Behring injunction shifts compliance risks

Who bears the burden of waiting for USCIS to ensure regional center compliance under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA)? Who takes the risk that USCIS will find some pre-RIA regional centers and their projects not compliant under all the new rules?

At first, the answer was: regional centers bore the compliance wait and the risk of denial. On April 11 and April 29, the USCIS website posted announcements to the effect that regional centers needed to wait for USCIS to approve new designation applications before sponsoring EB-5 investment. (USCIS justified the announcement with the interpretation that RIA cancelled all pre-RIA regional center designations.) This approach offered some protection for incoming investors (who would benefit from advance compliance review by USCIS), confusion and alarm for past investors (who found their previous RC sponsor status and compliance responsibilities cancelled), and pain for regional centers authorized under the old law (who wanted to resume business, not be held back by lengthy USCIS processing times for compliance review under the new law).

Naturally, previously-designated regional centers sued USCIS over the April website announcements. On June 24, a judge took preliminary action on one of the lawsuits, Behring Regional Center LLC v. Mayorkas et al, issuing an “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.” The order does not change RIA, or regional centers’ responsibility to comply with RIA, or USCIS’s ability to control the process (and it doesn’t decide the lawsuit). But the order finds that USCIS was likely in error to take for granted that RIA cancelled all pre-RIA regional center designations. By pulling the legal justification out from under USCIS’s website announcements, the injunction potentially opens a window for formerly-designated regional centers to raise new capital during the transition period while USCIS implements and assesses compliance under the new law. (Hopefully, the injunction also makes USCIS reconsider regional center responsibility for capital raised under the old law.)

Today, prospective investors are invited to take the compliance wait and risk. I’ve already received several marketing emails from regional centers designated under the old law, urging potential immigrants to invest with them immediately and file I-526 right away. The approvability of such new I-526 will depend on the outcome of USCIS’s assessment of regional center and project eligibility under RIA (which assessment will happen in the context of I-526 review, if not earlier). But who needs to care about the immigration risk, if EB-5 investment can be banked today and deployed regardless of future USCIS decisions?

If I were a prospective EB-5 immigrant willing to gamble today, I would consider trying to mitigate the risk by asking for escrow, with release of funds on I-526 approval or I-956F approval, and an exit option after a defined period in case of no action by/response from USCIS. Regional centers fought to avoid the wait and risk of USCIS’s potentially lengthy and capricious process to figure out law interpretation and compliance. Investors may also want to protect themselves from that process and risk. Meanwhile, if I were a regional center, I would still go ahead with filing the new I-956 applications. These forms have material that RIA unambiguously requires USCIS to collect and review for all regional centers, including those designated prior to RIA, and RCs should benefit from getting that submission and review done as soon as possible.

I recommend that everyone read the text of the preliminary injunction, to see what it does and – more important — does not say. The order’s content has been misrepresented in the PR I’ve seen about it so far, so caution is needed. I’m also watching the USCIS website EB-5 page, to see if/when USCIS exercises their power to choose another basis for making regional center sponsors undergo some kind of review process before new regional center petitions can be accepted. And finally, a few key quotes from the injunction.

In short, the Integrity Act does not clearly answer the question whether Congress meant to strip existing regional centers of their authorization. But the agency provided no other explanation for its decision. It stated only that because Congress “repealed Section 610, . . . regional centers previously designated under section 610 are no longer authorized.” The agency’s conclusion therefore rests on a misreading of the law: USCIS thought itself compelled by the Integrity Act to treat the existing regional centers as deauthorized, even though the Act does not require that outcome. Had the agency considered the question, balanced the competing interests at stake, and arrived at a decision on the continued status of existing regional centers, perhaps the agency could successfully defend its action.

…Accordingly, USCIS is preliminarily enjoined from treating as deauthorized the previously designated regional centers based on its almost certainly erroneous interpretation of the Integrity Act. Of course, the agency may do whatever is reasonably necessary to ensure that the existing regional centers comply with the Integrity Act, but those centers must presently be permitted to operate within the regime created by the Act. This includes processing new I‑526 petitions from immigrants investing through previously authorized regional centers like Behring, just as the agency would do for a newly approved regional center.

The preliminary injunction will remain in place until the earlier of: (1) a ruling on summary judgment by this Court; or (2) a reasoned decision by the agency about how regional centers should be treated given the Integrity Act’s ambiguity. Perhaps, after engaging in a reasoned decision‑making process and considering the competing policy factors, the agency could conclude that Behring and the other previously authorized regional centers can no longer operate until they have successfully reapplied by submitting new I-956 petitions. Perhaps the agency could conclude that the centers must reapply but can operate consistent with the requirements of the Integrity Act pending their new applications. Or perhaps the agency could conclude that the centers can operate without reapplying so long as they otherwise comply with the Act’s requirements. But what’s clear is that the agency cannot deem the existing regional centers deauthorized without engaging in reasoned decision-making consistent with the APA.