10/16 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting
October 16, 2012 8 Comments
Unfortunately I was not able to be in Washington DC for today’s EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement with USCIS, but I did listen in by teleconference and have uploaded my recording of the call. The most significant update is that “next month” promises another “Conversation with the Director” including Director Mayorkas and Rob Silvers that will tell us what we really want to know: what’s happening with “tenant occupancy” and the EB-5 policy memo. Today’s engagement deferred those topics, but did provide substantive comment on a number of issues. We heard a detailed description of the work flow process and staffing in the EB-5 adjudicative team and confirmation of the rumor that USCIS is working with the SEC to investigate some regional center activities. The panelists responded to questions regarding NAICS codes, construction timeline and job counts, job preservation for a troubled business, timeline for sustaining investment, conditions for use of bridge loans, and investment return in the form of real estate, among other issues. Ears pricked up when the panelists revealed some reasons that I-526 may be put on “operational hold” (e.g. all I-526 for one project on hold while the first is adjudicated, and I-526 for a Regional Center on hold while an amendment is adjudicated for that RC). I learned several things, though I’m never sure what I can take to the bank from a stakeholder meeting. Will the adjudicator who gets my I-526 with a new economic methodology be impressed when I play my recording of Blake Gotto at the 10/16 meeting saying that nothing precludes me from doing this instead of filing an amendment? Can I count on Kevin’s statement that a troubled business does not need to save the same positions that were in place prior to investment, so long as the head count remains the same, including FT/PT positions? I’ll have to listen again to the recording and re-read Matter of Hsiung. This meeting did not include a presentation, but I look forward to the eventual executive summary. I see that EB-5 Center has posted some notes on the meeting, and I will link here to other comment as it emerges. I’m also eager to hear reports from the IIUSA conference this weekend, which I am sorry to have missed as well.
As usual Suzanne thank you very much for the update.
Suzanne,
Do we have any specific guidance on projects that offer real estate as the exit or payback to the EB-5 investor?
David
Empire State RC
In the 10/16 meeting, John Miles said that, although he can’t absolutely exclude this option, he’s not sure that in practice USCIS has ever seen an approvable scenario involving offering real estate as part of the payback to the EB-5 investor. For example see this text from a notice of intent to deny (https://ebfive.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/noid-redemption.pdf) and this AAO certification of a Regional Center application denial (http://www.uscis.gov/err/K1%20-%20Request%20for%20Participation%20as%20Regional%20Center/Decisions_Issued_in_2011/Apr262011_01K1610.pdf). Denials for these kinds of exit strategies usually cite the precedent decision Matter of Izumi http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol22/3360.pdf
Thanks for the update Suzanne. I’m attaching a link to my blog where I discuss what I think was a new stealth bomb thrown at us at last week’s meeting: http://juliaparklaweb5.blogspot.com/2012/10/something-new-1016-quarterly-meeting.html
Pingback: www.nationofimmigrators.com
Pingback: Immigration's NannyStateGate: Picking EB-5 Winners and Losers : Nation of Immigrators : California Immigration Lawyer : Attorney Angelo A. Paparelli
Pingback: Promises for the future, not today « EB-5 Updates
Pingback: Immigration's NannyStateGate: Picking EB-5 Winners and Losers | Nation Of Immigrators