather than merely footnoting the old policy language.
2. Regional Center lapse update. Also on July 15, USCIS acknowledged the regional center program expiration by adding an “Alert” to the beginning of Policy Manual Volume 6 Part G, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 (but not Chapter 5 on removal of conditions). Again, the body of the PM was not revised, presumably reflecting hope that the RC program expiration also will not last long. The “Alert” added to the PM is identical to the first half of the “Alert” put on the USCIS website regional center page. The PM alert does not include the language about RFE response, I-829, or I-485.
3. CSPA: On July 26, USCIS announced a Technical Update – Adding References to the EB-5 Visa Program in Child Status Protection Act Guidance. It appears that the single change was to add the words “Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor (Form I-526)” to the list of applicable underlying forms for status adjustment.
4. Indebtedness: On July 22, USCIS announced a POLICY ALERT – Immigrant Investors and Investment of Loan Proceeds. Redline shows that this update did no more than to replace a couple words in the Policy Manual with the word “indebtedness,” and to add a footnote that “USCIS no longer follows its interpretation of indebtedness as including the investment of loan proceeds as of November 30, 2018, the date of the district court decision Zhang v. USCIS, 978 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2020).” Since USCIS lost the Zhang court case in November 2018 and lost its final appeal of that decision back in January 2019, USCIS should have been “no longer following its interpretation” for over two years now already. The new Policy Manual footnote is merely a belated acknowledgement of that fact. See also the “Class Action Member Identification Notice” that’s been on the USCIS website EB-5 homepage for a couple years now. And more to the point, see Administrative Appeals Office decisions that sustain appeals of I-526 denials over loan proceeds. For example: JUN162021_01B7203 and MAR242021_01B7203. If you are a member of the class whose I-526 was “denied on the sole basis of investing loan proceeds that were not secured by their own assets,” you have had and still have the right to get that denial vacated and reconsidered.