New Regional Centers (CA, FL, MA, ME, MI, NH, OK, TX)

The USCIS list of approved Regional Centers has been updated as of 8/16, with eight newly-approved centers bringing the current total number of Regional Centers to 336 by my count. To tally total centers, I count the entries on the USCIS list after removing duplicates and a few mistakes (old entries for renamed RCs and names that apparently refer to offerings, not Regional Centers).   Just to remind the world, I have no magic source for this information — anyone can go to to consult the current list of approved centers, can check the “last updated” date at the bottom of the page, and can compare the current list to a previous list (or to memory, though that’s getting harder for me) to identify what’s new and calculate how many centers have been added over a period of time. I also don’t know info beyond Regional Center name unless I get it from Regional Center principals, Google, or FOIA requests. If you have more info to share about any of these centers, please email me and I will happily update my Regional Center list for my readers’ reference.

American Pacific Hotels Regional Center (California)

Faustus Capital LLC (California)
LinkedIn Info

BLMP Florida Healthcare Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
LinkedIn Info

Greystone Florida Regional Center LLC (Florida)

United States Investors Regional Center (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire)

Resource Regional Center Michigan, LLC (Michigan)

Chen Roberts Regional Center (Oklahoma)

Medical Investment in Texas Regional Center (Texas)

(Note: See my Regional Center directory page for my most updated listings for all RCs. And please email me if you would like to provide additional information regarding your RC.)

About Suzanne (
Suzanne Lazicki is a business plan writer, EB-5 expert, and founder of Lucid Professional Writing. Contact me at (626) 660-4030.

15 Responses to New Regional Centers (CA, FL, MA, ME, MI, NH, OK, TX)

  1. Jin Yong says:

    With over 330 RCs now, that means if each RC retains 10 investors per year, then it will reach 10,000 IV visa numbers ceiling per year, because 3,300 investors translates roughly to 10,000 IV visa numbers. The only thing that’s delaying the Chinese EB-5 visa numbers from backing up is USCIS’ delay in adjudication.

    • Historically a handful of regional centers have accounted for most EB-5 investors, while many RCs have remained inactive for various reasons — because the project they applied for is already finished, because they were established as an umbrella but haven’t found appropriate actual projects, because they decided EB-5 is too much trouble, because they lack good contacts to help find EB-5 investors… Considering this history and situation, I don’t think it’s possible to calculate visa usage as a function of the number of approved RCs.

      • Jin Yong says:

        Agreed. In all likelihood, less than 10 large RCs probably account for more than 80% EB-5 cases, which was my real point: 10,000 visa numbers are not going to be enough for all RCs, without a delay in adjudication by USCIS. In some sense, this delay in adjudication by USCIS is keeping the priority dates for EB-5 cases open and not back-logged. For Chinese cases, even if USCIS adjudication speeds up, all that would mean is that there will be a back-log for Chinese cases. If ever USCIS adjudication gets to let’s say 6 months, I would not be surprised to see 2 years back-log for Chinese cases.

  2. Jin Yong says:

    By the way, in China some companies are trying to sign up investors by saying that the new Senate EB-5 bill is going to increase the EB-5 investment amount, so investors should do projects before the bill passes. This is so misleading because there is no way that this Senate bill is going to pass without the House changing it and delaying it as long as they can.

  3. Jeff says:

    At this rate the program will be completely unmanageable. Too many centers chasing too few dollars and muddying up the waters.

    • Jin Yong says:

      I think it might be better for investors to hand the money to the federal govt agency using the money to pay off and let them use the money and get back the money in 6 or 7 years interest free, like the Canadian Program. That way, there will not be politicians and the public mad about wealthy foreigners buying green cards and RCs getting rich. At least, the federal govt agency can use the money to pay down the deficit, so it will be clear that the EB-5 Program does benefit the US, albeit indirectly. Also, that way, there will be no bad publicity about few EB-5 projects.

      • In that scenario, foreign investors would be explicitly and simply buying green cards. Of course a Canadian-style program would be much simpler and immigrants would love it for the security, but I don’t think it would be good for America. The EB-5 program is very difficult to implement, but it can result in economic development and job creation. As someone who works on EB-5 business plans, I’ve seen many examples of good businesses and good projects that were able to get off the ground thanks in part to EB-5 investment.

  4. Jin Yong says:

    My point is others do not “see” all the indirect benefits. At least the Canadian Program is a very clear and transparent money for green card scheme. It’s funny that people are deceived into thinking that other immigration categories such as NIW and LC categories are not quid pro quo arrangements. Relatively wealthy people giving their hard earned money is not appreciated; yet aliens who are willing to work for one year at poultry farms or NIW researchers who say they will pursue activities in their fields are granted permanent green cards.

  5. Jeff says:

    The Canadian program was widely seen as a scam in the 1990s. The Canadian government made horrible investments on behalf of the investors. That’s why the US EB5 is by far the most popular.

    • Jin Yong says:

      That’s why you can’t give anyone the freedom to choose an investment; they should just use the EB-5 money to pay off the deficit or add to some college fund. My point is by doing so, most politicians and the American public cannot dispute the fact that the EB-5 does make some difference. Right now, I think they hear about few problem EB-5 projects, and they don’t see any benefits aside from RCs making money.

  6. Jeff says:

    Not only RCs but brokers who really do nothing but “introduce” projects to the market. They are making tons of money and providing no real services except to act as another layer between RCs and investors. That’s where the real problem lies. RCs have to charge a huge fee on top of their actual administration fee to cover a broker who wants $50k+ to “introduce” the project or worse yet, brokers who have no RC, do no compliance work, do nothing except introduce projects charging RC owners a monthly fee to “help”. The only thing this group “helps” is themselves to more of an investor’s money. I think that’s a bigger failing in the EB5 program than anything since these brokers don’t have any responsibility. They can represent bad projects *cough* Mississippi, make fees, reward the RC in their blogs and newsletters as being the best thing on the market and then wash their hands of any responsibility to the RC or to the investors when things go bad.

  7. Jeff says:

    A single EB5 thing will not work in America. Look at all the problems associated with regional centers that already have government involvement or quasi government involvement. Look at the mess in Mississippi and now Vermont. Those all have high level government ties. I own two centers and quietly raise money for projects in them. I dare say I am happy to be in the 10% of the big boys who actually produce. I am not however in “the club” with a lot of the others because of the problems they have or ways in which they or their attorneys have set themselves up for potential problems. People who haven’t owned regional centers really shouldn’t comment on regional center operations. Writing business plans is a world of difference to actually owning and operating a regional center.

  8. Mansi says:

    It seems like these were still approved by the CA office (similar to the ones you posted in the Aug 9th blog entry). So the new EB-5 Office in Washington has not started processing any I-924 applications yet?
    Also, is there any discussion in the EB-5 circle regarding the current backlog (more than 1 year) of I-829 processing times?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.