S.232 Update, SEC & Attorneys, RC list changes
February 6, 2017 4 Comments
S.232 Update
Senator Feinstein and Senator Grassley have finally published text for and issued a joint press release on the long-shot S.232 – A bill to terminate the EB-5 Visa Program. The statement from Senator Grassley clarifies what this piece of legislation is really about: “For years, I’ve worked with bipartisan colleagues in good faith to reform it. Unfortunately, despite its many flaws, EB-5 proponents are apparently content with the status quo, and that’s unacceptable. I was hoping that it would not come to this point, but absent serious efforts to bring about reforms, we need to take the necessary steps to wind down the program and completely mitigate fraud, abuse and threats to our security.” S.232 expresses frustration at the progress of EB-5 legislation and makes a hardball negotiating statement: “if you don’t respond to my concerns, here’s what could happen.” The proposal to eliminate EB-5 entirely must be too drastic to gain much support or pass into law, but we should still take the frustration seriously. I can understand why EB-5 industry advocates in Washington DC would settle on a “protect the status quo” platform, that being the path of least resistance to industry consensus, but we cannot afford a reputation for being unserious about reform. We should address each of the concerns that Feinstein and Grassley raise in their press release. We can clarify points that are factually wrong (EB-5 is not green card sale and does not avoid waiting lines, as Feinstein assumes), respond constructively to valid concerns (for example support effective protections in response to past instances of fraud, address questions raised by GAO and Commerce studies on job counts), and have the leadership to offer some considered concessions on the fundamentally divisive issues (such how the targeted employment area incentive should be used, what investment amounts should be). We must not leave oxygen for S.232, or give it excuse to become anything more than a negotiating threat.
SEC Issues for Attorneys
IIUSA has reposted 10 Observations from Reviewing Evidence in an SEC Civil Enforcement Action, an article with good advice for attorneys based on the author’s review of documentary evidence in a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC against an attorney for taking commissions as an unregistered broker-dealer.
RC List Changes
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 12/06/2016 to 02/04/2017
- Health and Welfare EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
Additions to the list of Terminated Regional Centers:
- Medical Investment in Texas Regional Center (Texas) Terminated 1/23/2017
- Pacific Proton Therapy Regional Center, LLC (California) Terminated 1/26/2017
EB-5 Updates 
Hi Suzanne – I’ve been an avid reader of your blog ever since I started my EB-5 journey. I successfully applied and landed in the US mid last year and settled in a new job. I keep reading of several impending changes to the EB-5 program, and what worries me is that status of folks waiting to apply for I829 if the Trump administration chooses to pull the carpet and terminates the EB-5 program. I understand you are not an attorney, but I believe your knowledge in this domain qualifies you to be an expert. What is your take on this?
See the comment below
Hi Suzanne:
Longtime fan of your blog and an immigration attorney. It’s an interesting question because the draft bill would terminate the I-829 provisions of the Act (INA 216A). USCIS has previously stated in guidance that if the RC program lapses, then regional center CPRs would still be able to file I-829s. But completely repealing INA 216A is uncharted territory.
Interestingly that’s the part of the statute which discusses conditional residence. One argument you could make would be that CPRs are now full LPRs given that 1) they haven’t been removed; 2) there is no part of the statute that defines them as conditional residents. On the other hand, the senators “missed” a conforming amendment in INA 237 that allows for deportation of conditional residents who failed to remove conditions. If passed, that section would still reference 216A. People would therefore be subject to deportation based on a law that no longer exists? I’d definitely take that case and file suit in federal court.
Clearly they haven’t thought this through.
All this being said, I am in 100% agreement with your advice “We must not leave oxygen for S.232, or give it excuse to become anything more than a negotiating threat.”
Very helpful comment, thank you!