China visa availability

IIUSA VP Robert C. Divine on Saturday’s Announcement of EB-5 Visa Unavailability for China for Remainder of FY-2014

by Robert C. Divine, Vice President, IIUSA; Shareholder, Immigration Group Chairman Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.

Saturday’s dramatic announcement of EB-5 visa unavailability for China for the remainder the fiscal year provides a low impact “dry run” for a process that will have more “bite” next fiscal year. (For the record, Saturday was August 23, 2014).First, let’s remember what Saturday’s announcement does NOT do: It does not affect any I-526 or I-829 processing at all, does not delay immigrant processing for people not born in mainland China, and does not even affect mainland Chinese after next month. But let’s think about what it portends.

– Read the rest of this article at: http://iiusa.org/blog/#sthash.OZjUfbxV.dpuf

New Resources (Petition Processing and RC Approvals, SEC matters, Stakeholder Meetings), New RCs (CA, NY, NY, PA, TX)

A wrap-up of recent items of items of EB-5 interest around the web.

Petition Processing and RC Approvals

SEC Matters

Stakeholder Meetings

  • Be sure to sign up for the 9/10 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting announced this week.
  • USCIS Director León Rodríguez had a few words on the EB-5 program in his engagement on August 14. IIUSA reports on takeaways from that meeting.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 7/29/2014 to 8/19/2014

  • Art District Los Angeles Regional Center, LLC (California)
  • North American Regional Center (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
  • American Vision Regional Center (Texas)

And finally, a mystery. The Regional Center page on the USCIS website is gone. A web admin accident? Or something more? I’ll keep checking back to see what happens.

Processing Times and Volumes 2014 Q3

And now for images summarizing recent information on EB-5 petition processing times (from the USCIS Processing Time Information page, updated 8/7 for IPO), I-526 and I-829 petition volume (from the USCIS Immigration and Citizenship Data page, updated 8/19), and I-924 processing volume (my unofficial tally). The numbers show that EB-5 petition receipts still exceed the number of petitions processed every quarter, with that gap increasing for I-526 and holding steady for I-829. Denial rates were unusually low last quarter. Overall processing volume improved significantly for I-829 and fell again for I-526. Perhaps fortunately, since the 7,688 I-526 petitions received already in FY2014 would put us well over the annual EB-5 visa allocation if adjudicated in a timely manner.  Average processing times have not shown dramatic change over the past few months (except for when USCIS took I-924a out of the I-924 average between March and April). Meanwhile, the roster of approved Regional Centers continues to expand rapidly.
I526Q3 I829Q3
TimesQ3 RCapprovalsQ3
Click on any image to view the full size version.
And note my other new posts from today on business plans and the newly-announced 9/10 stakeholder meeting.

I-526 Business Plan Evidence (7/29 AAO Decision)

Last month, the Administrative Appeals Office upheld denial of Regional Center-affiliated I-526 petitions based on EB-5 investment “to fund the development, production, sale, and eventual manufacture of alcoholic gelatin shots” (JUL292014_01B7203 and JUL292014_02B7203). I read that far and guessed that problems would be focused on the business plan, and sure enough. The investors also had some source of funds issues, and the cake was iced by the fact that the escrow agreement stipulated return of capital upon I-526 denial, which effectively terminated the investment before the petitioner had a chance to appeal the denial. But USCIS/the AAO focus on the business plan. To quote:

First, in the RFE, the director indicated that the petitioner did not source and itemize all pro forma financial data. … On appeal, the petitioner claims that she complied with the submission of a comprehensive business plan set forth in Matter of Ho and cites to sections of the business plan. The petitioner must submit a comprehensive business plan. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6U)(4)(i)(B).To be “comprehensive,” a business plan must be sufficiently detailed to permit the Service to draw reasonable inferences about the job-creation potential. Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. at 213. Mere conclusory assertions do not enable USCIS to determine whether the job-creation projections are any more reliable than hopeful speculation. Id. The business plan does not reflect the source of the pro form financial data, and the petitioner did not submit detailed and itemized pro forma financial data that would meet the elements of a “comprehensive” business plan. Although the chiefs decision indicated that the petitioner did not submit detailed and itemized pro forma financial data, the petitioner does not submit the information on appeal.

Second, in the RFE, the director indicated that the petitioner did not demonstrate that the sales projections and the production and marketing costs were reasonable when compared to industry standards, and the input parameter was not reliable because the sales forecasts and pro forma financial statements do not demonstrate whether the sales projections are reasonable to the current market environment or when compared to industry standards. In response, the petitioner indicates that the sales projections and production and marketing costs were prepared by _______ and that ______ President, based the projections on actual industry experience. The chief determined that the petitioner did not submit any financial documents to support Mr. ____ claims, and the petitioner did not provide any evidence demonstrating a contractual agreement of to distribute the alcoholic gelatin shots.

I have no personal knowledge of this case, but it’s interesting to me as a business plan writer. Could I have helped prepare a plan that USCIS would have approved? Or is USCIS demanding evidence that excludes this type of proposal? Imagining that our alcoholic gelatin shot developer, Mr. X, had called me first for the business plan, I went out to look for sources of evidence to validate his sales forecasts and financial projections.

If Mr. X had a real estate-based proposal he could commission an appraisal report, and if he were in a well-organized industry such as hospitality he’d have good options for a third party market/feasibility study to corroborate his projections. USCIS sees a lot of real estate-related and hotel deals, and is accustomed to seeing such studies attached to the business plan. A reliable-looking third party study is the easiest way to assure USCIS’s comfort level with market and financial projections. Assuming that there is no name-brand source for a market study relevant to developing alcoholic gelatin products, I consider whether it’s possible for me to help make the business plan’s internal analysis strong enough to stand on its own. Does Mr. X’s business resemble other businesses for which financial information is available for comparison? Who collects industry data relevant to this business? When a business falls squarely within a NAICS code that groups similar businesses, then I can help support business plan projections with reference to published data for that NAICS category (for example from the Economic Census and Risk Management Association Annual Statement Studies). When a publicly traded company handles a similar product, I can reference data from annual reports and investor presentations. When a business is in an industry that’s covered by an active trade association or that’s of interest to economic development agencies, there we have more promising data sources. In Mr. X’s case, “development, production, sale, and eventual manufacture of alcoholic gelatin shots” involves activities that span several NAICS codes, and the NAICS categories lump businesses that may be operationally quite different from the subject, so NAICS category data may not be very helpful. The Internet leads me to product and pricing information for several competitors, which would help support sales estimates, and yields some data on industry trends and growth (and locates a Kickstarter for another alcoholic gelatin shot producer, in case you regretted missing your chance to invest). However I didn’t find sources to support a strong estimate of market size or potential penetration. Presumably Mr. X has tested and measured the market through his contacts, but USCIS will want more than his word to back up his conclusions.

I’d have had to call Mr. X back and say “I’m sorry, I don’t think I have the sources to handle this plan for EB-5. You could still consider EB-5 if you’re far enough along to have evidence for actual sales and financial performance (e.g. sales contracts, historical financials). But this may not work if you’re still at the estimate and projection stage, because I don’t know where we’re going to find evidence that will support your estimates and projections to USCIS’s satisfaction. I’m not saying that your product and proposal aren’t great – I just wonder whether EB-5 will work for you, since you’re not on a well-beaten path. But thank you anyway for calling me, and please think of EB-5 again if you have a restaurant or assisted living facility or other vanilla proposal that’s easier to sell to a nervous industry outsider like USCIS.” And indeed, I have phone calls like this several times a month. How many bright entrepreneurs and innovative products have I discouraged from EB-5! Yes, I’m pessimistic, but then funding is a matching game. EB-5 naturally won’t match every promising business, just like VC funds or bank loans or tax credits won’t match every proposal, and I wish I could’ve spared Mr. X an uphill battle.

The questions that USCIS asked Mr. X were reasonable, even if unfairly difficult to answer for this proposal. But I do have a complaint: that USCIS excludes experience as evidence. Here USCIS might learn from the Small Business Administration. SBA examiners have told me that their analysis of viability considers “is this proposal reasonable when compared to industry standards?” and also “how reliable are the people behind this proposal?” The SBA will assess the track record, credit, and relevant experience of the principals as critical factors in the credibility of a business plan. USCIS does not have a tradition of doing that. Our AAO decision doesn’t treat Mr. X’s experience and qualifications as relevant, and only asks for third party evidence to bolster his projections. Has Mr. X ever successfully launched a food/beverage product? Has he managed a business? What experience does he have in the industry? What’s his track record in financial matters? These are obviously relevant questions. I daresay USCIS would weed out more wishful-thinkers and frauds by focusing on verifiable answers to such questions than by simply fixating on third party references to support projection numbers. Recognizing experience as one pillar of business plan credibility would also potentially put more openness to innovation in the EB-5 program. Otherwise, EB-5 will be effectively limited to proposals that can show their reasonableness by demonstrating that they’re as similar as possible to what everyone else is doing.

9/10 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites you to participate in a stakeholder teleconference on Wednesday, Sept. 10, from 2:30–4 p.m. (Eastern) to discuss the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. During this teleconference, USCIS officials will share EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program updates and respond to your questions. Visit the USCIS Public Engagement registration page to confirm your participation.

New RCs (CA, CT, DC, GA, IL, IN, MA, MD, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, PA, RI, VA, WA)

I’ve been busy recently and haven’t had news to break, but will emerge from the pile of paper on my desk to post my usual update of newly approved Regional Centers (which continue to redefine what qualifies as “focus on a geographic region”). For detail on what else has been said and done in EB-5 world over the past few weeks, I recommend you to http://iiusa.org/blog/. Also note that the June 2014 Regional Center Business Journal (online at http://issuu.com/iiusa) has some excellent content, including an article unraveling the intricacies of New Market Tax Credits and their potential in combination with EB-5, an article on Targeted Employment Area data changes, an article on how to approach escrow and fund administration if a broker-dealer will be involved in the offering, and an article that summarizes analysis by yours truly of 2013 Regional Center approval letters.  EB-5 Investors Magazine (http://magazine.eb5investors.com/) Spring 2014 edition is also very interesting. I question the information and conclusions in a few of the articles, but overall the publication is thought-provoking and substantial, with Meyer & Peng’s article on Due Diligence and Dual Representation in EB-5 Cases being particularly worth a read. Also, I can’t help smiling every time I look at the cover. Both these publications are rather tough to read online, but are available in print.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 7/8/2014 to 7/29/2014

  • Cal Pacific RC LLC (California)
  • SPG Regional Center, LLC (California)
  • EB5 Regional Center of America LLC (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York): www. EB5RCA.com
  • Northeast Regional Center, Inc. (Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia): www. pathwayseb5.com
  • EB5 Affiliate Network State of Georgia Regional Center, LLC (Georgia): www.eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • Tur Partners Metropolitan Regional Center, LLC (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin): turpartners.com
  • Nevada Investment Regional Center, LLC (Nevada)
  • L&L New York Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey, New York)
  • New York Green Hotel Regional Center LLC (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York)
  • Carolina Growth Regional Center, LLC (North Carolina) http://www.carolina-eb5-regionalcenter.com/
  • Pacific Northwest Investment RC, LLC (Washington State)
  • Seattle Area Regional Center, LLC (Washington State): seattlearearegionalcenter.com
  • Name change from Utah High Country Regional Center to Golden Lamp Regional Center, Inc. (Utah): www.goldenlampregionalcenter.com

RIMS II Update, 5/31 Processing Times, New RCs (AZ, CA, FL, NV, TX)

News from the Bureau of Economic Analysis regarding RIMS II:

BEA to Release Modified Regional Input-Output Model in 2015
The Bureau of Economic Analysis plans to release in 2015 a modified economic model to replace the original Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). Cost savings will be realized because the modified model will be updated less frequently.
Much like RIMS II, the modified model will produce regional “multipliers” that can be used in economic impact studies to estimate the total economic impact of a project on a region.
However, the modified model will be updated with new input-output (I-O) data only for benchmark years. That is — years ending in 2 and 7. The modified model will become available to customers in 2015 and incorporate 2007 benchmark I-O data and 2012 regional economic data.
Last year, as a result of budget sequestration and reduced funding levels, BEA discontinued updates to RIMS II. Orders for RIMS II multipliers, however, have continued to be accepted because the cost of fulfilling these orders is covered by a nominal processing fee.
After investigating ways to continue to meet the analytical needs of our customers but do so at a lower cost to BEA, the bureau decided to make a modified economic model available. Until the modified model is available in 2015, customers may continue to buy RIMS II multipliers.

USCIS has updated Processing Time Information for the Immigrant Investor Program Office. Average processing times for EB-5 petitions as of 5/312014 were 13.2 months for I-526, 7.9 months for I-829, and 5.4 months for I-924 (the previous report showed 12.4, 8.7, and 4.4 months respectively). The USCIS Regional Center page explains that the estimated time for I-924 processing went way down last month because USCIS stopped including I-924A in the average (and due to increased efficiency).

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 6/24/2014 to 7/8/2014

  • RCI Arizona Regional Center, LLC (Arizona)
  • Encore California RC, LLC (California): encoreeb5.com
  • Front Burner Restaurants Regional Center – Southern California (California)
  • SoCal Regional Center, LLC (California)
  • EB5 Affiliate Network State of Florida Regional Center, LLC (Florida): www.eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • EB5 Affiliate Network State of Nevada Regional Center, LLC (Nevada): www.eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • Renewable Texas Energy Regional Center (Texas): texaseb5rc.com

New RCs, New AAO decisions, I-924 checklist, RC project list

A few recent items of note in EB-5-world.

  • USCIS has added a document enticingly titled “EB-5 Adjudication Manual” to the EB-5 section of the Electronic Reading Room for documents released in response to FOIA requests. I assume that the document was supposed to include all the materials used in an April 2014 two-week training course for new Investor Program Office Staff, but unfortunately it only gives us only the outline of that course (PDF page 123-126) and a lot of materials for Day 3 (a fairly uninteresting general introduction day). One bit of pay dirt in this file is a checklist for items to look for in an I-924 filing (PDF page 102). IIUSA, which made the FOIA request, is going back to request the full set of IPO training materials, which should be very useful.
  • I regularly get emails from people who found my Regional Center list and ask me about getting a list of Regional Center projects. My standard response is that such a list does not exist and probably couldn’t exist because it would be so hard to create and administer and so unlikely to be comprehensive enough or disinterested enough to be useful. But the proliferation of Regional Centers, many of which have no activity, intensifies the demand for someone to sort down to a short list of active investment opportunities, and I note that USAdvisors is attempting to meet that demand with the launch of its website  https://eb5projects.com. So far the site reports listing 306 projects, including from 101 Regional Centers and some direct EB-5 offerings.
  • USCIS continues to upload 2014 AAO decisions on EB-5 petitions. In my opinion the most significant are still the May 27th cases 01 and 02, which set a high bar for the level of “meaningful business activity” and “meaningful concrete action” that must have been undertaken prior to I-526 filing in order for funds to be considered at risk. Grounds for upholding denial in this case include the fact that the initial I-526 didn’t include documentary evidence of commitments for 100% of the funds (in addition to the petitioner’s) needed to fill out the capital stack (evidence submitted in response to RFE was not accepted as supporting eligibility at the time of filing), and the fact that the petition showed that the NCE had entered into service contracts but not that performance under those contracts had already occurred. USCIS seems to be taking an unreasonably hard line. Long processing times and use of escrow can mean that an investor files I-526 at least year before the NCE can expect to use the EB-5 funds. If the investment actually — as the EB-5 program intends — has a substantial role in launching the NCE’s new job-creating activities, then I-526s will naturally be filed at an early stage in business development before all details are confirmed, and the NCE will inevitably have limited activities prior to I-526 filing.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 6/10/2014 to 6/24/2014

 

More AAO decisions and New RCs (CA, CO, DC, DE, GA, IL, IN, MD, MN, NJ, PA, PR, TX, WI)

AAO Decisions

USCIS continues to upload 2014 AAO decisions on EB-5 petitions (with the May 27th decisions being newly added as of today). Joseph Whalen has summarized highlights.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 6/3/2014 to 6/9/2014

4/30 IPO Processing Times, New RCs (AL, AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, LA, MD, MI, NJ, NV, NY, OR, PA, TN, TX, USVI, WA)

Today USCIS updated processing times for the Investor Program Office (IPO) as of 4/30/2014. Compared to the average times posted last month, I-526 times are one month better (now at 12.4 months), I-829 are about the same (now at 8.7 months), and I-924s went from 10.6 months to 4.4 months on average!

As I-924 processing speeds up, new entries continue to flood onto the USCIS list of approved Regional Centers.  But who is everyone? I now have all Year 2013 Regional Center approval letters thanks to an IIUSA FOIA request (watch for my analysis of them coming soon in IIUSA’s Regional Center Business Journal) and I can hardly wait for USCIS to get around to publicly posting that FOIA file so that I can include all the letters in my Regional Center directory.  In the meantime, please email me if you’d like to provide corrected contact information or a copy of your approval letter.  My Regional Center list page gets about 400 hits a week from countries around the world, so giving me info means some free advertising for you plus supporting my mission of increasing transparency in EB-5.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List 5/28/2014 to 6/2/2014

FY2014 Q2 EB-5 Petition Data, Material Change AAO Decisions, New RCs (AR, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, IN, MD, MI, NJ, NV, NY, PA, TN, TX, VA, WV, UT, WI)

The USCIS Immigration and Citizenship Data page has been updated again with data for I-526 and I-829 Petitions processed in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2014 (January to March). Once again, here are my little charts illustrating how the numbers compare with previous quarters.
1526q2 I829q2
I-526 processing volumes show modest increase overall, but below last quarter’s spike and still nowhere near Mr. Colucci’s goal of having the number of processed petitions at least exceed the number of petitions received each week. I-829s, on the other hand, flew off the shelf in Q2 – maybe because they’re all the California EB-5 team has to work on as of February? We’ll see how the processing story continues to unfold in coming quarters.

USCIS continues to post 2014 Administrative Appeals Office decisions on EB-5 cases. APR232014_01B7203 and MAY122014_01B7203 are interesting as case studies of the much-misunderstood material change issue. People tend to panic that “material change” means that one can’t at any time deviate from any point of a business plan submitted to USCIS. The May 30, 2013 EB-5 Policy Memo and Matter of Izummi don’t say that, however. USCIS policy focuses on the period prior to I-526 approval and the problem of petitioners who, having filed an I-526 Petition that doesn’t demonstrate eligibility for EB-5 visa benefits, respond to Requests for Evidence with a new set of facts, materially changing the proposal under which the original petition attempted to qualify. The USCIS position is that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time filing, the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on future events, and USCIS cannot consider facts that only came into being subsequent to the filing of the petition. For example, the petitioner in APR232014_01B7203 invested through a loan model with indirect job creation, which a non-Regional Center investor may not do, and then, in response to an RFE, tried to change track and present USCIS with a new and different business structure and investment terms. The AAO agreed that: “Purchase and termination of ___ in response to the director’s request for evidence in order to meet the direct job creation requirements reflects a material deviation from the business structure claimed at the initial filing of the petition. The business structure change constitutes an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to users and regulatory requirements. Therefore, users must analyze the petition only on the basis of the original claims.” In the MAY122014_01B7203 case, the petitioner’s problem was that “at the time of filing, he had invested only $105,000 and had not, at that time, properly committed the balance of the required investment with a secured note or agreement.” The moral of the material change story is to get your ducks in a row before filing an I-526 Petition. Don’t just throw something together and file it, assuming that the worst case scenario is that USCIS will send Requests for Evidence giving you a chance to go back and forth supplying new information and fixing problems until the petition is finally approvable. The worst case scenario is that the content of that original I-526 would need such material changes to become approvable that USCIS will say (to paraphrase): Forget it. This filing was crap, and if you have new facts and a new story now then you can go back to square one and file a new petition for us to consider. (For the official statement, see pages 24 to 27 of the EB-5 Adjudications Policy memo.)

The USCIS Regional Center list continues to expand by leaps and bounds, reflecting hard work by the USCIS Investor Program Office and adding to a crowded field. We’re continuing to see many multi-state RCs and many RCs associated with operators who control multiple RCs.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List 5/6/2014 to 5/27/2014

5/8 Colucci Remarks

USCIS has published the Prepared Remarks of Nicholas Colucci, Chief, Immigrant Investor Program at the IIUSA EB-5 Regional Economic Development Advocacy Conference on May 8, 2014 in Washington, DC. Thank you, USCIS! We really appreciate this transparency. Now everyone can review exactly what Mr. Colucci said regarding economic impact analysis.

Updates from the IIUSA Economic Development Advocacy Conference

This year’s IIUSA annual meeting in Washington DC on May 7-9 was remarkable not so much for what was said but for who spoke. At the IIUSA Washington DC meeting back in 2011, the mood was depressed and we were lucky to get prominent attorneys on the podium. Now in 2014, EB-5 is booming and we were honored by the presence of dignitaries including three members of Congress; top executives from USCIS, the State Department, the SEC, FINRA, the Department of Commerce, and even CBS; and chairpersons from eight of China’s provincial entry-exit associations.

A few things I learned from the conference:

  • USCIS Immigrant Investor Program Office Director Nicholas Colucci did not break any major news in his speech – appropriately, I think, given the private context. But his presence was a generous and appreciated gesture. [UPDATE: You can now read exactly what Mr. Colucci said, as his prepared remarks have been published on the USCIS website.] He reiterated that the Washington DC office is still ramping up on personnel, with a goal to reach 100+ staff by the end of the fiscal year; is investing additional resources in customer service through the immigrant investor program mailbox; and is taking care to provide expert training in areas including business organization and documents, SEC issues, money-laundering, decision-writing, and customer service. One of his new ISOs sat at my table and presented herself very nicely – with just the bright, collected, solicitous manner and edge of East Coast hustle that you’d want in the adjudicator for your case. I have to say that she impressed me much more than the aggrieved-looking examiners lurking at the back of the room at the California Service Center in-person EB-5 engagement in 2010. I suppose that not having to work in a Cold War bunker is good for morale. She is one of the ISOs who is new to EB-5 but not new to DHS. Mr. Colucci noted that his office has developed a 4-6 week certification process for ISOs hired from other departments, with the goal to get adjudications up to speed as quickly as possible – and at least to have the number of decisions exceed the number of receipts each week. Mr. Colucci gave us several things to look forward to: draft regulations revisions by September 15, filing tips based on analysis of RFEs, and – a surprise treat – a FY2014 Annual Report planned. Finally, he offered a few filing tips focused on economic impact analysis. He reminded economists to clearly explain economic model inputs used and to exclude ineligible inputs (e.g. some construction soft costs). He also emphasized a requirement that I haven’t previously heard made explicit by USCIS – that the economist must in all cases distinguish model direct and indirect components, not just provide an aggregate total. Economists are also reminded to break down the number of jobs associated with each distinct model input. We’re not sure how much to make of the fact that Mr. Colucci twice referenced examples of reasonable economic models and each time said “IMPLAN, REMI, and REDYN” and either accidentally or on purpose did not mention RIMS II – a model that’s currently not being updated by BEA but still very popular in EB-5 and still useable for now and being approved by USCIS, so far as we know.
  • Department of State Visa Controls Office Chief Charles Oppenheim discussed the intricacies of EB-5 visa availability and handed down his prediction that China retrogression will likely not occur until Summer 2015, with a May 2013 cut-off date possible at that time. He repeatedly advised the audience to only credit official information in the State Department Visa Bulletin and not to listen to bloggers. Apparently some of my kind have been panicking about immanent multi-year backlogs, so the audience was happy to hear from Mr. Oppenheim that we’re probably only looking at a 2-year backlog for Chinese investors (not too painful, considering that I-526s have been taking 1+ year to process anyway) and that this probably won’t occur until later next year. Mr. Oppenheim said that he would try to give 2-3 month’s notice of any new developments, and that otherwise we may expect news in the June 2015 Visa Bulletin. For those who are still confused about how the visa numbers process works, you may want to read articles on the Visa Office’s Immigration Statistics page and Ron Klasko’s simplified FAQ on the subject. For those who would like this problem to just be eliminated by an increase in the number of visas allocated to EB-5, call your Congressman and advocate.
  • SEC Division of Enforcement Chief Steve Cohen gave a speech that gently but pointedly emphasized the breadth of the SEC’s jurisdiction and enforcement interest in the EB-5 program.  While the SEC’s actions have so far focused on egregious fraud, Mr. Cohen noted that fraud is fraud whether egregious or not, that the SEC is concerned by any kind of misstatement (with its attention particularly drawn by Regional Center websites that state or imply that “approval by USCIS” means that the federal government provides a cloak of integrity to the Regional Center’s activities), and that SEC will attend not only to fraud but also to failure to comply with registration requirements. Rumor at the conference confirmed that some Regional Centers have recently been contacted by the SEC regarding registration issues.   To remind yourself about the requirements involved, you can review materials and posts around the USCIS/SEC joint conference call.  Regarding the SEC’s enforcement philosophy, Mr. Cohen stated that ignorance is not a defense, that the agency will take into account good faith compliance efforts and does not want to eviscerate the program, and that you’re strongly advised to approach the SEC for help to fix problems before the SEC comes to you to tell you that you have a problem.
  • FINRA Directory of Emerging Regulatory Affairs Kavita Jain joined Mr. Cohen and discussed how to get on the right side of registration requirements. Ms. Kavita noted that FINRA has been seeing an increase in applications related to EB-5 players and activities, and listed areas of concern for FINRA including due diligence, risk disclosures, suitability analysis, and finder’s fees.
  • Other notes. See IIUSA’s post on highlights from the Advocacy Conference for a more comprehensive summary and links to resources provided at the conference.
  • Mark your calendars. IIUSA is hosting its annual Trade Mission to China September 6-10, 2014 and the 4th annual EB-5 International Investment & Economic Development Forum in San Francisco on October 22-24, 2014.  Details here.

FY2014 Q1 EB-5 petition data, new RCs (CA, FL, WA)

USCIS has posted EB-5 petition processing statistics for the first quarter of FY2014 (October to December 2013) on the Immigration and Citizenship Data page. I hope that the increasing volume of I-526 decisions reflects operational improvements, and not just California Service Center adjudicators hustling to get files off their desks ahead of the February 2014 hand-off to the new Washington DC Investor Program Office. In any case the I-526 trend is significant, with the number of approvals increasing by around 20% every quarter last year (and the total number of decisions up 41% between the last two quarters).  This is good news for processing times, and also an indicator that we’re accelerating toward the annual EB-5 visa cap. USCIS has cautioned before against reading much into the number of denials that happen to occur in any given quarter, but I’m still intrigued by the recent spike in denied petitions. It will be interesting to see how second quarter statistics look, with new staff handling I-526 and the CSC free to focus on I-829 petitions. I’ve visualized USCIS quarterly data in the following charts.

q12014I-526 q12014I-829

Meanwhile, the IPO is continuing to crank out I-924 decisions.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List 4/29/2014 to 5/5/2014

I will be posting from the IIUSA annual meeting this week, and look forward to seeing you there.

Regulatory changes, processing times, retrogression, ELIS, articles, new RCs (CA, CT, DC, FL, GA, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, TX, VA, WV)

Highlights of recent EB-5 activity:

  • Feedback on regulatory changes: On 4/23, USCIS hosted a “Regulatory Changes Listening Session” to solicit stakeholder input into the process of revising the EB-5 regulations, and invited the public to contribute additional suggestions through the USCIS Idea Community. You can get a recording of the listening session from IIUSA (post here) and log into the USCIS Idea Community any time through May 8 to provide your feedback and vote on suggestions made by others. Comments made so far include a few informed, constructive recommendations focused on the greater good and many that are either based on basic ignorance about what’s within the scope of regulatory changes or motivated by narrow interests such as trying to reduce competition or divert risk/responsibility or even shut down the Regional Center program entirely. I admit that I fall among those who are not motivated to offer disinterested input and take on some of the sheer hard work of drafting much-needed improvements to the current regulations. But I’m logged into the Idea Community and ready to vote for anyone who is so broadminded and generous with his or her time and expertise!
  • Processing times: USCIS updated IPO processing times (as of 3/31, posted 5/1) that show improvement overall, with 13.2 months for I-526, 8.9 months for I-829, and 10.6 months for I-924.
  • Retrogression: Mr. Charlie Oppenheim of the Department of State’s Visa Office is quoted as saying on April 21 that “retrogression for China EB-5 in the 2015 fiscal year [10/01/2014-09/30/2015] seems almost inevitable, as there are over 7,000 I-526 applications pending and 80% are from China.” For more detail, see “Update on EB-5 Visa Numbers” by Jennifer Hermansky. (For background on the retrogression issue, see FAQs on EB-5 Quota Backlog by H. Ronald Klasko.)
  • ELIS: Martin Lawler has written a useful account of his firm’s experience filing EB-5 petitions through USCIS’s new ELIS system. See “ELIS – Not the Island – Issues with Electronic Filing of I-526 Petitions” on the IIUSA blog.
  • Other articles: AILA and IIUSA have published a glossy report titled “Basic Background About the EB-5 Program” that can be used as an advocacy tool. The EB-5 Insights blog has a couple interesting posts by William Mack on Fee-based foreign finders and SEC/FINRA registration requirements and Suitability and AML Concerns for Broker/Dealers Engaged in the Offering and Sale of EB-5 Investments.

New Regional Centers

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center list 4/3/2014 to 4/28/2014:

New AAO Decisions, Processing Update, New RCs (AR, AZ, FL, MI, NM, PA)

New AAO Decisions
USCIS has started uploading AAO decisions to the folder for I-526 and I-829 Decisions issued in 2014. The decisions continue to show granular analysis of source of funds problems and continue to scold USCIS on the issue of deference in the wake of the 5/30/2013 EB-5 policy memo. Both FEB102014_01B7203 (a direct case) and FEB102014_02B7203 (a Regional Center case) appear from the AAO’s fact summaries to have been very faulty filings, yet the AAO nevertheless states that USCIS “did not properly deny the petition” because (in the direct case) “the director has not articulated to the petitioner in this matter why the business plan for the first investor was sufficient and the same business plan for the petitioner was insufficient or why deference was not applied to the petitioner’s business plan,” while in the Regional Center case: “the director never explained in writing, as an initial assessment, why the business plan, the business plan addendum, and the economic impact analysis filed in support of the instant petition were not due deference, either because of a material change in the underlying facts or otherwise.” Unfortunately for the direct EB-5 investor, the AAO still dismissed her appeal because her investment amount was $499,955, not $500,000, and therefore did not meet the threshold of a qualifying investment. A good reminder for all to pay attention to those bank fees.

Processing Times Update
An April 3rd update to USCIS Processing Time Information for the Immigrant Investor Program Office indicates that, as of 2/282014, USCIS was working on I-526 filed 5/18/2013, I-829 filed 4/9/2013, and I-924 filed 1/25/2013.

Regional Center Approvals
New Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List 3/19/2014 to 4/2/2014

What’s New (processing times, statistics, legislation, AAO deference decision, and new RCs in CA, FL, ME, NY, WA, WI)

Processing Times: As promised in the 2/26 EB-5 stakeholder meeting, a new section has been added to the USCIS Processing Time Information page. Now, instead of selecting “CSC – California Service Center” from the dropdown menu at the bottom of the page, select “IPO Processing Dates” button to see processing times for I-526 and I-829 (with I-924 promised to appear any day now). The news still isn’t good (indicating that as of January, IPO was working on I-526s filed April 2013 and I-829s filed May 2012), but at least it’s easy to check.

EB-5 Petition and Visa Statistics: This week USCIS updated its Immigration and Citizenship Data page with reports on I-526 and I-829 adjudications through Q4 2013. The stats show that USCIS made decisions on fewer EB-5 petitions overall in FY2013 than it did in FY2012, despite an increasing number of receipts. On the bright side, the second half of FY2013 had a significantly higher volume than the first half, particularly for I-526 adjudications, so we can hope for a continuing upward trend. On the dark side, pending petitions topped 7,000 for I-526 in 2013. For visa statistics, note that the State Department has reorganized its website, with the annual Report of the Visa Office from 2000 to 2013 now collected on one Visa Statistics page. To see the EB-5 visa numbers (itemized by Country of investor origin) for any year, open that year’s report and visit Section V. Part 3. For statistics related to the volume, use, and impacts of EB-5 investment, note that IIUSA has published a sneak peek of data highlights from the IIUSA-commissioned 2012 Economic Impacts Report, and will be featuring exclusive new program data in its forthcoming edition of the Regional Center Business Journal.

Legislation: The House is talking about EB-5 again, with a new bill proposed this month (The American Entrepreneurship and Investment Act of 2014) that would permanently authorize and make some modifications to the EB-5 program. See Laura Reiff’s post “House Member Introduces Bi-Partisan Immigration Legislation to Enhance and Augment the EB-5 Regional Center Program

New AAO Decision: USCIS has uploaded another 2013 AAO decision (DEC302013_01B7203) on a Regional Center case in which “the AAO remands the matter to the chief for a new decision that explains its compliance with the May 30, 2013 Policy Memorandum.” The AAO found that “the chief did not explain why the economic impact analyses filed in support of the instant petition were not afforded due deference.” The decision requires USCIS to support its determination that deference is not warranted by providing examples of underlying change to material facts between the impact analyses supporting the approved Regional Center application and the denied I-526 petition. (See also SEP232013_01B7203, another deference-related decision on a different Regional Center case.)

New Regional Centers 3/6/2014 to 3/18/2014

New RCs (CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, MD, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, PA, PR, SC, TX)

USCIS continues to expand its list of approved Regional Centers, with many of the new entries representing additional approvals for applicants already operating multiple RCs. The one new RC kind enough to post its approval letter was processed in only three months. I look forward to receiving contact information and approval letters for each of these new centers.

New Regional Centers at www.uscis.gov/eb-5centers 2/7/2014 to 3/5/2014

2/26 Stakeholder Meeting Updates

UPDATE: USCIS has posted an Executive Summary of the call.
Last week, EB-5 stakeholders enjoyed the “first of a new series of quarterly engagements” with USCIS. It’s been over a year since the last EB-5 stakeholder meeting, so this one was very substantive. I faint at reproducing everything of importance from the call, but am sharing my recording (click here to download it) for the benefit of anyone who would like to review details. Other bloggers (Mona Shah and EB-5 Insights) have also posted highlights, and IIUSA members can access an excellent article from Robert Divine. (See also H. Ron Klasko’s excellent posts on “EB-5 Stakeholders Call – What We Learned,” and “Unanswered Questions from the EB-5 Stakeholders Meeting“).

The first 23 minutes of the call feature program updates from Daniel Renaud, Deputy Associate Director of USCIS Field Operations Directorate, and Nicholas Colucci, USCIS EB-5 Program Office Chief. A few highlights:

  • Priorities: Mr. Renaud stated five goals for the EB-5 program: reduce processing times, improve filing options and reduce paperwork, update regulations to align with statute and improve initial filings, improve customer service, and solicit stakeholder input more frequently
  • Office Updates and Staffing: The EB-5 program office in Washington DC currently has 53 staff, including 20 economists and 25 adjudicators. 80% of the staff have advanced degrees, including 20 law degrees. In the “near term,” new hires (mostly adjudicators) are expected to increase the DC staff to 75, with a goal to reach about 100 staff by the end of the fiscal year. A training program has been implemented to bring adjudicators up to speed within 5 weeks of entering on duty. New hiring compensates for the loss of about 35 California Service Center personnel who had adjudicated I-526 and I-829. As of 2/14/2014, all I-924 and I-526 petitions are being adjudicated in Washington DC. A team at the California Service Center will continue to work with I-829 and I-485 through the end of the year.
  • Processing: Some I-526 petitions have already been filed through the ELIS electronic filing system, and USCIS is continuing to test this system while also unrolling a document library that can be used for EB-5 cases. USCIS prioritizes improving processing times, particularly for Form I-526, by the end of this year, though further delays are expected in the short term as new adjudicators are hired and trained. USCIS repeats its commitment to a basically FIFO system, and claims that no one type of petition can expect faster processing than others. USCIS promises to update its website shortly with I-924 processing times refreshed monthly. (The 2012 times were deleted from the USCIS RC Page the day after the call, so we’ll see if new info appears there soon.)
  • Regulations and Policy: USCIS is preparing to launch into revising EB-5 regulations to address fraud and national security issues (a priority as a result of recommendations from the Office of Inspector General’s audit report) and to generally improve program efficiency and procedures. Stakeholder feedback will be solicited through an upcoming stakeholder meeting to be announced and through the USCIS Idea Community (email to follow). USCIS is also working with the Office of Policy and Strategy to put together a comprehensive policy manual that will consolidate existing memoranda and the AFM into one policy guidance document.
  • Filing Tips: Mr. Renaud promises that filing tips will be published soon on the USCIS website, and mentions five on the call: please don’t send duplicate copies of supporting evidence; translation documents need to comply with the regulations (complete, not summary, and accompanied by translator certification that complies with the regulations); don’t provide outdated TEA letters; Regional Center I-526 petitions should include a cover letter with the name of the new commercial enterprise and the name, receipt, and ID number of the Regional Center; for I-924 applications, state in cover letter the type of approval requested: hypothetical, actual, or exemplar.

Minutes 23-50 of the call were devoted to prepared responses to stakeholder questions submitted in advance of the call. This section was handled by Robert Cox, Deputy Chief of the EB-5 Program Office. I won’t reproduce the Q&A, which was very carefully worded, but provide time references to my recording so that you can revisit topics of interest to you:

  • 23:45 Clarify types of RC applications (hypothetical and actual with exemplar), and whether a project can be approved as an actual project with deference if it is not accompanied by an exemplar I-526.
  • 25:45  How much detail does a “hypothetical” plan need to have?
  • 27:45 What is “an objective mistake of fact or law” that eliminates deference?
  • 29:15 Will USCIS accept a TEA constructed from an aggregation of census tracts from an investor, or must this be in the form of an official state designation?
  • 32:00 What is the standard for determining the geographic range of a regional center, and what kind of expansion outside the approved boundaries of the RC would be accepted?
  • 35:20 May an EB-5 new commercial enterprise invest in a non-profit job-creating enterprise?
  • 36:40 May one EB-5 investment be divided among businesses in separate TEAs?
  • 37:40 May a developer have a guaranteed return so long as the promise is not made to the investor?
  • 39:20 May Regional Centers be bought and sold?
  • 40:40 May a business that purchases assets of a previously-existing business qualify as a new commercial enterprise?
  • 43:30 What limits on use of bridge financing should investors know about?
  • 46:00 What is the legal standard for allowing EB-5 investors to gain credit for guest expenditure jobs?
  • 49:30 At the I-829 stage, what evidence will be accepted for creation of model-derived jobs?

The remainder of the call includes live Q&A. In my opinion, this is less useful since USCIS apparently instructs its people to avoid giving definitive answers off-the-cuff to call-in questions. But you’re welcome to review the recording (noting that I got briefly disconnected at 1:18 and lost 8 minutes).

USCIS clearly put a lot of work into this call, which was much appreciated. I look forward to the in-person engagement promised “in late Spring or early Summer.”

Coburn letter

The buzz this week has been over a letter sent by U.S. Senator Tom A. Coburn (R. Oklahoma) to all Regional Centers with content as follows:

As Ranking member of the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, I am writing to learn more about ___ Regional Center’s participation in the EB-5 immigrant investor program. Every Regional Center approved by USCIS will receive a similar request to help the Committee better understand the EB-5 program. To understand more about ___ Regional Center, please provide the following information by March 13, 2014 in an electronic format:

  • Any approval from USCIS to participate in the EB-5 program regarding the regional center and its business plan, including any subsequent recertification;
  • The total annual amount of investment and the number of individuals by country of origin making investments through the regional center since it has been in operation;
  • The name, address, and a description of each business in which the regional center has made an investment of funds and the number of jobs created by each investment;
  • Any fees charged to EB-5 applicants or received by the regional center, including amount and description;
  • A list of any current or former corporate officers of the regional center, including title, position, and dates of employment, and
  • The name and address of any individual or entity- either foreign or domestic- that the regional center has an agreement with to provide legal, accounting, recruiting or consulting services, as well as a description of the service provided.

Feelings are mixed about this. It’s nice to see Congressional concern and attention, and I’m a long-time advocate of transparency about Regional Center backers. But one wonders why Senator Coburn decided to circumvent USCIS, which implemented the I-924a annual reporting process to collect similar information from Regional Centers to report to stakeholders such as Congress. Also, what Senator Coburn, not being a well-known friend of immigration, intends to do with the responses he receives. IIUSA has referred its members to two relevant articles: “MINORITY RULES: WHY COMPANIES SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY THE INCREASING TREND OF MINORITY PARTY-LED CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS” by Steven R. Ross, Raphael A. Prober, and Megan L. Greer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and A Client’s Guide to Congressional Investigations Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Also see Ron Klasko’s post on this topic.