New RCs (AZ, CA, CT, GA, MN, NJ, NV, NY, OH, PA, PR, TX, WA, WI)

September 16, 2014 2 Comments

WordPress tells me that not many people clicked on my link from last post to USCIS’s published Q&A from the 2/26/2014 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting. So here’s another chance. This is really a good Q&A, with substantive responses on hot button issues including Regional Center sales, redemption agreements, deference, asset purchase, Census Tract aggregation, evidence at I-829 of model direct jobs, for-profit activities, guest expenditure jobs, bridge financing, hypothetical plan content, and geographic range of a Regional Center. I learned more from this written Q&A than I learned from listening to the meeting itself. I’m also bookmarking the page for the 9/10/2014 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting, which will eventually also be updated with USCIS’s meeting notes.  In the meantime, Robert Divine and Melanie Walker have the best summary so far of key issues from the 9/10 meeting.

And USCIS has updated its Regional Center list.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 9/5/2014 to 9/16/2014

  • DRC Capital Partners, LLC (Arizona)
  • E & W Lake Tahoe Regional Center LLC (California)
  • New York Connecticut Regional Center, LLC (Connecticut, New York)
  • Encore Georgia Regional Center, LLC (Georgia): encoreeb5.com
  • Headwaters Regional Center, LLC (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
  • Pacific Casino & Entertainment Group Regional Center (Nevada)
  • AscendAmerica, LLC (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania): www.ascendamerica.com
  • MidAmerican Global Ventures, LLC (Ohio): www.midamericanglobal.com (The list currently shows Mag Ventures 1, LLC, Mag Ventures 2, LLC, Mag Ventures 3, LLC, but I assume this is a mistake that will be corrected.)
  • Caribbean Regional Center (Puerto Rico) http://caribbeanregionalcenter.com/
  • Abasto Regional Center (Texas): www.mcallenwarehouse.com
  • South Texas EB-5 Regional Center (Texas): www.stxeb5.com
  • USLiving Regional Center (Texas)
  • Pacific Viniculture (Washington)

Filed under New RC, Updates from USCIS

9/10 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting

September 11, 2014 Leave a comment

In case you missed yesterday’s EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting with USCIS, here is a link to my recording. IPO Chief Nicolas Colucci provided program updates while new hires handled a question and answer session.

From the program updates we learned that the IPO (Investor Program Office in Washington DC) is still in hiring and training mode, with 83 staff as of now and an on-going goal to reach 110 by December 31. Most new hires have been adjudicators. IPO has been handling all I-526 and I-924, and I-829 will start transitioning from the CSC to IPO as of the end of this month. The IPO is also about to move to a new facility in DC, so be aware of current addresses. Revisions to the EB-5 regulations are still in progress, with IPO about to solicit more input from an interagency symposium with federal partners. IPO has selected the Department of Commerce to create a study on the economic impact of EB-5, due out next summer. Once again, we are promised an annual report in December with program related info, statistics, and a macro view of Regional Center activity.

Most significantly, we learned that USCIS has sent Notices of Intent To Terminate to 53 Regional Centers this year! Of these, 29 were sent to Regional Centers that failed to file I-924a in 2013, and 24 were issued recently for other reasons. A Regional Center receiving such a notice has opportunity to respond and try to address any defaults, so we aren’t necessarily about to see a flood of terminations. But it’s good to know that USCIS is serious about monitoring the on-going performance of Regional Centers, and challenging those that are “no longer serving the purpose of promoting economic growth.” With this in mind, Regional Centers should take care about filing the I-924a for 2014. Be sure to file it on time (before 12/29 this year) and to fill out the form completely. Mr. Colucci noted that RCs may attach a letter to the form to provide additional facts. (And you should definitely take that opportunity, if your RC’s activities in 2014 didn’t translate into numbers that look good on the form.)

From the Q&A period we learned that new permanent deputy chief Julia Harrison is very sharp, with the will and ability to provide informed, substantive, and helpful responses (as possible under the circumstances), while new division chiefs Lori Melton and John Lyons were and sounded sensible, respectively. It was confirmed that RC adjudications for a single project are still generally being grouped, which can be an exception to the general FIFO policy on I-526 processing. I expect that the most talked-over moments in this call will be Julia’s statement on potential impacts of China retrogression and the conditional acceptability of holdback escrows (starting about minute 15) and Martin Lawler’s question about guarantees between the NCE and JCE (1 hr and 14 minutes into the call). The Q&A includes a few other points of procedural interest to immigration lawyers, who composed the bulk of the callers, and you may review my recording for details, or go to other blogs for summaries (e.g. Robert Divine on the IIUSA Blog, EB5 Insights, Mona Shah Law). Generally, the message I got is that USCIS is looking to the 5/30 Policy Memo to provide guidance about what does and doesn’t work for EB-5, so the community may as well do the same.

UPDATE: USCIS has also posted an Executive Summary and Questions and Answers from the last regular EB-5 Stakeholder meeting on 2/26/2014.

Filed under Updates from USCIS

Cautionary Tale (KS), Processing Times Update

September 5, 2014 Leave a comment

I assume that immigration lawyers don’t have many would-be immigrants calling up to say “I want to get a CR1 visa. Please help me find a wife.” People understand that marriage and immigration are separate issues. Of course the lawyer who handles your paperwork doesn’t also help you fall in love. The CR1 relative visa grants you benefits based on a relationship that you have entered into, but the marriage decision is obviously separate from and prior to the immigration process.

When all this is clear for an immigrant spouse, why do immigrant investors get confused? Immigration lawyers do often hear the request “I want to get an EB-5 visa. Please help me find an investment.” Apparently many people do not understand that, in the US, the investment decision and the immigration decision are separate. The lawyer who handles your immigration paperwork is not placed or qualified to select a good investment for you. Neither is USCIS. The EB-5 visa grants you benefits based on an investment decision that you have made, and that decision involves factors that are separate from immigration considerations. Potential immigrant investors, take note! Investing half a million or a million dollars is a serious matter in itself, just as getting married is a serious matter in itself. These are not fundamentally immigration matters, even when they provide a basis for a visa later. Get advice from people who know about investing or who know about marriage. Go on lots of dates, talk about everything, meet the family, see a marriage counselor. Research the investment opportunity and the principals and get qualified investment advice. If you skip all that and just focus on immigration, you’re missing the point and are very vulnerable to getting hurt by your marriage or by your investment decision.

The news this week reminds us of what can happen. See the SEC’s notice “SEC Charges L.A.-Based Immigration Attorneys With Defrauding Investors Seeking U.S. Residency” and a more detailed article in the local news “Three charged by SEC in western Kan. ethanol scheme.” It’s hard to tell whether this started out a fraud or just as incompetence/bad luck that spiraled into fraud, but either way I don’t think this could have happened if the victims involved had recognized that EB-5 investment decisions require serious attention and diligence, and that one should not depend on immigration consultants to advise on much less to manage investments.  At the same time, the perpetrators might not have dared so much had they taken the investment angle of EB-5 seriously. Maybe the perpetrators thought that EB-5 is just an immigration program and they were free to do what they wanted so long as not caught by USCIS review. Now the heavy hand of the Securities and Exchange Commission is on them, reminding them that EB-5 investments are  investments and regulated and policed as such, regardless of the immigration angle. 

In other news, IPO processing times have been updated on the USCIS Processing Time Information page, with little change since last update.

IPO731

Filed under EB-5 in the News, Updates from USCIS