11/6 USCIS Policy Manual Update

The USCIS Policy Manual has been updated as of today with some edits to the EB-5 section in Volume 6 Part G,  and Adjustment of Status section in Volume 7 Part A. As usual, I saved the revised EB-5 section as a Word document in my folder of PM editions, and made a comparison document that redlines changes since the previous version.  I approached the policy manual update with some excitement, wondering (1) whether the PM update would add guidance or detail on TEA designation or priority date retention, and (2) whether USCIS would try to slip in any other policy changes under the cover of a regulations update. The answer to both questions is: no.  The PM says even less about new TEA rules and priority date retention than the reg says. The 11/6 PM update does not reflect all changes in the reg (i.e. does not include the new provision regarding evidence of property transferred from abroad, and does not mention most I-829 changes.)

Update: Robert Divine has written an article for IIUSA that reviews the changes.

Here is the update notice email from USCIS.

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services <uscis@public.govdelivery.com>
Sent: November 6, 2019 9:41 AM
Subject: Policy Update Notice on EB-5 Modernization Final Rule

USCIS is revising its policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to align with the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization Final Rule, published on July 24, 2019, and effective Nov. 21, 2019.

We are updating the USCIS Policy Manual to conform with the final rule’s provisions, which include:

  • Priority date retention for certain EB-5 immigrants;
  • An increase in minimum investment amounts;
  • Reforms to targeted employment area designations; and
  • Clarification of USCIS procedures for the removal of conditions on permanent residence.

Please see the Policy Alert for more detailed information on this update.

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

3 Responses to 11/6 USCIS Policy Manual Update

  1. Chinese Investor says:

    What’s your thoughts on S2778? I have been hearing conflicting opinions – some said it is likely to pass by December because of the pressure from USCIS reform, while others said it is not possible to pass due to continuous disagreement on TEA definition and investment amounts. Do you think congress will finally make a compromise this fiscal year?

    • EB5 victim says:

      S2778 is only a joke.
      • It seems to be designed total by IIUSA and New Yoke real estate tycoons. It is not a solution for current severe EB5 problems. Their main intentions are: a), block government new eb5 regulation; b), oversell in spite of more than 10~20 years backlog; c), occupy indefinitely the capital of scheduled investors.
      • According S2778, the EB5 solution is only paying more money, or occupying the money endlessly, and prolonging the backlog to a super funny and ridiculous length (maybe 30 years, 50 years or a whole life!). It never considers or mentions the repayment , backlog solution, risk control, accountability etc.
      • Someone said Senator Grassley does not like eb5, but his 2018.3 edition draft mentioned some constructive & responsible clauses to keep justice of eb5 development. While we could not find these items anymore.
      • There is not any honesty and sympathy to their old investors in S2778. After all they are their customers, they are using their money, they have created jobs , or are creating jobs now……, They should not be treated unfairly
      • Maybe USA does not like these investors, but they should not design a policy then change it into a trick, driving the victims (old investors) into a hopeless pit.
      • USA should design an EB5 exit: either give investors Green Cards or let hopeless investors taking back their money then quit this game.

    • I have heard the same conflicting opinions, and not sure of the answer. At least this time, the lobbying dollars are on the side of getting something done, rather than on the (easier) side of ensuring that nothing gets done.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.