S.1501 legislation introduced; USCIS engagement on job creation
June 4, 2015 10 Comments
USCIS Engagement with Economics
Today USCIS held its “EB-5 Interactive Series: Expenses that are Includable (or Excludable) for Job Creation.” Here is my recording of the call. When USCIS publishes its summary, and when economists make comments, I’ll link to them here. I didn’t hear anything ground-breaking except for one point that looks inconsistent with written policy, and should eventually be recognized as wrong, so I’ll reserve my comments.
UPDATE: USCIS has posted “talking points” from this engagement.
New legislation introduced into the re-authorization debate
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 1501 (American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015), legislation to reauthorize and reshape the EB-5 Regional Center program, and to change some aspects of the EB-5 program generally. UPDATE: Yesterday I posted a hasty rant on this bill, which I’ve decided to take down as reader response has encouraged me to look more carefully at the provisions before commenting. Take a look at the bill for yourself and see what you think. I may continue to revise this post with additional commentary.
Probably the best commentary so far on the bill is Two Key Senators Introduce Bill to Extend and Improve EB-5 Program By Stephen Yale-Loehr.
EB-5 Updates 
You express that there is no grandfathering in the new proposed bill. However, on page 65, line 16 (Section 4 g) it does state that this does not apply to projects and investors that had filed applications with the Secretary of Homeland Security before the enactment of the law. Something similar appears on Section 5 regarding the preapproval of RC projects.
You are right. Thank you for this important correction! I’ve updated the post.
That is in Section 4 and addresses only TEA and investment requirement, which can be grandfathered. Other sections have different effective dates.
A lot people did not notice a small provision in the new EB-5 re-authorization bill. It allows only 90% of the jobs created can be indirect. This means the remaining 10% will have to be direct jobs. This will make all the existing regional center projects non-compliant as none create any jobs directly. 😦
I noticed this but hoped that it referred to “direct jobs” in the sense that economists use the word and not in its special EB-5 meaning of a W-2 employee of the NCE. But if it is interpreted as W-2 employee of the NCE, that will wipe out the funding entity/job-creating entity structure that’s at the foundation of the Regional Center program, and I’d be making frowny faces too!
I wished it were the “direct jobs” in the economic sense. However, from the bill sponsor’s press release, see http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-leaders-introduce-legislation-reform-eb-5-regional-center. Direct jobs means W-2 employees of the NCE.
This Section is effective upon the date of the enactment of this Act for pending regional centers and allows one year delay for approved regional centers.
There is one exceptional news in the bill. It seems that the 2 year capital investment timeline instead of 2 year conditional residency is the requirement for I-829 petition. Investors can file I-829 as long as the capital has been invested for 24 hours and I-526 are approved. The whole immigration process will be shortened.
“If the alien entrepreneur has sustained the actions described in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) for at least a 24-month period before admission, the alien entrepreneur may file the
petition under subsection (c)(1)(A) any time after such period and before admission for per
manent residence.’’
i’m also concerned about the up to 90% indirect job creation. However, I didn’t find anything related to W-2 on the website provided by Han Jun or in the reform act itself..somebody told me that the EB-5 interactive Series by USCIS on 6/4 made clear that the direct job creation calculated from the economic models will end up being deemed indirect job creation..anybody can confirm that?
Pingback: EB-5 Changes: Leahy & Grassley EB-5 Bill Proposal | Home