Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant Occupancy
December 28, 2012 5 Comments
From: Public Engagement [mailto:Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-OccupancyDear Stakeholders,
In May 2012, USCIS published operational guidance on EB-5 adjudications involving the tenant-occupancy methodology which explains how USCIS policy on deference to prior EB-5 adjudications applies in the context of determinations regarding the reasonableness of an economic methodology. Since this guidance was issued, USCIS has carefully considered responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) as well as input from other relevant government agencies and has issued further operational guidance to govern the adjudication of these cases. This guidance will be applied to pending cases involving the tenant-occupancy methodology, as well as cases filed on or after the date of this guidance.
For more information, please see “Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-Occupancy” on the USCIS.gov website http://www.uscis.gov/memoranda.
Kind Regards,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
See the following post for my comments on the new EB-5 guidance memo.
EB-5 Updates 
This is much better guidance than before and is on target. I am glad it came out, FINALLY! I have also posted it (with highlighting and comments) at: http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/interim-eb5-tenantoccupancy-gm-december-2012
FINALLY is the understatement, 18 month plus has been and is unacceptable!
And it is NOT over yet. They still have to come out with the BIG Policy Memo which they have continually said was “coming soon” but well, you know…
The delay is called “killing the EB-5 Program softly”. USCIS receives high filing fees but fails to adjudicate I-526s within 14 months? That’s shameful. USCIS should return the filing fees.
Your proposal sounds like a good way to kill the EB-5 program quickly 🙂 Reducing the resources available to support adjudications doesn’t seem likely to solve any problems — though I suppose individual frustrated petitioners might feel better if fees were returned.