Complete USCIS Policy Manual EB-5 Update

On October 26, 2023, the USCIS Policy Manual EB-5 section (Volume 6 Part G) received its first complete update since the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA) was enacted 18 months ago. I have been waiting eagerly for RIA changes to be translated into policy, or at least discussed in one place for ease of reference, and welcome the policy manual update.

Until yesterday, the Policy Manual featured a mix of current content (Chapters 1-2, updated in October 2022), and outdated content (Chapters 3-6, not revised since July 2021, before the law change). As of today, the entire USCIS Policy Manual EB-5 section has been brought up to date, with three chapters significantly revised, two all-new chapters added, and one chapter deleted.

Here’s my summary of the changes, together with links to document comparisons that redline differences between the October 26, 2023 version and the previous October 2022/July 2021 versions. (I typically do a document comparison of the whole volume, but compared individual sections in this case because USCIS reorganized the chapters. For reference, here is the folder I keep of all Policy Manual iterations.)

Summary of the October 26, 2023 update to the USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 6 Part G

Chapter 1 Purpose and Background and Chapter 2 Eligibility Requirements

• These chapters were previously updated on October 7, 2022 in response to RIA, and the October 26, 2023 version is nearly unchanged. (Here for reference is my Chapter 1-2 redline, showing the minor tweaks between the 10/2022 and 10/2023 versions.)

Chapter 3: Immigrant Petition Adjudication

• This new chapter significantly revises the previous Chapter 4 on I-526, and incorporates part of the previous Chapter 6 on deference. See my redline of changes to Chapter 4 and also changes to Chapter 6 deference language, comparing the July 2021 and October 2023 versions.

Chapter 4: Regional Center Applications

• This new chapter has extensive revisions to the previous Chapter 3 on Regional Center Designation. See my redline of changes.

Chapter 5: Project Applications

• The Project Applications chapter is all-new to the Policy Manual, and covers eligibility, documents and evidence, adjudication, and amendments to I-956F Applications for Approval of an Investment in a Commercial Enterprise. The content has some overlap with Chapter 2 on Eligibility Requirements.

Chapter 6: Direct and Third Party Promoters

• The Promoters chapter is all-new to the Policy Manual, and rehearses I-956K requirements. (The previous Chapter 6, on the topic of deference, has been deleted from the Policy Manual, but much of its content folded into the I-526 chapter.)

Chapter 7: Removal of Conditions

• This new chapter has minor revisions to the previous Chapter 5 on I-829 adjudication. See my redline of changes.

I haven’t had time yet to read everything in detail, but I expect to be surprised less by what is there (more quoting the law and forms than interpreting the law, at first glance) than by what isn’t there (which will take some time and thought to identify).

USCIS Policy Manual EB-5 Updates (regulations, reauthorization, indebtedness, CSPA)

The USCIS Policy Manual is a fluid online document that gets edited periodically, with and without notice, which is exciting and disconcerting. Being someone who likes to know the rules, I save copies of the PM at different dates, and redline changes. In July 2021, USCIS made several PM updates that affect EB-5. However, redline shows that the updates are minor, and reflect policy that’s been in place for awhile already. Here’s my document highlighting specific EB-5 content added to the PM in July 2021.

1. Regulations update. I’d wondered when USCIS would acknowledge the Behring lawsuit win by revising policy language about EB-5 investment amounts and TEAs. On July 15, 2021, USCIS made a minimal Policy Manual revision: simply copying and pasting the same “Alert” about the Behring lawsuit that’s on the USCIS website EB-5 homepage into the beginning of Policy Manual Volume 6 Part G, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. USCIS did not revise the body of the PM.  So if you go to Chapter 2 today, the body of the chapter still says that the EB-5 investment amount since November 21, 2019 is $1.8 million, or $900,000 in a USCIS-designated TEA, but the header alert clarifies that the required EB-5 investment amount is $1.0 million, or $500,00 in a state-designated TEA and “In other words, we are applying the regulations in effect before Nov. 21, 2019 in this chapter.”  With this update, USCIS takes another important step to officially acknowledge the Behring lawsuit outcome. At the same time, the minimal note implies that someone does not expect the outcome to last long enough to justify actually revising rather than merely footnoting the old policy language.
2. Regional Center lapse update. Also on July 15, USCIS acknowledged the regional center program expiration by adding an “Alert” to the beginning of Policy Manual Volume 6 Part G, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 (but not Chapter 5 on removal of conditions). Again, the body of the PM was not revised, presumably reflecting hope that the RC program expiration also will not last long. The “Alert” added to the PM is identical to the first half of the “Alert” put on the USCIS website regional center page. The PM alert does not include the language about RFE response, I-829, or I-485.
3. CSPA: On July 26, USCIS announced a Technical Update – Adding References to the EB-5 Visa Program in Child Status Protection Act Guidance. It appears that the single change was to add the words “Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor (Form I-526)” to the list of applicable underlying forms for status adjustment.
4. Indebtedness: On July 22, USCIS announced a POLICY ALERT – Immigrant Investors and Investment of Loan Proceeds. Redline shows that this update did no more than to replace a couple words in the Policy Manual with the word “indebtedness,” and to add a footnote that “USCIS no longer follows its interpretation of indebtedness as including the investment of loan proceeds as of November 30, 2018, the date of the district court decision Zhang v. USCIS, 978 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2020).” Since USCIS lost the Zhang court case in November 2018 and lost its final appeal of that decision back in January 2019, USCIS should have been “no longer following its interpretation” for over two years now already. The new Policy Manual footnote is merely a belated acknowledgement of that fact. See also the “Class Action Member Identification Notice” that’s been on the USCIS website EB-5 homepage for a couple years now. And more to the point, see Administrative Appeals Office decisions that sustain appeals of I-526 denials over loan proceeds. For example: JUN162021_01B7203 and MAR242021_01B7203. If you are a member of the class whose I-526 was “denied on the sole basis of investing loan proceeds that were not secured by their own assets,” you have had and still have the right to get that denial vacated and reconsidered.

Policy Manual comment: Redeployment and regional center geography

We’re approaching the last chance to submit comments on the USCIS Policy Manual update on July 24 with “Clarifying Guidance for Deployment of Capital in Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) Category.” This page provides instructions for submitting comments, which are due “before” August 24. This post links to video of Carolyn Lee’s wonderful comment-writing workshop yesterday.

To prepare a rigorous policy comment for USCIS is tough hard work, especially for such a vexed issue as redeployment. See my draft comment copied below on the regional center geographic area issue. If you see any flaws, please reply to the post or email me so that I can revise.  I’ll try to find time this week to prepare a comment for at least one other aspect of the redeployment issue.

*** DRAFT COMMENT ****

To:                         USCISPolicyManual@uscis.dhs.gov

From:                    Suzanne Lazicki, Lucid Professional Writing, suzanne@lucidtext.com

Subject:                 USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 6: Immigrants, Part G: Investors, Chapter 2

Comment Regarding : USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6: Immigrants, Part G, Investors, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements [6 USCIS-PM G.2], Part 2, as updated on July 24, 2020 by “Clarifying Guidance for Deployment of Capital in Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) Category”

Specific Portion of the Document: My comment relates to two paragraphs added to the Policy Manual [6 USCIS-PM G.2], Part 2 on July 24, 2020, quoted as follows (including footnotes).

Consistent with precedent case decisions and existing regulatory requirements, further deployment must continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements within the framework of the initial bases of eligibility, [Fn. 38: See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(1). See Matter of Izummi (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-6, 189 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). See Chapter 4, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor (Form I-526), Section C, Material Change [6 USCIS-PM G.4(C)] including the same new commercial enterprise  [Fn. 39 See INA 203(b)(5)(A), which refers to a single new commercial enterprise: “Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise.”] and regional center. [Fn. 40 See 8 CFR 204.6(j) which refers to a single regional center: “In the case of petitions submitted under the Immigrant Investor . . . Program, a petition must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital . . . within a regional center designated by the Service.” See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(7) which refers to a single regional center: “An alien seeking an immigrant visa as an alien entrepreneur under the Immigrant Investor . . . Program must demonstrate that his or her qualifying investment is within a regional center.”] In addition, because a regional center has “jurisdiction over a limited geographic area,” [Fn. 41 See Section 610(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. 102-395 (PDF), 106 Stat. 1828, 1874 (October 6, 1992), as amended] further deployment must occur within the regional center’s geographic area, including any amendments to its geographic area approved before the further deployment. The further deployment, however, does not need to remain with the same (or any) job creating entity or in a targeted employment area.

For example, if a new commercial enterprise associated with a regional center loaned pooled investment capital to a job-creating entity that created sufficient jobs through the construction of a residential building in a targeted employment area, the new commercial enterprise, upon repayment of the loan that resulted in the required job creation, may generally further deploy the repaid capital anywhere within the regional center’s geographic area (regardless of whether it would qualify as a targeted employment area) into any commercial activity that satisfies applicable requirements such as one or more similar loans to other entities.

Recommended Change, and Reason: The July 24, 2020 addition to 6 USCIS-PM G.2 Part 2 that addresses a regional center’s geographic area creates a substantive requirement. This language should therefore be rescinded. USCIS Policy Alert states that the July 24, 2020 addition intends to provide “clarifying guidance” only, and intended “not changing any substantive requirements.”

The added language about regional center geography in further deployment is not mere clarification, because it does not follow from existing regulatory requirements and precedent decisions. The authorities cited in Footnotes 38-41 in the Policy Manual update do not in fact justify a regional center requirement geography for further deployment, as demonstrated below.

The regulations and Matter of Izummi specify the reason for initial deployment within a regional center’s geographic area: indirect job creation. Since further deployment occurs after the job creation requirement has been met, these authorities do not justify assuming that a requirement that exists in the context of job creation should also be applicable to further deployment.

The Policy Manual grants that further deployment need not satisfy other initial deployment requirements linked to job creation: the requirements to deploy with a job-creating entity and within a Targeted Employment Area. The Policy Manual does not explain why regional center geography would be an exception to the previously unspecified but logical and predictable rule that deployment requirements linked to job creation do not apply after the job creation requirement has been met.

The community could hardly have predicted a redeployment requirement that is not theoretically grounded in the existing regulatory framework. If USCIS retains this contradictory new redeployment geography requirement with retroactive application, the industry will be punished for having previously acted in reliance on the regulations and precedent decisions.

If USCIS wishes to create a geographic requirement for further deployment, it should use an appropriate process for a substantive change. Otherwise, the Policy Manual could replace rescinded language with a clarification – consistent with the cited authorities – that further deployment need not be within the boundaries of the regional center.

Authorities:

Matter of Izummi states in pertinent part:

Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, if a new commercial enterprise is engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-creating businesses, such job-creating businesses must all be located within the geographic limits of the regional center. The location of the new commercial enterprise is not controlling.

A petitioner may not make material changes to his petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to Service requirements.

… The definition of “regional center” in 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) requires that the economic unit be involved in “improved regional productivity.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i) states that, in order to gain approval as a regional center, an entity must describe clearly how it will promote economic growth through “improved regional productivity.” If neither the credit company nor the export-related businesses are located in the regional center, it is difficult to see how the productivity within the regional center is being improved. As the subsidiary credit corporation’s actual and proposed loan activities benefit companies outside the geographical area covered by the regional-center designation granted in this case, the petitioner must establish direct employment creation; he cannot rely on indirect employment creation.

Comment: Footnote 38 in the updated 6 USCIS-PM G.2 cites Matter of Izummi in support of the point that “Consistent with precedent case decisions and existing regulatory requirements, further deployment must continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements within the framework of the initial bases of eligibility, including … regional center.” But the citation does not support the point. Matter of Izummi does not indicate that a regional center’s geographic area is an applicable requirement outside the context of job creation.

In the passages quoted above, Matter of Izummi states that the requirement for location within the geographic limits of the regional center applies to job-creating businesses, and exists in connection with counting indirect job creation. So defined, this geography requirement does not logically apply to further deployment not in job-creating entities, and after the job creation basis of eligibility has already been met.

The NCE in the Matter of Izummi case deployed some investor capital outside the regional center’s geographic area. Matter of Izummi does not state that such initial was problematic in itself, but in connection with reliance on indirect job creation.  Matter of Izummi states that if investor capital is originally deployed outside of the regional center’s geographic area, the consequence is that the investor must then meet the employment requirement with direct employment creation. Since even initial deployment can be outside a regional center’s geographic boundaries provided that it does not rely on indirect job creation, according to Matter of Izummi, how can the Policy Manual now require further deployment that does not rely on any job creation to be within the geographical area covered by the regional-center designation? Such a policy creates a requirement that not only did not previously exist for redeployment, but did not even previously exist as an unqualified requirement for the initial deployment.

Perhaps the July 24, 2020 addition to 6 USCIS-PM G.2 Part 2 assumes a post-job-creation pre-CPR regional center geography requirement based on assuming that further deployment outside regional center geography would necessarily constitute a “material change.” However, such a material change assumption is not warranted. Further deployment outside a regional center’s geographic area does not meet the Matter of Izummi definition of “material change” as quoted above: change made in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to Service requirements. If capital invested in Minnesota Regional Center LLC is initially deployed according to plan in Minneapolis, creates jobs in Minneapolis as described in the I-526 petition, and subsequently further deployed in Dallas, the Dallas deployment obviously does not address a deficiency in the initial petition. Furthermore, the Dallas deployment does not result in changed circumstances predictably capable of affecting the decision about I-526 eligibility (Kungys v. United States). The regional center geography requirement pertains in context of the job creation requirement, and the job creation basis of eligibility is not implicated in further deployment.  Regional center geography could only be a material change issue for further deployment if it could be tied to an eligibility ground other than job creation. But the statute, regulations, and precedent decisions do not specify any regional center geography requirement divorced from job creation. Rather, they are united in linking deployment geography requirements to job creation eligibility requirements.

8 CFR 204.6(m)(7) states:

An alien seeking an immigrant visa as an alien entrepreneur under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program must demonstrate that his or her qualifying investment is within a regional center approved pursuant to paragraph (m)(4) of this section and that such investment will create jobs indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the new commercial enterprise. [Emphasis added to mark text omitted from the Policy Manual citation.]

Comment: Footnote 40 in the updated 6 USCIS-PM G.2 cites 8 CFR 204.6(m)(7) in support of a regional center geography requirement for further deployment. But the citation does not support the point. Footnote 40 places a period after the words “within a regional center” while omitting the second half of the cited sentence – the part that links the “within a regional center” requirement to the indirect job creation requirement. When viewed in full, 8 CFR 204.6(m)(7) does not clearly support a conclusion that a regional center geography requirement exists distinct from the job creation requirement. Matter of Izummi references 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i) in the citation quoted above to support a conclusion about job creation requirement, with no suggestion of an abstract regional center geography requirement apart from job creation.

8 CFR 204.6(j) states:

(j) Initial evidence to accompany petition. A petition submitted for classification as an alien entrepreneur must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has invested or is actively in the process of investing lawfully obtained capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States which will create full-time positions for not fewer than 10 qualifying employees. In the case of petitions submitted under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, a petition must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital obtained through lawful means within a regional center designated by the Service in accordance with paragraph (m)(4) of this section. The petitioner may be required to submit information or documentation that the Service deems appropriate in addition to that listed below. [Emphasis added to mark text omitted from the Policy Manual citation.]

Comment: Footnote 40 in the updated 6 USCIS-PM G.2 quotes a portion of 8 CFR 204.6(j) (the portion not underlined above) to support a regional center geography requirement for further deployment. But the citation does not support the point. Footnote 40 omits the context: 8 CFR 204.6(j) describes “Initial evidence to accompany petition.” 8 CFR 204.6(j) explicitly describes initial evidence to be submitted with the Form I-526 petition to demonstrate investment of lawful source of funds by an EB-5 investor in a NCE that will create jobs. 8 CFR 204.6(j) gives no reason to assume that these initial I-526 evidence requirements for the job-creating investment would also apply to a different context: a stage considerably after the I-526 filing that deals with reinvestment by the NCE of previously-deployed capital in an enterprise that need not create jobs.

Section 610(a) of Pub. L. 102-395, the statute that established the regional center program, states:

SEC. 610. PILOT IMMIGRATION PROGRAM.—(a) Of the visas otherwise available under section 203(bX5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(bX5)), the Secretary of State, together with the Attorney General, shall set aside visas for a pilot program to implement the provisions of such section. Such pilot program shall involve a regional center in the United States for the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.

This statute was subsequently amended by Pub. L. No 107-273, Sec. 11037(a)(3), 116, which states:

A regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographic area, which shall be described in the proposal and consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones. The establishment of a regional center may be based on general predictions, contained in the proposal, concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital from aliens, the jobs that will be created directly or indirectly as a result of such capital investments, and the other positive economic effects such capital investments will have.

Comment: Footnote 41 in the updated 6 USCIS-PM G.2 cites Pub. L. 102-395 to support the claim that “In addition, because a regional center has ‘jurisdiction over a limited geographic area,’ further deployment must occur within the regional center’s geographic area, including any amendments to its geographic area approved before the further deployment.” But the point does not unambiguously follow from the citation.

Pub. L. No 107-273 describes Congressional intent for a limited regional center geography: to concentrate pooled investment such that capital investments from aliens will create positive economic effects, including jobs created directly or indirectly, in defined economic zones.

This intent is addressed with the initial deployment of alien investment, which occurs within the regional center and results in the required economic effects, including job creation, that are calculated at the I-526 stage and verified at the I-829 stage.

The statute does not suggest that Congress anticipated some aliens needing to create more economic impact than others within the regional center, based on the accident of their place of birth and excess visa demand.  The statute does not suggest that Congress intended economic impacts dependent on serial deployment of an investment in multiple commercial enterprises within the regional center. By requiring further deployment to occur within the regional center’s geographic area, the updated Policy Manual creates a new eligibility requirement for compound economic zone impacts. The geography-specific requirements and impacts would be unique to investors from backlogged countries, and dependent on time delays that Congress did not intend.

Naturally, a defined economic zone would benefit from multiple deployments of capital investment where each repeat deployment is required once again impact that zone. Creating a geographic area requirement for further deployment would build on Congressional intent for the initial deployment, and could be economically beneficial (if practically problematic, as discussed in other comments).  However, such a requirement does not currently exist, as demonstrated above. The existing statute as amended and interpreted by the regulations and Matter of Izummi does not include a regional center economic impact requirement separate from and subsequent to the job creation requirement. The language in the July 24, 2020 update to 6 USCIS-PM G.2 containing this requirement should therefore be rescinded. If USCIS wishes to create a geographic requirement for further deployment, it may do so with the proper process for substantive change.

Policy Manual Update — Redeployment

Today, the USCIS Policy Manual was updated with new policy regarding deployment and redeployment of EB-5 investor capital.

• Here is a link to the Policy Alert on Clarifying Guidance for Deployment of Capital in Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) Category.
• More to the point, here is a redline that I made to show what changed exactly between the previous version of the Policy Manual (dated November 6, 2019) and today’s version dated July 24, 2020. (Every time the EB-5 section of the Policy Manual changes, I save a version in Word in this folder, for community reference.)
• Here is a link to provide feedback to USCIS on the update (feedback due “before” August 24, 2020)

The Policy Alert makes this claim: These clarifications apply to all Form I-526 and I-829 petitions pending on or after [date of publication]. USCIS considered potential impacts to petitioners and determined that such impacts, if any, would be minimal because this is merely a clarification of continuing eligibility requirements. USCIS is not changing any substantive requirements.

If you look at the redline, you’ll see few clarifications but a couple significant changes. For example:

• Previously, the PM said that the enterprise “may also further deploy repaid capital into certain new issue municipal bonds, such as for infrastructure spending.” The PM revision simply deletes this provision. When something used to be explicitly permitted, and then stops being explicitly permitted, is that a clarification or a change?
• Previously, the PM had no guidance about the location of the activities using redeployed capital. Existing case decisions and regulations define requirements for an initial deployment (within an NCE, made available for job creation, for the purpose of generating a return, risk of loss and chance for gain, involves undertaking of business activity, JCE location in a TEA, JCE location in a regional center), but say nothing about requirements for redeployment. Significantly, initial deployment requirements are based on the initial deployment purpose: to create jobs. So which of those requirements logically apply in the redeployment context, following job creation? Without explaining its logic, the revised PMcherry-picks a selection of the initial deployment requirements to apply to redeployment. Even though there’s no longer a “JCE” concept since the job-creation requirement was already met, the PM revision arbitrarily decides that of the initial deployment requirements, location within a regional center should still apply to redeployment. (Meanwhile, the PM explicitly excludes the initial deployment requirements of TEA location and investment in a JCE, and leaves ambiguous whether redeployment is subject to the initial deployment requirements of business activity and a risk of loss/chance for gain.) When a redeployment location requirement did not used to exist, and USCIS creates one, is that a clarification or a change? When USCIS says that redeployment must satisfy “applicable requirements” without specifying what those requirements are and why they are applicable, is that even a clarification? What’s the basis for deciding which of the existing defined initial deployment requirements apply to the previously-undefined frontier of redeployment after job creation?

When interpreting the policy, keep in mind that three stages of deployment are subject to different requirements:

1. The initial deployment that creates jobs

2. Redeployment after the job creation is met, but before conditional permanent residence

3. Redeployment after conditional permanent residence.

The PM update makes changes to #1 and #2, but not #3

For #1, the initial deployment, the PM now specifies that “the purchase of financial instruments traded on secondary markets generally does not satisfy these requirements.” Notice that in context, this restriction refers to the initial deployment in a job-creating business, and does NOT refer to redeployment.

For #2, redeployment before CPR, the PM just moves the constraints on redeployment, adding some new guidelines while deleting others, and blurring some lines while clarifying others. For some reason, it deletes redeployment as an exception to the pre-CPR material change policy. I hope the lawyers get busy to actually clarify and solidify matters, considering billions of dollars on the line and developers and investors tearing their hair over how to get this right.

For other perspectives and a call for input, see https://iiusa.org/blog/send-iiusa-your-questions-regarding-uscis-new-redeployment-policy-updates/

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.

Policy Manual update: Geographic Area

USCIS has now made its policy on geographic area amendments an official part of the USCIS Policy Manual. Before, to know the unofficial policy that’s been effective since February 2017, you needed to have been present at a March 2017 stakeholder meeting, noticed followup clarifications on the USCIS website, and been on the email list for a stakeholder alert. Now, at least the policy is set down in the Policy Manual where everyone can find it.

As usual, I copied the whole of today’s version of the Policy Manual EB-5 section, and saved it as a Word document in my folder of Policy Manual versions. I then did a document comparison with the previous version (current as of May 15, 2018) to see exactly what changed, and kindly share my redline.

In addition to adding language related to geographic amendments, the latest version of the PM clarifies the effective date for tenant occupancy guidance rescision, and specifies that changing regional centers after I-526 filing constitutes a material change.

For more in-depth analysis:

• Robert Divine’s article for IIUSA summarizes the Policy Manual changes and analyzes implications
• AILA’s comments to USCIS make a case for what’s wrong with the content and process of this Policy Manual update

Here is the email from USCIS with links to the Policy Alert and feedback page.

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services <uscis@public.govdelivery.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 9:13 AM
Subject: USCIS Policy Manual Update

USCIS is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding a regional center’s geographic area, requests to expand the geographic area, and how such requests impact the filing of Form I-526 petitions. The Policy Alert is available here:

• Volume 6: Immigrants, Part G, Investors (Final date for comments: Sept. 9, 2018)

Visit the Policy Manual for Comment page for more information on stakeholder review and comment.

Incomplete EB-5 policy update

On October 7, the USCIS Policy Manual was updated with revisions to some of the policy affected by the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act. In Volume 6 Part G “Investors,” which contains EB-5 program guidance, USCIS updated Chapters 1 and 2 but not Chapters 3, 4, 5, or 6. USCIS also made changes to Volume 7 to add concurrent filing for EB-5 (now allowed since RIA) and to delete priority date protection for EB-5 (now not available since the EB-5 Modernization Regulation was rescinded). The Policy Alert does not acknowledge that Volume 6 Part G is now a confusing mix of half updated and half outdated content, but I trust that USCIS realizes the fact and is still at work to finish the job. For reference, here is my redline document comparison of the October 7, 2022 version of Volume 6 Part G with the previous version dated July 22, 2021. I will comment more when USCIS completes the revision, and look forward to industry reactions. The USCIS website EB-5 pages have also been getting edits, but still not fully updated. Reading the policy manual and the website, I guess that writers have been instructed “as much as possible just quote the law and don’t add any clarifications or further guidance, which could get us sued.”

Redeployment policy comment: retroactivity

In addition to my technical comment on geographic area in further deployment, I submitted the following general comment. My goal: to pin down sources of confusion in redeployment policy, and show that redeployment guidance involves more than mere clarification.

——————————

From: Suzanne Lazicki <suzanne@lucidtext.com>
Sent: August 23, 2020 11:26 PM
To: ‘uscispolicymanual@uscis.dhs.gov’ <uscispolicymanual@uscis.dhs.gov>
Subject: 6 USCIS-PM G.2 “Clarifying Guidance for Deployment of Capital in Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) Category”

Comment Regarding: USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6: Immigrants, Part G, Investors, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements [6 USCIS-PM G.2], Part 2, as updated on July 24, 2020 by “Clarifying Guidance for Deployment of Capital in Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5) Category”

Suggested Action: Do not make the “Clarifying Guidance” retroactive

Rationale: The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual Update is made retroactive based on the claim that “this is merely a clarification of continuing eligibility requirements. USCIS is not changing any substantive requirements.” However, it is not mere clarification if USCIS creates requirements. In the case of redeployment, USCIS takes requirements defined by existing regs/policy for Context A and applies them Context B. Lacking justification/reference to authority for why a particular Context A requirement also applies to Context B, that move looks like creating a new requirement for Context B. It can also look arbitrary/capricious when only an unexplained subset of A requirements are applied to B.

Examples of where EB-5 policy has confused contexts:

1. Assuming that the “at risk” requirement defined by regs/policy for the investor/NCE relationship (Context A) also applies to the NCE/JCE relationship (Context B). The June 14, 2017 Policy Manual update on redeployment made this unjustified assumption; the July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update corrects it by removing the “at risk requirement” language from the further deployment sections.
2. Assuming that the regional center geography requirement defined by the statute/regs and Matter of Izummi in terms of job creation still applies even after the job creation requirement has been met. The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update introduces this illogical assumption, even as it grants that other job-creation-linked requirements (TEA geography, JCE deployment) naturally do not apply after the job creation requirement was met.
3. Assuming that requirements for initial I-526 evidence for initial deployment also apply after I-526 filing for further deployment. The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual includes this assumption as a basis for asserting a regional center geography requirement. If the assumption necessarily held, then further deployment would have a TEA requirement, since TEA evidence is likewise required initial I-526 evidence for the initial deployment. The policy distinguishes between Context A and B when it comes to TEA geography. So why not for regional center geography?
4. Assuming that the word “commercial” as defined by the regs/precedents for the “new commercial enterprise” automatically also applies to JCEs or other entities that ultimately deploy EB-5 investment. The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update appears to do this, when describing guidelines for deployment and further deployment.  “The capital may be further deployed, as described above, into any commercial activity that is consistent with the purpose of the new commercial enterprise to engage in the “ongoing conduct of lawful business.” (footnoted to the regulations defining a new commercial enterprise). It doesn’t simply work, however, to apply all NCE requirements to JCEs and other deployments. For example, previous EB-5 decisions have found that the NCE must be for-profit but the deployment can be non-profit (p. 3-4), and that the NCE must qualify as “new” but the deployment need not qualify as new (MAY182017_01B7203). Apparently, not all “new commercial enterprise” requirements defined for the NCE automatically apply to the JCE or other deployment activity. So a “commercial” requirement for further deployment does not automatically follow from the existing policy framework, but needs to be spelled out and justified. The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update lacks such clarity or attempt at justification.
5. Neglecting to clarify which of the initial bases of eligibility in the initial deployment also apply to the further deployment, and why. The July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update gives five bullet points with requirements for the initial deployment, and then does not go on to specify which of these five USCIS thinks also apply to further deployment, and why. For example: “related to the actual undertaking of business activity.” The Policy Manual names this requirement for initial deployment and does not reference it again in the further deployment section. But we can’t tell – does that mean that USCIS understands that the “business activity” requirement is linked to the job creation requirement and thus no longer applicable, or did USCIS just neglect to mention it with respect to further deployment? As another example: the July 24, 2020 Policy Manual update adds language to state that secondary-market financial instruments do not satisfy three requirements for initial deployment. Two of the three requirements are specific to job creation. One requirement could apply independent of job creation. So can we conclude that the secondary-market financial instruments restriction is specific to initial deployment, and does not apply to further deployment after job creation? The industry is very confused about this. Many stakeholders are concluding that USCIS intended a blanket prohibition on purchase of secondary-market financial instruments, even after job creation and even after conditional permanent residence. If USCIS did not intend such a prohibition, it should clarify. If USCIS did intend a blanket restriction, that too should be justified so as not to appear arbitrary.

Redeployment is tough, because it’s a context that the people who drafted the statute and regulations did not anticipate. A framework of rules exists for initial deployment, not for further deployment. It’s understandable that USCIS should reference existing rules for one context in creating guidance for a new context. But this must be done with clarity about contextual differences, and admission that new policy is being created in the new context. New policy can be created for redeployment, just not made effective without notice and retroactively.

UPDATE: IIUSA and AILA ended up collaborating to submit a very good 30-page comment on USCIS’s Redeployment Policy Manual Update. I recommend their analysis, and hope that USCIS will read it carefully.

RIA Implementation Status, one year later

On March 15, 2022, the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA) became law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law No: 117-103).  One year later, how far have we come? How much of the law has been implemented?

The following bullet points give status as of March 31, 2023 for steps that need to be taken to implement RIA.

Updating policy, forms and guidance based on the new law

• USCIS Policy Manual: Incomplete. On October 7, 2022, USCIS updated only the introductory Chapters 1-2 of the Policy Manual EB-5 section 6G, while EB-5 Chapters 3-6 remain untouched. The chapters still still not updated with RIA-compliant policy cover I-526 adjudication, I-829 adjudication, and regional center designation and reporting requirements.
• USCIS website: Incomplete.  Some new EB-5 content has been added to the USCIS website over the course of the year, and some outdated content remains in the mix. It’s still impossible to go to the USCIS website to find out which regional centers are approved or active under the new law.
• EB-5 forms: In Process. All EB-5 forms required by the new law have been published or revised but remain subject to change. (Indeed, new versions of all I-526 and I-956 were just published today.) USCIS has yet to respond to (and for I-956, even to post) the second round of public comments to the Federal Register on I-526E and I-956.

Prescribing regulations required by the new law

• Regulation for parameters on capital redeployment: Not done. (RIA does not state a deadline for this regulation.)
• Regulations prohibiting foreign involvement in a regional center: Not done. (The RIA deadline, 270 days after the date of enactment, has passed.)
• Regulation to ensure that EB-5 capital is not used on publicly available bonds: Not done. (RIA does not state a deadline.)

Monitoring and enforcing regional center compliance with new requirements

• Clarify how RIA requirements apply to previously-approved RCs not active under RIA: Not done.  The EB-5 stakeholder meeting previously scheduled for March 20, then delayed to April 25 is slated to address this question. (UPDATE: The April 25 meeting did not after all address expectations for regional centers with pre-RIA but not post-RIA investors.)
• Review and approve regional center compliance procedures: Status Unknown. USCIS has not reported any decisions on I-956 Regional Center Applications. (We hear anecdotally about approvals received, but USCIS does not report I-956 approvals or denials on the USCIS Regional Center page or the USCIS Immigration and Citizenship data page.)
• Vetting and background checks of persons involved with regional centers: Status Unknown. USCIS has not reported any decisions on I-956H forms.
• Review Regional Center Annual Statements and Certifications: Not done.  Form I-956G were not filed for 2022 because “USCIS is extending this deadline until we publish guidance that clarifies the requirements of these forms.”  Such guidance has yet to be published.
• Review regional center projects: Status Unknown. USCIS has not reported any decisions on I-956F Applications for NCE approval.
• Review registrations by direct and third party promoters: Status Unknown. USCIS has not reported any decisions on I-956K registrations, and has not made any lists publicly available.

Implementing visa availability changes

• Reshuffle visa availability to reserve visas for new TEA investment: In process. The Visa Bulletin and Annual Report of the Visa Office show new visa categories as required by RIA. Zero reserved visas were issued in FY2022, due to slow USCIS processing.
• Carryover of unused reserved visas: In process. The FY2023 Annual Limit report says cryptically “The employment chart (above) does not include numbers carried over from the previous fiscal year in the EB-5 category.” (UPDATE: the April 26, 2023 DOS/AILA Liaison meeting (question 22) confirms intent to carry over visas.)

Other requirements

• Timely Processing Fee Study: Not done. (RIA gave a deadline of 1 year from the date of enactment to complete a study of fees levels required to achieve timely processing goals, and this study has yet to be published. The USCIS Fee Study does not address timely processing for EB-5.)
• Announce appropriate channels of communication: Done.  The bottom of the EB-5 Support page has been updated with Channels of Communication.
• Publish Log of communications: Not done. The FOIA page for USCIS does not show a log of communications with Congress regarding EB-5.
• Transparency regarding Publication of Information: Mixed. (For example, we know that USCIS is having court-ordered quarterly meetings with litigation plaintiffs. So far one set of meeting minutes has been published, and publication happened more than 30 days after the meeting.)

Other questions

• Other Rule-Making: Not done. In response to I-956 comments in the Federal Register, USCIS indicated in December 2022 that it could not yet answer questions about but “may consider rule-making to address” each of the following issues:
  • Evidence to establish regional center geography;
  • Whether regional center policies and procedures need to be provided or only described;
  • What circumstances require an I-956F amendment;
  • Whether stand-alone investors need to use fund administration;
  • The definition of an infrastructure project;
  • Whether regional center annual reports need to cover funds raised prior to RIA.
• Implementing the RIA change to the sustainment requirement and investment period: Not done, but the USCIS April 25 stakeholder meeting is slated to discuss the topic. (UPDATE: USCIS stated at the 4/25 meeting that they were after all “unable to discuss” the topic yet, while “USCIS is engaged in ongoing efforts at the immigrant investor program office and across the agency to ensure that when we do have updates, we’re equipped to provide the EB-5 stakeholder community with clear guidance.”)

EB-5 Integrity Fund FAQ, with notes on regional center status and investment period

Today, USCIS sent out an email alert with the title USCIS to Start Collecting Fee for EB-5 Integrity Fund, published a new EB-5 Integrity Fund page on the USCIS website, posted a Federal Register notice with information about the Integrity Fund, and created a new page for EB5 – Annual Fee for Regional Center at Pay.gov.  

We’ve known that annual regional center fees were coming, since Section 103(b)(J) of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) created this new requirement. But we’ve been waiting for USCIS to clarify questions around the fee, including how and when to pay it, who qualifies as the “each regional center designated under subparagraph (E)” who needs to pay the fee, and who counts as “investors in the preceding fiscal year in its new commercial enterprises” for the purposes of calculating how much to pay.

Here are answers gathered from the documents published today by USCIS.

Who needs to pay the new EB-5 Integrity Fund fee, and when?

USCIS interprets RIA to mean that every regional center, regardless of when designated and regardless of when or if it sponsored investors, needs to make its annual Integrity Fund payment of $10,000 or $20,000 to USCIS between tomorrow and March 31, 2023. The fee due this month will apply to FY2023. (The next annual fee, for FY2024, will then come due in October 2023.) The Federal Register notice indicates that USCIS expects that all 630 previously designated regional centers will pay the fee, including those with no investors at all. The announcements give no indication that USCIS considered exceptions for regional centers that were not designated under the new law and do not have investors under the new law.  

What does the USCIS fee policy imply about USCIS treatment of previously-approved regional centers?

The fee policy apparently takes for granted that when RIA created a fee requirement applicable to “each regional center designated under subparagraph (E),” RIA did not actually specifically mean RIA subparagraph (E), but also the 1993 law Section 610.  

USCIS has yet to designate any regional centers under subparagraph (E) by approving I-956 applications. An unknown number of previously-approved regional centers have filed I-956 and chosen to solicit investors under RIA. This creates a grey area for the many regional centers that were only approved and only raised investment under the old law.  USCIS admitted as recently as October 2022, in meeting with the litigation plaintiffs, that “USCIS has not determined what will happen to regional centers that choose not to file Form I-956” and “whether any of the RIA requirements apply to them.”

But whoever drafted today’s USCIS fee policy did not recognize a grey area. The policy simply assumes, without argument or explanation, that new requirements applicable to regional centers designated under RIA also apply to regional centers previously designated under Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993. The drafters of the fee policy apparently did not consider the arguments in my Comment on the RIA impact on pre-RIA Regional Centers and investors.

What will happen to any regional center that does not pay the EB-5 Integrity Fund fee by March 31, 2023?

On May 31, 2023, USCIS will start to send out Notices of Intent to Terminate to every regional center whose fee was not received on-time. (For some RCs, the NOIT may be the first they hear about the fee requirement. USCIS explained that today’s publications will be the only notice, and that USCIS will not individually notify or send invoices to regional centers.) A regional center’s designation will be terminated following the NOIT, unless the regional center can document that it did indeed submit the full required fee amount by the deadline of March 31, 2023.

The termination threat is a concern primarily because the new law defines devastating investor consequences from regional center sponsor termination (as further discussed in my previous post). INA 203(b)(5)(M) stipulates that I-526 petitions will be denied and even conditional permanent residence status terminated upon regional center termination. And the escape route offered in (M) is only theoretical, since USCIS permission is no guarantee that a good faith investor or NCE can – in fact – have a viable option to associate with another regional center. The termination consequence places great weight on today’s fee announcement.

What is the required amount of the EB-5 Integrity fee? What does the fee policy imply about who’s an investor, and what’s the investment period?

RIA states that the required fee for a regional center depends on the regional center’s number of investors in the previous year  – with the $20,000 annual fee reduced to $10K for “each such regional center with 20 or fewer total investors in the preceding fiscal year in its new commercial enterprises.”

But who counts as “investors in the preceding fiscal year” for the purpose of fee calculation? The statutory language could justify a reading as limited as “people who invested and filed I-526/I-526E in the previous fiscal year under RC sponsorship” to as broad as “people at any immigration stage whose investment was still in some sense under RC custody in the previous fiscal year.” The USCIS fee policy published today in the Federal Register presents this reasoning:

• A possible interpretation of “investor” is “someone still in the investment period”
• “Investment period” means the period from I-526 filing through the point of I-829 filing, on the authority of a 2021 blog post by Canadian financial professional Rupy Cheema of EB5 Diligence. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this evidence that the USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy was apparently not sweating over statute, regulations, or precedent decisions or its own Policy Manual but just casting about the Internet to find a policy for the EB-5 investment period, but props to EB5 Diligence for catching OPS’s eye and earning the footnote citation in the Federal Register notice!)
• Since Rupy said in 2021 that the investment period goes approximately from I-526 filing to I-829 filing, and since USCIS has ready data for number of I-526 and I-829 filings while other calculations would be hard, therefore USCIS intends to estimate “total investors in the preceding fiscal year in its new commercial enterprises” as equal to the total number of pending and approved I-526 at year-end less the total number of I-829 filed at any time by principals. With the qualification that “USCIS adjudicators retain discretion to evaluate the Integrity Fund fee due and the number of investors on a case-by-case basis, accounting for any other facts or evidence in the record in the totality of the circumstances, including any evidence provided by a regional center that believes it has greater or fewer total investors.”

This is a sober recital of the content of the Federal Register notice.  What can we expect next from the Office of Policy and Strategy?

Everyone involved in the huge fight over defining the “investment period” (on the regional center side and investor side) will be interested in this paragraph from the Federal Register analysis:

“USCIS considered generally counting only the Forms I-526 that were filed within two years of the applicable period used for determining the EB-5 Integrity Fund fee given the expected two-year minimum timeframe for the investment, or sustainment period, under the 2022 Act. INA section 203(b)(5)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A)(i). However, that would likely be underinclusive given that many investors are actively in the process of investing (i.e. not yet fully invested) when they file their Form I-526 petition as permitted under applicable requirements and, additionally, would not align with the sustainment period for those who filed prior to the 2022 Act, which runs approximately to the point of the Form I-829 filing, regardless of when they filed their Form I-526 or made their investment.”

Do we have a chance to provide feedback on the fee policy?

The Federal Register notice states that “USCIS is imposing this fee without soliciting public comment prior because this is a general statement of policy and an interpretive rule exempt from notice and comment procedures.” The notice claims that “The statutory provision that requires the $20,000 and $10,000 fees contains little ambiguity for USCIS to resolve or explain.” (And this, after the notice grappled with ambiguities around the investor count and overlooked the major ambiguity of regional center applicability.)  I will update this post if I learn of a chance to respond with questions and concerns.