Policy Manual EB-5 Section: What’s New
November 30, 2016 Leave a comment
The EB-5 program just shifted onto a new and slightly different foundation. USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part G, published today, is now the controlling source for EB-5 policy guidance. Usually we get a review and comment period before new policy goes live, but the effective date for this policy (which I’ll call PM 6G for short) is November 30, 2016.
PM 6G consolidates and replaces (and expands on) the May 2013 EB-5 Policy Memo, EB-5 sections in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, and other related prior USCIS guidance. It’s intended as a compendium of existing policy, but it’s not identical to the previous guidance. Here are significant points that I notice (based on reading PM 6G side-by-side with the May 2013 Policy Memo, and consulting my memory).
PM 6G introduces a few new petition filing instructions:
- Chapter 3(B)(3) states that a regional center I-526 petition for a project not previously reviewed by USCIS must identify the project “as an actual project being presented for the first time,” and “should contain an affirmative statement signed by a regional center principal confirming that the regional center is aware of the specific project being presented for the first time as part of the immigrant investor petition.”
- Chapter 4(A) states that a regional center I-526 petition for a project previously reviewed by USCIS must submit the previously-approved documentation together with the investor’s documents. This is required even though the regional center previously submitted the documentation with the Form I-924. The petition must also include a copy of the regional center’s most recently-issued approval letter.
- Chapter 5(B) states that a I-829 petition must include relevant documents previously submitted with the Form I-526, including the comprehensive business plan and economic impact analysis, if the petitioner is relying on such documents to meet his or her burden of proof. “This information is necessary to indicate whether there are material changes that would impact deference.”
PM 6G includes a few items that might be arguable as new policy:
- Chapter 2(A)1 has a section on “using loan proceeds as capital”
- Chapter 2(D)4 says that “USCIS may request additional evidence that the indirect jobs created, or to be created, are full time.” (The May 2013 Policy Memo had stated the opposite: “Due to the nature of accepted job creation modeling practices, which do not distinguish whether jobs are full- or part-time, USCIS relies upon the reasonable economic models to determine that it is more likely than not that the indirect jobs are created and will not request additional evidence to validate the job creation estimates in the economic models to prove by a greater level of certainty that the indirect jobs created, or to be created, are full-time or permanent.” We need to get PM 6G revised to reflect that reasonable approach.) Chapter 2(D)(4) also confusingly defines direct jobs in the context of regional center job creation and economic analysis as “those jobs that establish an employer-employee relationship between the new commercial enterprise and the persons it employs.” This should be revised or expanded to reflect the alternate meaning of a “direct” job that is in fact used by economic models.
- Chapter 2(D)6 incorporates the content of the 12/20/2012 Operational Guidance on tenant occupancy
- Chapter 3(D) says that amendments are optional for changing a regional center’s “industries of focus, business plans, or economic methodologies,” but does not say that amendments are optional for a change in geographic boundaries. The May 2013 Policy Memo had included geographic boundaries on the list of changes for which an amendment was not required.
- Chapter 5(B) defines a first-in policy for allocating jobs to EB-5 investors, absent other agreement (departing from the recent practice of saying no investors get jobs if there aren’t enough for all and there isn’t a job allocation agreement)
PM 6G provides some new examples, clarifications, and re-emphasis:
- Chapter 2(A)2 lists types of documents that can be used to help demonstrate source of funds
- Chapter 2(A)2 lists “administrative fees, management fees, attorneys’ fees, finders’ fees, syndication fees” as examples of expenses that will be considered to erode capital made available to the job-creating entity, if paid out of the EB-5 qualifying investment amount
- Chapter 2(A)5 repeats the old point that TEA qualification is determined for each petitioner based on the project location’s TEA status at the time of that petitioner’s investment or I-526 filing, while re-emphasizing the implication that the project location is not necessarily a TEA for all time, and just because some early investors qualified for the reduced investment amount isn’t determinative for later investors in the same project
- Chapter 2(D)3 lists examples of evidence to be provided for a job-sharing arrangement in order to show that it truly involves job share of a full-time position, and not combination of part-time positions
- Chapter 2(D)5 re-emphasizes that a reasonable economic methodology must be based on reasonable inputs, and gives examples of economic model inputs and relevant documentation to help establish their reasonableness. This discussion is repeated in Chapter 5(B), with odd lack of distinction between evidence required at the I-526 and I-829 stage.
- Chapter 3(A) describes new detail required of the operational plan filed with the I-924 Application for Regional Center
- Chapter 3(B)1 suggests specific content for the “general proposals and predictions” in a regional center application relying on hypothetical projects
- Chapter 3(E) describes the process and issues in regional center termination
- Chapter 4(C) and 5(C) discuss material change in terms of the same principles but with different language and different examples from the May 2013 Policy Memo. Unlike the memo, the manual discusses and gives examples of changes that would NOT count as material.
- Chapter 5(B) tries to discuss evidence for regional center job creation at the I-829 stage, but needs more work to clearly address issues specific to regional center as distinct from direct investments, and to differentiate what’s required at I-829 from what’s required at I-526
- Chapter 5(B)1 gives examples of kinds of construction jobs that do and don’t count as intermittent
What is the significance of PM 6G? For investors, I guess it doesn’t make much difference because it doesn’t include major policy changes (yet) and basically says what their consultants knew already. It will just be a handy place to find all EB-5 policy, being more comprehensive and better written than the May 2013 memo. Attorneys will want to get busy finding problems and commenting on details that need to be changed. I’ll have to spend Christmas going through years of blog posts and other documents updating the content and citations to reference PM 6G instead of the various superseded guidance and policy sources (and maybe spend Easter the same way when PM 6G gets revised based on new regulations). I dislike the fluidity of the online Policy Manual, and for myself am copying the content into stable old-fashioned page-numbered documents with navigation.(Here is a link to my folder, which I expect will eventually include many dated versions. You’re welcome to share, keeping in mind that the online manual is the most reliable source for the most current content.)
I look forward to linking to other reactions on the manual here, and may modify my own comments in this post.