USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Question Invitation

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services <uscis@public.govdelivery.com>
Sent: September 25, 2020 11:32 AM
Subject: Ask USCIS A Question: EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

Ask USCIS A Question

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program

Do you have questions about the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as the EB-5 program?  USCIS would like to hear from you.

If you have questions about the EB-5 program, we invite you to submit questions by emailing public.engagement@uscis.dhs.gov by Oct. 9 at 4 p.m. Eastern. Put “EB-5 Question” in the subject line. We will not address case-specific questions.

USCIS will release an online presentation to provide program updates and respond to pre-submitted questions.

Note to media: Please contact the USCIS Press Office at media@uscis.dhs.gov for any media inquiries.

Please do not reply to this message. Contact us at Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov with any questions.

To view a list of upcoming local and national engagements, please visit uscis.gov/outreach.

To update your RSVP, modify your email address, or to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please visit your Subscriber Preferences Page.

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.

2 Responses to USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Question Invitation

  1. Investor says:

    Thank you Suzanne for sharing the details I sent following email to USCIS,

    Dear USCIS,

    Thank you so much for requesting questions from EB-5 stakeholders. I have some questions about the ‘Ethics and Integrity’ of the USCIS-IPO. Below I start with the context and then pointwise ask my question. I respectfully request you to please help me by responding to my questions.

    Context:
    In 2019 and early 2020, despite the increased staffing USCIS-IPO tremendously slowed down the processing of I-526 petitions. This has led to a huge number of ‘Writ of Mandamus/APA’ delay lawsuits filed against USCIS-IPO. In all these lawsuits, I observe that DoJ counsel representing USCIS argued the delays are legitimate and brought a motion to dismiss. In many of these cases, the judges then denied the motion to dismiss. I observed that when a court denies motion to dismiss, USCIS conceded and agreed to adjudicate within weeks the pending cases subject to the respective lawsuit. Almost all such petitions adjudicated were way younger than what IPO was otherwise processing. Below are some examples of these lawsuits with court dockets attached.
    a. Raju v. Cuccinelli (20-cv-01386-AGT)
    b. Wurtz v. USCIS (20-cv-2163-JCS)
    c. LAVY et al v. CUCCINELLI (1:19-cv-09912)

    Questions:
    1. If USCIS believed the delays in these cases were legitimate, why did USCIS surrender upon court denying a motion to dismiss? Why did USCIS not try to defend the delay arguments with real substance?
    2. By processing the petition subject to such lawsuits ahead of all other similar ones, I believe USCIS hurt the processing time for others. Does this not bring USCIS integrity in question?
    3. Can we expect equitable treatment for those petitioners who didn’t file such a lawsuit? or USCIS is asking for a lawsuit for every petition filed?
    4. In these lawsuits, the judges often observed that such immigration cases should take weeks or months, these should not take years. Why does USCIS-IPO take years for almost all petition types? Why can’t USCIS make the courts believe their delay argument?
    5. The enormous count of delay lawsuits must certainly be burning significant efforts and money for DoJ and USCIS. Are the resources spent on fighting these lawsuits more justified as opposed to adjudicating cases in a reasonable time and avoiding lawsuits?
    6. What plans does IPO have to fix the processing time to something reasonable where USCIS doesn’t have to concede motion to dismiss without further arguments?

    Thanks,

  2. Jack says:

    Is this something they are REQUIRED to do?
    If not, it might indicate some good news on the processing volume front.
    I mean, they’ve got to know that that’s a popular question and why volunteer to do a presentation if you don’t have any good news to share?

    Also, would anyone care to share any anecdotes about recent approvals? Those are always fun.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.