7/26 EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement
July 26, 2012 2 Comments
Today’s EB-5 stakeholder engagement was very substantive, with the USCIS panelists providing detailed answers to many questions submitted in advance of the call. I encourage you to review my recording if you weren’t able to join the teleconference. Robert Silvers, Senior Counselor to the Director, took an active role in this call and seemed well-prepared and genuinely engaged, upholding the standard set by Director Mayorkas.
Rob Silvers discussed process enhancements for EB-5, including the new EB-5 program office, new hires, case specialization, and the forthcoming review board for I-924 applications recommended for denial. He also suggested that a new draft of the EB-5 policy memorandum will be published in the next four weeks, and that movement on the “tenant occupancy” cases can be expected “very soon.”
Stakeholder questions addressed in the call included questions related to the requirements for sustaining investment, evidence requirements for I-924 petitions and amendments, metrics for determining acceptable geographic boundaries for a Regional Center, RFE practices, acceptable evidence of non-EB-5 capital commitments, acceptability of investor returns and distributions during the CPR period, acceptability of investors receiving real estate as a return on investment, counting jobs in business acquisition scenarios, and the issue of deference to prior approvals. For more detail see the detailed summary of the call posted by the EB-5 Center blog, or review my recording of the call.
I heard:
a. That one of the USCIS buildings in California is in the shape of a giant pyramid. Is this true? And, if so, what gives?
b. I heard that the ad posted for the new “Chief” of the EB-5 business investment office must have a U.S. government “Top Secret” clearance, which, I understand, are extremely difficult to get. Is this true? And, if so, what gives?
a. The CSC and some other gov offices are in the ziggurat which was built back in the 1970s. Nixon would have had a “western whitehouse” but it did not come to pass and instead became the Chet Holifield Federal Building. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chet_Holifield_Federal_Building