Sizing the reauthorization hurdle

I’ve been overwhelmed with everything that could be written, in this period of unparalleled transition, opportunity, and existential crisis for the EB-5 industry and investors. I’ll start by getting out a few words on the elephant of regional center program reauthorization, so that I can move on to many updates about USCIS processing, policy revisions, visa numbers and timing, and direct EB-5. And my business plan writing day job, also.

Before I begin my editorial about reauthorization, note that I’m summarizing and commenting from a distance on what I’ve read and heard. You can get more information and direct involvement by joining an advocacy group. Regional Centers and service providers can join IIUSA and/or EB5IC to get educated and influence legislative efforts. For EB-5 investors, I recommend joining AIIA. This organization is off to an impressive start in getting meetings with Congressional staff and industry decision-makers, and holds regular video call updates to involve and inform even small donors. For Chinese investors specifically, I see that AAED has recently been the largest spender on EB-5 lobbying.

And now, my perspective on the outlook for regional center program authorization.

Question: When will the regional center program be reauthorized? Answer: after Congress agrees to the industry’s reauthorization wish list, or the industry backs down and accepts sub-optimal reauthorization legislation. Practically, September 2021 now appears to be about the earliest that reauthorization could happen, and the latest it should happen.

Everyone seems to agree that regional center program authorization can’t get passed as a stand-alone bill, but must get loaded onto one of the big legislative trains going through Congress. That could mean the infrastructure bill being finalized right now, or the budget reconciliation and appropriations bills that will come up in September. The disagreement comes with the question: how big a reauthorization bundle can and should we try to load onto a legislative train?  How small a bundle can the industry agree to present, and how large a bundle will Congress be willing to take onboard?

With S.831/ H.R.2901, Senator Grassley made a relatively small bundle: just reauthorization with integrity measures. Integrity measures are not fun for the industry, but they are politically uncontroversial. No Congressperson is going to get slammed in the media or face an election challenge for having voted for integrity measures. EB-5 industry groups dislike some details, but they unite in saying that they support integrity measures. The industry association IIUSA supports S.831 because it’s a small bundle, and thus relatively easy to fit on a legislative train. The industry association EB5IC opposes S.831 because it’s a small bundle, and thus leaves some important industry priorities behind on the platform. EB5IC accepts reauthorization and integrity measures, but wants that to be bundled together with programmatic changes to reopen new investment: TEA/investment amount changes and visa set-asides. AAED, the group lobbying particularly for Chinese investors stuck in a terrible backlog, wants reauthorization to be bundled with visa relief.

Both EB5IC and AAED see reauthorization as the prime and only near-term chance to get what they need on a legislative train, and thus they balk at allowing a smaller reauthorization bundle to proceed instead. But the things that EB5IC and AAED want to add to reauthorization are politically controversial, thus increasing the risk that legislative trains will pass by without accepting such large bundles.  A Congressman can get slammed in the media and his next primary for having been seen to support TEA changes that obviously benefit prosperous urban developers. If he supports additional visas or new admissions for EB-5, he’ll incite everyone who’s against immigration, and also spark opposition from everyone who’s in favor of immigration but wants the same benefits for different categories. The politically-costly legislative bundles contemplated by EB5IC and AAED would have some great benefits for the EB-5 industry, if only they could be passed, but they create a high political hurdle for reauthorization. The industry has previously agreed that that TEA and visa relief asks are desirable, but now disagrees as to whether they’re at all achievable.  

And thus the reauthorization fight so far has happened on the loading dock, with disagreements about what to try to get on a train together with reauthorization. When Senator Grassley, with IIUSA’s support, brought S.831 up for Unanimous Consent on June 24, Senator Graham, pushed by competing industry factions, blocked S.831 from passing the Senate. In their webinar on June 24, EB5IC explained the reasoning behind this block: they said that they do support integrity measures, but do not want a long-term reauthorization that omits and thus defers their other priorities of TEA/investment amount changes and visa set-asides.  (Senator Grassley attempted to compromise by offering the industry a shorter-term reauthorization – 2.5 years instead of 5 years – but this was not accepted.)  EB5IC went on to reference their negotiations behind the scenes for alternative legislation, and foresaw the infrastructure bill as a possible vehicle, with Senator Schumer as a possible champion willing and able to heft a larger and more valuable reauthorization bundle onto that vehicle.

We spent the month of July waiting, wondering if the industry factions with the will and power to temporarily block the advance of the low-risk low-reward Grassley reauthorization bill would also have the will and the power to advance a more ambitious alternative path to reauthorization. Senator Schumer and his group finalized the text of the infrastructure bill yesterday. The text as of August 1 spans over 2,000 pages and covers a number of economic development programs. It does not include the regional center program. I’m sad but not surprised. With all the effort to rid the infrastructure bill of controversial elements, could Senator Schumer possibly have agreed to pick up a heavy reauthorization bundle weighted with controversial elements, as had been hoped? And yet would EB5IC or AAED have allowed him to pick up less, considering their objectives for reauthorization?

If the infrastructure bill proves to be a missed opportunity, then industry groups should re-assess how much they can expect and afford to demand in the next reauthorization attempt.  If Congressional negotiators wouldn’t touch TEA changes and EB-5 visa relief in the infrastructure bill, why would these asks have a chance to board the next legislative train? Senator Grassley’s S.831/H.R.2901 remains an option, if the industry can accept a medium-term reauthorization with integrity measures, and without other programmatic changes in the medium term. The option of a “clean” no-change short-term reauthorization with the September funding bill is impossible, if Senator Grassley has power to make good on his strongly-worded promise to block such a move. A clean long-term reauthorization is even less an option, since no one but IIUSA would support it. Senator Grassley would oppose it as long-term deferral of his priority integrity measures, while EB5IC and AAED would oppose it as long-term deferral of their priority programmatic changes. So long as we get long-term reauthorization at all, it’s going to be a bundle of some kind – a bundle that’s a compromise between what the interested parties want and what the interested parties are willing to give. (I don’t bother to account for the majority of Congress and the public who hardly realize or care that EB-5 even exists, and who lack the interest or the power to affect RC program authorization.)

We cannot afford to miss the next opportunity for legislative vehicle. Senator Grassley has little reason to shed tears if the regional center program stays expired due to dissatisfaction with his bill, which he is supporting for his own reasons and not on behalf of constituents. Industry groups do have reason to seriously consider compromise on their priorities, if necessary to get authorization, and the Senators only involved as a favor to constituents have reason to listen to them. AAED’s investor constituents have already suffered greatly from RC program expiration, with long-awaited consular interviews in Guangzhou scheduled and then abruptly cancelled, U.S. jobs lost, and thousands of visas going to waste. Chinese investors have much to lose if reauthorization happens without visa relief, but likely even more to lose from forcing reauthorization to wait for the blue moon of achievable visa relief. Some regional centers are hardened by belief that the EB-5 program is dead with or without reauthorization, unless Congress adds programmatic fixes. But regional center constituents will suffer too if the program stays expired long enough to result in mass I-526 denials, investors fighting for exits for their capital, and wide reputational damage. Regional center EB-5 petitions and applications are being held in abeyance for now, not denied, but USCIS and Department of State may reassess that policy if the fiscal year ends on September 30 with no progress yet toward RC program authorization. That’s a lot of pressure on industry to get reauthorization legislation attached to one of the legislative vehicles available by September 2021, one way or another. Let’s be serious about making reauthorization as probable as possible within that informal deadline. Reauthorization runs genuine risk of continuing to miss the train indefinitely, unless we are realistic.

This is my understanding, based on what I’ve read and heard. You’re welcome to post dissenting views in the comments. But even better, take action that makes a difference. Get involved in advocacy, get the interested factions to hear your voice, and let good results prove you right.

And finally, because I’m a business plan writer and prefer tables to paragraphs, here’s an attempt to summarize the various interests and priorities in table form.

 Priorities for EB-5 Legislation, as of June 2021
Interested FactionRegional center program authorizationIntegrity measuresTEA/investment amount flexibilityVisa set-asidesVisa backlog reduction
Senator Grassley & Senator LeahyPriority (but only if combined with integrity measures)Top PriorityOppose changes to minimize distressed and rural incentivesWere willing to consider this in the pastGrassley opposes increasing immigration
IIUSATop PriorityWilling to supportWas willing to consider this in the pastWas willing to consider this in the pastSupports in theory but believes to be politically impossible now
“Holistic faction” (e.g. EB-5IC)Top Priority (but only if combined with programmatic fixes such as TEA and set-asides to make EB-5 more usable)Generally supportive; a few quibblesTop Priority (goal to make a wide range of projects viable for EB-5 by minimizing high-unemployment and rural incentives)Top Priority (set-asides could mitigate the RC’s backlog problem by offering new investors a shortcut around the backlog)Speaks supportively but tentatively (“hope” “maybe”). Set-asides would only have an effect if the backlog continues to exist.
Chinese EB-5 investors specifically (e.g. AAED)Priority (but only if combined with visa backlog relief)Probably mostly supportiveNot a major concernAppear willing to consider, assuming concurrent backlog reliefTop Priority (more EB-5 numbers, changes to priority, or at least advance parole)
EB-5 investors generally (e.g. AIIA)Priority (but Top Priority is rather protection for past investors, even if without reauthorization)Generally supportive; a few quibblesNot a major concernStrongly opposed, considering negative impact on backlogged investors Would make backlog reduction a top priority if possible (but opposes backlog reshuffle)
The public, the media, and Congress in generalNot a high priority but also not terribly controversial; relatively small and little-known program using <1% of visas; some negative perceptions about program integrityNot controversial; everyone likes integrity; program is perceived to need reformSomewhat controversial, if too-obviously designed to minimize distressed and rural incentivesNot very controversial: “TEA set-aside” sounds good, and those who object to a fast-track to new Chinese investment do not realize that such is the desired effectVery controversial, because triggers those who oppose immigration and those who support immigration but want benefits for other visa categories
*Note that Senator Grassley and Leahy are the only Congressional representatives I’ve listed as an “interested faction,” because it appears that they are the only representatives who are interested for themselves, based on personal motivation. This is compared with other Senators and representatives such as Schumer and Cornyn who are interested and involved in EB-5 only on behalf of constituents, based on what the constituents want, but would not act on EB-5 out of any personal interest.

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.

64 Responses to Sizing the reauthorization hurdle

  1. Amy says:

    Very informative and well written. I would recommend all investors to join AIIA. They are doing some excellent work and have managed to get much traction in a short period.

    • Kim says:

      To piggyback on Amy’s comment: I too heartily recommend that existing investors check out the American Immigrant Investor Alliance (AIIA) website. Also, please make a donation if possible. AIIA’s primary objective at the moment is to grandfather existing EB-5 RC petitions so that investors will not be affected by current or future program lapses. They have written a bill to this effect and aim to get it passed in Congress. Let’s help them achieve this goal by contributing whatever we can. I get the sense that AIIA are using their donors’ money wisely and making every dollar count by laser focusing on what is achievable. There is very little that we investors can do to help ourselves at the moment, but donating to AIIA could potentially have a significant impact on our immigration futures.

      https://goaiia.org

    • US says:

      True, AIIA is doing some very good work. Please do contribute or volunteer!

  2. David Hirson says:

    Hi Suzanne,

    Congratulations on a very incisive analysis. Thank you it is very helpful. I hope some of the factions adjust their thinking.

    At the moment we have nothing. To continue to insist on more than that which is on the table, may lead us to a permanent “nothing!”

    Warmest regards,

    David
    *David Hirson, Esq.| Managing Partner * David Hirson & Partners, LLP 1122 Bristol Street, 1st Fl, Costa Mesa CA 92626, USA

  3. EB5rc_sprt says:

    “Some regional centers are hardened by belief that the EB-5 program is dead with or without reauthorization, unless Congress adds programmatic fixes.”

    Hi Suzanne, would they rather see the RC program being permanently shut than being reauthorized with (heavy) compromises? This seems to be a very important question. Do you have any insights on this particular factor? Thank you for all your analyses.

    • All industry advocates say that no, no one wants to see permanent shutdown. The RCs with most lobbying power currently hold hundreds of millions in investment from people who’d fight to exit the investments if they permanently lost the chance for the visa incentive. If RCs believe in the consequence of potentially losing redeployment funds in case of permanent expiration, that potential loss must calculate higher than the reduced future capital raising potential that could result from compromise. But the RCs know their own investment terms and tolerance for litigation, and how much they would expect to suffer or not from the fact or on-going risk of a permanent shutdown. It’s hard for me to guess about their internal calculations, how they privately visualize the alternatives, or how realistic they’re being. When they say that the Grassley/Leahy compromise would mean death, that sounds like worrisome hard-core anti-compromise, and yet it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re ready to accept the death of a permanent shutdown. See for example EB5IC lobbyist Laura Reiff’s quotes in this article: https://www.eb5investors.com/blog/eb5-reform-bill

  4. RM Lokesh says:

    Hi suzzane….

    based on my understanding reading your blog:

    the regional Center will be reauthorized in September for sure?

    or is it like the earliest is September if not December?

    • Nothing is for sure. September appears to be the next earliest opportunity, and also the point at which reauthorization is almost too late, so we all strongly hope for action in/by September. But as I discuss in the post, it remains to be seen whether September will bring the condition needed for reauthorization: industry agreeing on legislation that Congress can agree to pass.

      • Bhavesh says:

        If the regional center program isn’t renewed, won’t that eliminate the backlog for direct investment category investors?
        If I’m reading it right, it’s unlikely that the different factions will budge, and that means great news for those of us who went with direct investments.

        • Chandra Prakash Ojha says:

          @Bhavesh

          Regional Center program doesn’t have to go down for Direct program to go up. There is and always have been ample visa available for Direct EB5. Problem lies with markedly prolonged processing times at every stage, which is not going to be triumph for you even if the RC program is dead.

          • Bhavesh says:

            Hi ChandraPrakash, If the USCIS decides to deny the thousands of RC petitions, it’ll easily improve processing times for Direct Investment category investors by dramatically slashing the IPOs workload.

        • Bharat says:

          Bhavesh, Thousands of your fellow countrymen are suffering after investing half a million dollars and stuck in a limbo. You may be very excited for the fact that you may be benefiting at the cost of them getting screwed but at least have some shame and do not celebrate such a catastrophe publicly.

          • veedster says:

            Cannot agree more.

          • Jay says:

            December 2018 workload has sporadic IPO activity after June 30th expiry date. I am assuming, all cases looked after expiry date are Direct EB5. Since December 2018 was heavy, there were cases touched by IPO but unfortunately nothing from December 2018 between 10th and 31st was approved and all were RFE’ed. So yes, Direct EB5 will get a bump, but be ready for RFE.

          • Chandra Prakash Ojha says:

            @Bhavesh

            I don’t know you so can’t comment but I am not sure, if you are realizing what you are writing on a public platform. You have established a new benchmark of self-centeredness. Wish you all the very best.

          • Bhavesh says:

            @Bharat, the simple fact is, we all have to live with the consequences of the choices we make.
            We chose direct investments, so we’re happy in all ways, others chose regional centers, so let them suffer. If I’m looking at the positive impact on my category because the Regional Center stakeholders were unable to reach a compromise, why would you blame me, when as Suzanne correctly pointed out, this catastrophe is the result of the selfishness of RC owners?

            Just as an FYI, the fact that we’re eligible for E2 visas should’ve clued you in to the fact that my forefathers may have been Indian, I’m not, because Indians are ineligible for E2 visas. Believe it or not, the Indian diaspora is widespread, and Indian origin citizens are found in most countries of the world.

            I do feel bad about what happened to those who chose regional centers, but that’s a choice that they made. Had they chosen a program that’s not vulnerable to the whims of politicians, they’d have slept peacefully like we do. Even we were considering regional centers at one point, but during our first conversation with the CEO of Smart Business Broker, we took a lot of notes and actually did our research, before deciding to go with E2 + EB5 petitions in the same business, because as that guy correctly pointed out, it’s safer to go with a category that’s permanent and where we have full control over our business from day one.

            When investors choose to entrust their money to someone else, and actually sign a document confirming that they’re aware that their money is at risk and there’s a risk of capital loss, why are investors surprised when they do face capital loss and denials of visas?

        • Kim says:

          Bhavesh, I wouldn’t bust out the champagne just yet, dude. If it comes to the point that USCIS actually starts denying RC petitions, I wouldn’t be surprised if USCIS starts mass reassigning IPO staff to other divisions. I mean, why wouldn’t they? USCIS is always short of staff and funding, and backlogs are terrible in many other categories. At that point it’ll be anyone’s guess how the processing times of direct EB-5 and I-829 petitions will be affected.

          Also, the IPO’s workload has already been “dramatically slashed” for over a month but I haven’t heard that direct EB-5 adjudications have increased exponentially, so let that be your clue. (I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong on this point.)

          • Roberto Virga says:

            Other divisions: definitely not. I-829 processing: definitely yes.
            As for why you haven’t seen much progress so far: Ur Jaddou was only confirmed last Friday, give her a little more time.

  5. Roberto Virga says:

    Breaking news: Lindsey Graham has been diagnosed with covid. While I don’t usually take pleasure in other people’s misfortunes, he’s fully vaccinated, he has only mild symptoms, and he’s going to be fine. But he’s in quarantine for the time being, so if Grassley was to put the re-authorization bill up for a unanimous consent vote again this week, Graham wouldn’t be there to object and maybe it would pass.

    • Kim says:

      I hate to harsh anyone’s mellow, but if Senator Graham hadn’t objected to S831 back in June, another senator would have. Only one senator needed to object so that’s why nobody else bothered to stick their neck out. If Graham is not there, industry groups opposing S831 will lean on some other senator to object.

      • Roberto Virga says:

        The vast majority of Senators either do not know what EB-5 even is, or do not feel strongly about its fate one way or the other. The only so-called “holistic” Senators were (still are?): Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and maybe Mike Rounds. Cornyn has already changed his mind and started supporting Grassley’s bill, so there is the chance that Graham was the last holdout.

        • Kim says:

          I agree that the vast majority of Senators are apathetic about EB-5. That being said, Senator Schumer joined as a cosponsor on S2778 (the “holistic” reform bill from last Congress cosponsored by Rounds, Graham, and Cornyn) so I would suspect that he wouldn’t let S831 pass.

          • Roberto Virga says:

            It would take me too long to explain why, but I’m 100% confident that Majority Leader Schumer would not oppose Grassley’s bill. He only cosponsored S.2778 (late) because a) the TEA/non-TEA amounts didn’t penalize urban development, and b) to lend an aura of bipartisanship to a bill that up to that point was R-only.

  6. Daniel says:

    Thank you Suzanne. Another great article and it’s so useful in my situation with my application held up at NVC.
    Is there any update on the Eagle Act? After reauthorisation that seems to be the biggest threat to everyone waiting who isn’t from a backlogged country.

  7. Amy says:

    Hi Suzanne – do we know if there are active discussions happening between EB5IC and Sen Grassley’s office to agree on a compromise?

    • I don’t personally know who’s talking to whom, but theoretically an EB5IC-Grassley discussion looks unlikely right now. Why would EB5IC negotiate with Grassley when their claimed objection to the Grassley bill is not about what it does contain, but what it doesn’t contain, and when Grassley has no political interest in the other priorities that EB5IC wants to see included in a bill? I can imagine EB5IC negotiating with Grassley if EB5IC has given up their urban TEA relief and visa relief demands, and thus can consider supporting Grassley’s bill if they can get him to revise a couple integrity measure details. But so far as I know, EB5IC hasn’t yet given up their agenda items that are outside of Grassley’s wheelhouse, so must be trying to pursue a different path.

  8. Bhavesh says:

    This guys says that there’s no chance of the RC Reauthorization bill making it into the infrastructure bill. I guess that means Suzanne is right and we’ll see a lot of litigation directed towards regional centers.

    https://cis.org/North/EB5-Situation-No-News-Good-News

  9. Krish says:

    Suzanne as always great article. You are the only hope for me as an investor. It gives me up to date. I think if it is not happening in September, I want to know what is the next step to pull back. People put their hard-earned money and this govt. does not care about the investors who trusted the program. We probably need to file court proceedings.

  10. Krish says:

    Suzanne, you are doing a great job. God bless you. As an investor, you are the only one who gives us up to date on what is happening. It really takes time for all this analysis. If this is not authorized by September. I think investors should be prepared to take legal action to pull back the money. We trusted this program and put our hard-earned money. Now, this is not right, These people are just playing games.

    • Bhavesh says:

      Krish, you’re right, the RC people are playing games with the lives and money of thousands of investors, and that’s why we chose direct investment route. You’re also right that investors should file suit to reclaim their money because most regional centers didn’t disclose the fact that investments and visas would be at risk if the USCIS didn’t renew the program.

      • veedster says:

        “You’re also right that investors should file suit to reclaim their money because most regional centers didn’t disclose the fact that investments and visas would be at risk if the USCIS didn’t renew the program.” – that is called Due diligence.

        Not everyone can run barbershops and laundromats.

        • Bhavesh says:

          Those of us who have our own little businesses don’t have to stress out about our lives, while the ones who trusted fraudsters are now worrying. At least I know that my family’s funds and future are secure, and our category isn’t subject to volatility.

  11. David says:

    Hi Suzanne, thanks a lot for the very insightful analysis of the current situation. Please post more information on how we (investors) can help with a quick reauthorization. I think the goal should always be to maintain status quo while trying for program improvements on a different track. Other investors please post any helpful information you have about the status of reauthorization efforts and how other investors can help.

    • My advice: sharing status updates and giving advocacy advice is what’s happening in the advocacy organizations and chat groups — not something that can be done by me personally or in the blog comments. I suggest that you join a group. For example https://goaiia.org/

      • David says:

        Thanks Suzanne. Do you think it’s possible that EB-5 reauthorization can be part of the big infrastructure bill that will probably be passed by reconciliation?

        • The big infrastructure bill had been a #1 hope to include reauthorization. However, as linked in my post, the text of the infrastructure bill was finalized last weekend with no EB-5 provisions. Unless someone can get a late amendment added, the infrastructure bill chance has already passed us by. That’s partly why I wrote this post, to beg those who had ambitious plans for the infrastructure bill to reconsider those ambitions before the next opportunity fails as well.

  12. AZ says:

    Are i485s based on RC I526 being approved if they were filed before June 30? I’ve heard mixed opinions about this – does anyone have any anecdotal evidence? A few weeks ago, someone with a pending i485 (based on an RC i526) posted that their biometric appointment had been scheduled after June 30.

    • This is not clear from the USCIS guidance, and lawyers have different opinions about what USCIS should do. One person reported this:

      This is a response from the USCIS attorney regarding to the combo card WOM submitted on May 30.
      The petitioners submitted Form I-765 Applications for Employment Authorization and Form I-131 Applications for Travel Documents under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program. The statutory authority related to EB-5 Investor Regional Center Program lapsed on July 1. The Regional Center Program is the program under which Plaintiffs filed their Form I-765 and Form I-131 applications with USCIS. Due to the lapse in authorization, USCIS will not act on any pending Regional Center applications, including Forms I-765 and Forms I-131, that are dependent on the lapsed statutory authority.

  13. Amy says:

    Once congress goes into recess august 9, when do they reconvene in September? Thanks

    • Roberto Virga says:

      The Senate is scheduled to reconvene the 13th. But it’s up to them; they may decide, given how much work there is to do, to cut the recess short and reconvene early. Heck, they might even decide not to go into recess at all.

  14. Amy says:

    Being an existing RC investor I do think come September if we don’t have RC reauthorization we being investors should start asking for our money back. If we don’t the RCs and industry will keep giving false (or in some cases they may be genuinely oblivious) hopes of a reauthorization to hold on to our investments. When I invested in EB5 few years ago I personally had absolutely no idea there was a possibility of program expiration and it was definitely not mentioned by my RC. We need to start fighting for ourselves.

    • Krish Vr says:

      Amy yes I am in for this. I am in the same situation. I feel like this is a waste of investment.

    • veedster says:

      I am sorry, this is where you should’ve done due diligence and constant surveillance of what is going on.YOu said you invested a few years ago. YOu had plenty of time to acquaint yourself with the relevant laws, lapses, EB-5 law itself. When I invested, I read the PPM from the front page to last plus every doc there was in the file. I armed myself with the EB-5 laws and intermittent lapses. Verified the project, Principals, builders, their capital stack, their payment track record, the whole nine yards. I opted to invest in a truly rural TEA after much investigation avoiding Jerry meandering Urban TEAs.

      I took a calculated risk. There is $50 billion-plus at stake here. IMO, (for what it is worth), US govt. don’t want a black mark from the rest of the world, ” a bad place to invest, where promises are not kept”, at a time when they need all the money they can get their hands on. Furthermore, this is free money for them with virally zero interest. Even if they end it, I have reasonable hope that the current investors are protected and grandfathered in.

      Yes, corruption must be stamped out. But there are a lot of genuine operators. I hope they don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is too much at stake.

      I have done everything in my power on my part. Rest is up to the higher power. So I wait.

      Peace.

    • Bhavesh says:

      @Amy, when we spoke with RC salespersons and lawyers, none of them told us either that the RC program was subject to program expiration.

      It’s only after we spoke with the Smart Business Broker guys that we discovered the legislative vulnerabilities about the RC program, and that was one of the reasons we went with them and did direct Investment. If a RC didn’t mention the material fact that the RC program was subject to expiration, it’s possible that investors might have grounds to ask for a rescission of their contract and to claim their money back on the grounds that they committed securities fraud.

      • veedster says:

        You sir sound more and more like a paid shill of the so-called ” Smart Business Broker”.

        • Bhavesh says:

          You’re mistaken @veedster. I’m definitely not a paid shill for Smart Business Broker, and I’m simply happy with the fact that our decision to choose the direct investment category turned out to be the smartest move in our lives.

    • Roberto Virga says:

      First of all, obviously, don’t do anything before USCIS starts issuing denial notices. Nobody knows for sure when that will happen. Very few Washington insiders actually believe the infrastructure bill will be signed into law by September. And, historically, the omnibus spending bill gets approved usually around November-December, and possibly later than that. My guess is that, as long as there is still a bill that contains re-authorization that is actively being discussed in Congress, USCIS will not act.
      Secondly, while we all wait, it would be useful for you to re-read the contract you signed with the RC, and see what it says it happens if your application is denied. Lawyers love money, so if you pay them they will file a lawsuit on your behalf, regardless of its chances to succeed; by re-reading the contract you signed, you can get an idea of much (or little) of an uphill battle you may face trying to get your money back.
      Thirdly, inquire with the RC about the loan maturity date of your project. If the loan is due soon, it might be faster to wait for the project to complete, and your part of the loan being refunded to you, instead of spending time and money in litigation.
      In my case, the contract says that they will refund my investment IF they can find a suitable replacement investor. Which, if USCIS starts issuing mass denials, they probably won’t be able to do :(. Also, in my case, the project’s (CanAm’s The Spiral) maturity date is 9/25/2023, so I’ve decided, in case the program doesn’t get re-authorized, to wait for the project to complete. As always, YMMV.

      • KC says:

        Agree. The maturity date for my case is June 2022. I really don’t want to do if it still can’t be reauthorized till then.

  15. waitingi485 says:

    Do we have any news whether S.831/ H.R.2901 got accepted as part of Infra bill?

  16. Peter says:

    Nothing is added to any infra or budget bill. You can follow it online. I call it wish list:

    https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/2021-infrastructure-amendment-tracker

    https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/fy-2022-budget-amendment-tracker

    Once the budget resolution is adopted, the committees draft their components of the reconciliation bill itself pursuant to the fiscal instructions in the resolution. Those committees then send their bills to the Budget Committee, which combines them into a single omnibus bill that goes to the floor for consideration.

    Guess who is reaponsible for the EB5: Committee on the Judiciary

    We need to wait for this committee to attach it to a safe bill. I would consider a single omnibus bill as safe. Meanwhile one of the biggest EB5 lobby IIUSA has already set up the “Hurray” event in October in Orlando.

    I dont expect a funeral.

  17. waitingi485 says:

    Sep 30 is closing in. Any ray of hope?

    • AS says:

      I would recommend joining AIIA and becoming a donor. They conduct calls / send newsletters to donors of all sizes. Next call is this week.

  18. KARTIK K DESAI says:

    Thank you for your most comprehensive update on the matter.

  19. Matthew Brown says:

    It seems to me that EB5IC is putting their duty/responsibility to existing investors behind their desire to bring in future investors. None of us are happy about the USCIS regulations that decimated the EB-5 market, but it is immoral to sacrifice good faith investors already participating in the program in the hope that you can bring in future investors. As an industry, our responsibility first and foremost is to protect our existing investors and deliver on the commitments we made to them. Everyone needs to get on board with the Grassley bill if only to secure a future for the 10,000+ I-526 petitions currently on file.

Leave a Reply to Daniel Cancel 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.