Another meeting reaction

On Tuesday we heard EB-5 stakeholders eloquently express grievances to the CIS Ombudsman. Yesterday I imagined a USCIS representative taking his complaints, in lieu of real-life forum, to St. Thomas More. Today my imagination takes up another voice that tends to be underrepresented — that of the US business person trying to use EB-5. Let’s designate Mr. Jarndyce as patron saint of the red-tape oppressed, and let our hypothetical business person appeal to him.

St. Jarndyce hear the prayer of the afflicted, this honest American businessman struggling with a funding program that looks great but seems to get more complicated and cumbersome  the more I get involved in it.

Let me get one thing straight: I do business. I’m passionate about my industry, and have put my own life and resources into developing my business and creating new opportunities, but here’s the bottom line: I do projects when the value exceeds the cost of capital. That’s it. I don’t exist as a goose to lay golden eggs for agents and consultants and Tulkinghorns, and I sure as hell am not in the business of selling green cards.

EB-5 looks attractive to me because the current capital crunch encourages me to consider alternative financing for my business opportunities, and because the immigration benefits offered by USCIS effectively lower the return that the EB-5 investors would require from me, thus promising a relatively low-cost piece for the capital stack to fund my great new project. One would think that I could contract some professionals  to do the paperwork and deal with the foreign investors and the government, collect and present the kind of detail about my business that’s required by industry standards for loan underwriting or a private equity raise, and then I can go ahead and do my business and break even in the end with some profit for the shareholders. Meanwhile investors get green cards, the economy gets money, and Americans get jobs. What a deal.

But what happens in real life? I hired professionals at costs that made my CFO faint to prepare the paperwork for USCIS, and found out why they’re so expensive when USCIS responded a year later with a Request for Evidence that would – if we fully responded to every point – require about a thousand pages of exhibits. I don’t know if those people over at USCIS take me for a fraud or for The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but anyway they ask me for the kind of minute economic analysis that would presumably be water-tight but at a cost of several months and a tens of thousands of dollars, tell me that the market study I commissioned from a preeminent consultant in my industry doesn’t match up to their mysterious understanding of reasonableness and verifiable detail, inform me that my real quotes and bids are insufficient support for cost claims, request records that they don’t realize would fill file boxes, criticize me for not being “average” as compared to some median for US firms (as if I have to be 37.2 years old just cause that’s the median age for Americans), inform me that the prospective jobs that won my project all those support letters copied in my application are not actually attributable to me thanks to some proprietary USCIS theory of job creation, and so on. I don’t know who’s laughing here, unless it’s the crowd of consultants I have to pay to figure all this out, or the guy who’ll be able to sell me a replacement Xerox machine by the time this is over. I consider whether my firm should keep pursuing this path, as the unforeseen complexity of the paperwork results in mounting costs and as potential projects rise and change and fade and die with the pace of the market while USCIS reviews my documents with the pace of Baltoro Glacier.

I decide to persevere, since the firm has already sunk over a hundred thousand in pursing the EB-5 option, and I finally get my prized approval letter, only to realize that the fun fair is just getting started.  Now that I finally got approved by convincing the government that I am really a business person ready to sponsor real investment in real projects, agents get their hands on my business and parade it before foreign investors telling them the opposite – that this is not real investment in a real business with realistic risk and return, but rather some kind of government-produced vending machine where you put in money and eventually “poof!” out comes that same money plus a green card, risk-free and guaranteed. Not only do agents make investors believe such nonsense but they ask me for fees and cuts and promises to match some other rogue – not characteristic of US businessmen – who can afford to pay huge fees and make big promises because he doesn’t need to conserve money for a real business venture but only for his disappearance to Tahiti. In my application process with USCIS, I found my detailed and sophisticated proposal at the back of the line behind proposals that were small, bland, and relatively easy to digest. When it came to finding investors, I found my genuine offering at the back of the line behind any business of any quality who would pay the agents and promise the investors more than I considered realistically or ethically possible for me.

Was it all worthwhile? I can only say that my project better have fantastic cash flows to justify the investment in time and money that I had to put in to get that EB-5 piece into the capital stack. Not to mention the risk I accept entering a minefield of securities laws and having not only the money but also the families of foreign investors depending on the successful, timely, and predictable progress of my project. Before recommending this to someone else, I would want to see more guidelines on the table to give people like me a realistic sense of what they’re getting into, how much it will cost, and how to do it right. And when I say “do it right,” I’m not talking about standards for the perfectly accurate economic report, the ironclad business plan, the unquestionable verifiable evidence, the fool-proof offering documents, the guaranteed business opportunity – because such things simply do not exist in the real world, and if they did who could afford them. I’m talking about “good enough” – achieving a reasonable standard – something less than perfect but possible and reasonable. I’m here to do good business, and that doesn’t include paying more to get capital than I could possibly earn by deploying that capital. It doesn’t mean accepting risk and making concessions that can’t be balanced by potential benefits. It doesn’t mean raising funds that can’t be made available within the lifetime of the project that needs them. I’m here, champing at the bit to raise money and put it all into profitable job-creating activities because those activities are my business. USCIS defeats its mandate if its policies and lack thereof force me to invest in cumbersome processes and paperwork, diverting resources that I’d rather put into new business activities and job creation. Likewise, the market undermines itself by insisting on rosy promises that favor the desperate. Come on everyone. Let’s get real here. Otherwise people like me, honest American business people who are the engine for this system, are going to do the math and lose interest in EB-5.

This speaker is not real, and his experience is not characteristic. But I have evidence that everything that happened to him has happened to at least one real person in the past year.

Being in the paperwork profession myself, I did not have my hypothetical business person dwell on the headaches he encountered with the service providers who prepared his documents. However, this is an important factor to consider, and perhaps my kind are more guilty of creating problems than the government and the agents put together. I recommend an excellent article on “Lessons I Learned from My First EB-5 Capital Raise” by Ron Wilkinson, a developer with Vantage Pointe Investments.

Ombudsman meeting reaction

In case you missed yesterday’s EB-5 stakeholder meeting hosted by the CIS Ombudsman’s Office, here’s the gist: “the processing of EB-5 petitions and applications has not been smooth, and it’s USCIS’s fault.” The Ombudsman listened politely and made notes to convey to USCIS, which was not offered a speaking part at the meeting. I can share my recording, if you want to hear all the EB-5 stakeholders’ complaints and suggestions in detail. Since none were new to me (although some were constructive and worth stating), I shall report instead on an imagined meeting. Let’s pose St. Thomas More as Ombudsman for the American people, and imagine how USCIS representatives might tell him their side of the EB-5 processing story.

St. Thomas, thank you for holding this meeting and giving your faithful civil servants here at USCIS the opportunity to express concerns regarding the American people and their handling of the EB-5 program.

Sir, the people complain about consistency and predictability in processing of EB-5 cases. They are angry that documents similar to those approved a few years ago are not approved today. They mutter that EB-5 may be heading for a crash such as it experienced in the late 1990s – a crash that they blame on us and our track-changing. But look at the facts of the late nineties. Hundreds of Interbank Group investors lost their green cards – but Interbank was convicted on dozens of counts of visa, mail and wire fraud and a couple operators went to jail – whose fault was that? Back then hundreds of AIS investors ended up in legal limbo – but AIS had been structuring EB-5 deals so that foreign investors only had to actually invest $125,000, a fraction of the legally required amount. How could we not change course and crack down when it became clear to us that the bottom line of the EB-5 program – real investment and real job creation – was not being realized, and that fraud was being given a chance to flourish? And look at us now. The people have been sending us economic impact reports that soberly claim, for example, that building one new hotel or one new office building will result in thousands of new jobs in the community. When our in-house economists that the people agitated for us to hire point out problems with such analyses, and explain why we should not and should never have rubber-stamped claims like this – how can we not act on that? What would the newspapers and the voting public say if we didn’t adjust? How can the people gasp and swoon when our economists challenge certain job count practices when a little thinking or a call to the local university economics department would raise the same issues that our economists are raising?

How come a country full of smart people can only tear their hair and cry “you approved it before therefore you should approve it again,” and “why can’t you tell us the right way to do this?” Why can’t those smart people put their heads together and figure out together what constitutes a reasonable economic analysis, a quality business plan, and solid offering documents? Why can’t they come up with best practice guidelines for the industry, based on the combined intelligence of a range of experts in business, economics, and law? You think we wouldn’t welcome those guidelines and take them into account? We would love to see the community self-regulating to file more consistent and high-quality documentation that’s easy for us to process and approve, and that won’t get innocent investors or business people in trouble later. Who thinks we like wasting our time issuing tons of Requests for Evidence, telling people one by one to please source the claims in your documents and avoid tenuous assumptions and make your paperwork consistent and follow the relevant rules and regulations? Who thinks we like spending months wading through binders stuffed with paperwork that could have been approved more quickly if prepared differently? Sure, we should probably publish more clear instructions and more extensive policy guidance, but why wait on us? Why can’t the lawyers and economists and business experts out there participate in the challenge of creating best practices for a healthy EB-5 program that fulfills Congressional intent and resists fraud? Why are they just fixated on “what we got away with before,” leaving all the reigning in and guidance to us? Why do they promote self-serving proposals that leave a wide-open window for fraud – such as the suggestion that people should be able to freely deviate from plans approved at the I-526 stage and should have the option of not proving job creation at the I-829 stage (effectively, never having to prove job creation)? Why do the people have to resist our reform attempts all the way? The people agitate for us to limit our standards to what’s “commercially reasonable,” and yet they were angry when we started to issue Requests for Evidence with the simple question: “please reference sources to show what is commercially reasonable in this situation.” They blame us for approving that Regional Center in Chicago that’s now being taken to court by the SEC and causing an international stink, but they’re angry when we implement procedures to help to help ensure that future applicants aren’t inflating numbers and forging documents like the Chicago people did.

So you see, St. Thomas, we’re in a hard spot. No one longs more than we do for EB-5 processing to go smoothly and quickly. We want to receive paperwork that’s clear and reasonable and easy to approve. We want to quickly approve real investment that will create real jobs and give immigration benefits to investors with clean money. But we can’t do this alone. We need the American people to step back from their adversarial approach to us. We need them to support and share the goal of making EB-5 cases easier to process. We need their shared commitment to regulate the EB-5 program so that it results in real investments in solid US business, real job creation for US workers, real economic development in distressed areas, and immigration benefits for people whom we’ll be proud to call fellow Americans.

[As a business plan writer I strive for imaginative sympathy with my audience, EB-5 adjudicators, but I don’t actually know anyone at USCIS and have no evidence that this speech reflects the views of any living person.]

In other news, Steven Anapoell at GreenbergTraurig has published an article raising issues with major potential implications for use of bridge financing in the EB-5 context. Any thoughts from other securities attorneys on this article? See: The Investment Company Act of 1940 and Underwriting the Financial Gap Between Filing and Approval of the I-526 Petition

New RCs (CA, ID, FL, NE, NY, NM, NY, OK, PA, TX), New NAICS, IIUSA Meeting, Visa Numbers, SEC Issues

A brief post to catch up on a very busy few weeks.

Processing Update and New Regional Centers: The EB-5 team at USCIS has been busy issuing approvals! I hear rumors of I-526s being adjudicated in record time, and twelve new names have appeared on the USCIS list of approved Regional Centers. Kudos to the adjudicators and leadership who have prioritized improved processing times. My enthusiasm is somewhat mitigated by the discovery that some of these new centers are in the dark so far as the Internet is concerned. Thank you to the centers with website for letting us know who you are and what you plan to do. I look forward to seeing more information about all these centers.

California

Harris Investment Immigration Fund, LLC

Idaho

Idaho Global Investment Center, LLC   http://idahogic.com/

Florida

American EB-5 Centers   http://www.americaneb5centers.com/

Leaf Fisher Investment Group LLC

Omega Florida Regional Center http://omegaregionalcenters.com/omega-designation

Orlando EB-5 Investments Regional Center http://www.orlandoeb5investments.com/

Nebraska

NuNebraska Regional Center, LLC

New Mexico

Allied Artist High Desert EB5 Regional Center
Geographic Area:New Mexico Counties of San Bernalillo, San Miguel, and Santa Fe
Industry Focus:Motion Picture and Video Industries (NAICS 5121), Advertising and Related Services (NAICS 5418)
Designation Letter

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

New York Federal Regional Center

New York

Real Estate Immigration Fund, LLC  http://www.reifrc.com

Oklahoma

Briight Partners Regional Center http://www.briight.com/

Texas

Civitas Texas Regional Center http://www.civitascapital.com

(Note: See my Regional Center directory page for my most updated listings for all RCs. And please email me if you would like to provide additional information regarding your RC.)

New NAICS Codes: I belatedly noticed that the 2012 NAICS codes released by the U.S. Census Bureau include a few significant differences from the 2007 NAICS codes. For example, the 2012 codes combine full service and limited service restaurants under one four-digit code, though they had been separated by the 2007 codes. The six-digit codes for restaurants have been changed accordingly. The code 6233 that used to be called “Community Care Facilities for the Elderly” is now defined as “Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly.” And so on. These changes shouldn’t be a major issue, but Regional Centers should be aware of the updates to the definitions for their industry categories.

EB-5 Meetings: Be sure to register for the 3rd Annual IIUSA EB-5 International Investment & Economic Development Forum Association to Invest In the USA (IIUSA) on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM – Friday, June 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM (PDT) in Las Vegas, NV. This is the best and most comprehensive EB-5 event of the year. USCIS hasn’t yet announced dates for 2013 EB-5 stakeholder meetings, but don’t forget the CIS Ombudsman EB-5 stakeholder meeting on 03/05/2013.

Visa Numbers and SEC Issues: The EB-5 Insights blog by GreenbergTraurig continues to publish valuable posts. EB-5 Retrogression for China Unlikely in 2013 reports that “According to Charles Oppenheim of the Department of State Visa Office, EB-5 usage has dropped in recent months. As a result, it is no longer expected that China will reach its per country limit in 2013.” The Myths of Retrogression of the Visa Numbers in the EB-5 Program further explains what retrogression does (and does not) mean. Addressing concerns with securities compliance highlighted by the recent SEC action against a Regional Center, Steve Anapoell has published useful articles on EB-5 Program Securities Offerings: Considerations for the Drafting Process and EB-5 Program Securities Offerings: Preparing Appropriate Disclosure Documents. The IIUSA blog has also been posing valuable resources related to securities compliance.

Avoiding Fraud in EB-5

UPDATE: I recommend that those interested in the SEC action sign up to participate in IIUSA’s webinar this Friday 2/22 on Securities Laws Enforcement in the EB-5 Context: SEC Process & Procedures.

We in the EB-5 community sometimes sigh over USCIS’s increasing fixation on “verifiable detail,” which makes applications and petitions so much harder for us to prepare. Two years ago my EB-5 business plans were about 20 pages and simply explained the business proposal. That was the norm, judging by application materials for older Regional Centers that were released in response to FOIA requests. Now my EB-5 plans are more like forty pages not counting footnotes and a stack of exhibits, and not only present the business plan but try to validate every detail with reference to evidence from independent sources. Sometimes it seems that USCIS assumes each application to be fraudulent until proven innocent, and applicants/petitioners whose face value happens to be real value are taken aback and frustrated at being suspected and probed. What does USCIS think they’d do, anyway? A complaint filed this week by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Intercontinental Regional Center Trust of Chicago, LLC details what one Regional Center did do, from inventing franchise agreements and financing commitments to forging letters and enormously inflating cost estimates and revenue projections. I think that reading this complaint should make us more supportive of USCIS in its efforts to scrutinize and test applications and petitions before approving them. And the government should not be alone in this scrutiny. Kudos to Michael Gibson for reporting on concerns about this project as early as November 2011.

New Regional Centers (MD, MT, NY)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Regional Center applications are being approved! Three more new centers appeared on the USCIS Regional Center list this week, for a total of six new approvals so far in 2013 (versus 19 approvals in all of 2012). Maybe your application will be next.

Maryland
Washington Center for Foreign Investment, LLC
http://www.wcffi.com/
Geographic Scope: Frederick, Montgomery, Carroll and Washington Counties in Maryland
Target Industry Economic Categories: Multifamily Housing Construction (NAICS 236116), Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 23622), Architectural, Engineering and Related Services (NAICS 5413), Lessors of Real Estate (NAICS 5311)

Montana
Yellowstone Montana Regional Center, LLC
http://www.centuryamericanrc.com/about-us/executive-team
Geographic Scope: Missoula and Ravalli Counties in Montana
Economic Activity: Loans to 3rd party enterprises
Target Industry Economic Categories: Traveler Accommodation (NAICS 7211), Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220)
Designation Letter

New York
Lam NYC EB-5 Fund Regional Center, LLC
http://lamnyceb5.com/

(Note: See my Regional Center directory page for my most updated listings for all RCs. And please email me if you would like to provide additional information regarding your RC.)

EB-5 to move from CA to DC

5/10/2013 Update: As of 4/29/2013, the Washington DC EB-5 office is open, hiring is underway, and cases are beginning to be transitioned to the new office. There has not yet been an official public announcement or instructions to change the filing process. Details on the progress of the transition were given by Rob Silvers in a presentation to AILA on May 2.

USCIS Director Mayorkas sent an email last July announcing that USCIS would create a new office to oversee administration of the EB-5 program, and he discussed the proposal with stakeholders in December. I didn’t comment much at the time because the talk sounded preliminary and I didn’t expect to see action any time soon. But there has been action, as well as more talk, and I’m taking the plan seriously. Here are notes on what I know so far about the proposal. The details come from the 07/18/2012 Public Engagement email, the 12/03/2012 Conversation with the Director, and the 01/15/2013 National Stakeholder Engagement.

  • USCIS proposes a “realignment of responsibilities” for administration of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor program to a new EB-5 Program Office to be located in Washington DC.
  • Once operational, the office will deal with I-924 applications and I-526 and I-829 petitions. Only the I-485 will be handled elsewhere.
  • The agency intends to accomplish the realignment very swiftly, with the goal to have the new EB-5 program office up and running and evaluating cases by June 2013. Applicants and petitioners will continue to work with the California Service Center until the shift occurs.
  • The new office will be led by a new Chief of Immigrant Investor Programs. The program chief will have significant experience in the business world and will assume responsibility for ensuring that the program is administered efficiently, with integrity, with predictability, and with an understanding of today’s business realities. The chief of new EB-5 program office will report directly to Deputy Director of the agency. Robert Cox of the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel has been named as acting chief of the immigrant investor program during the bridge period.
  • The new EB-5 program office will be staffed with personnel with economic, business, and legal expertise and experience. This includes the adjudicators themselves as well as policy personnel.
  • The staff will include dedicated staff drawn from other components within agency, including full-time public engagement resources, legislative affairs resources, and personnel from fraud protection and national security.
  • It hasn’t been decided yet whether there will be there be specialized adjudicators, counterparts to “the economist,” the “lawyer,” the “business specialist” and so on. Director Mayorkas likes the idea of a team specializing in project-eligibility and another team specializing in client eligibility. The question is how precisely to divide the specializations, and which areas of the adjudication process would most benefit from dedicated specialists. (The EB-5 team at the CSC currently has over 50 dedicated staff, including 40 service officers and supervisors, eight economists, and two securities attorneys.)
  • The new program office will incorporate channels of direct communication with the review board team. Email is expected to be the primary channel. The hope is “to divorce ourselves from the static institutional model of communication” between adjudicators and applicants and to achieve a greater fluidity of communication.
  • Director Mayorkas has in mind a goal of reaching 90-120 day processing times, including for I-924 applications.

The Ombudsman’s office is holding an engagement on March 5th that will discuss the “new EB-5 adjudication unit in Washington, D.C.” among other matters. Stakeholders are invited to submit written comments by February 15th.

With comprehensive immigration reform on the table, the EB-5 program may be up for changes even beyond the realignment of responsibilities to Washington DC. See:
President Obama Addresses the EB-5 Regional Center Program
Legislative Update: Prospects for Immigration, and EB-5 Program, Reform

New Regional Centers (GA, SC, WA)

The USCIS list of approved regional centers has added two new entries.

Georgia & South Carolina
USHoldings Regional Center (www.usholdingssc.com)

Washington
Tri-Cities Investment District, LLC  (http://www.tricitiesid.com)
Geographic Scope: Washington Counties of Benton and Franklin
Investment Focus: Loans and equity investments to 3rd party enterprises in the NAICS categories of residential building construction (2361), commercial building construction (2362), lessors of real estate (5311), room and boarding houses (7213), and hotels and motels (72111).

(Note: See my Regional Center directory page for my most updated listings for all RCs. And please email me if you would like to provide additional information regarding your RC.)

It’s great to see I-924 applications getting approved!

National Stakeholder Engagement with Director Mayorkas

I listened in today on the National Stakeholder Engagement with Director Alejandro Mayorkas and have a few items of EB-5 interest to report:

  • USCIS is actively working on a new comprehensive Policy Manual, which will eventually include a section on EB-5. The USCIS Policy Manual aims to provide a centralized online repository for USCIS’s immigration policies and will ultimately replace the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM), the USCIS Immigration Policy Memoranda site, and other policy repositories. The call suggested that the manual will also include some new or at least clarified policy. So far only the section on Citizenship & Naturalization has gone online, but the concept is fantastic and I applaud the courage of those who launched this monumental task and who are still pushing it forward. I’ll be less marketable as a living EB-5 encyclopedia when the EB-5 section finally goes online, combining in one place the multifarious EB-5 guidance, and I’m okay with that. Hooray for democracy, transparency, consistency, and public information!
  • I believe I heard Director Mayorkas say that a new iteration of the draft EB-5 policy memo (previous version here) will be distributed “in a week or two.”
  • Director Mayorkas is still “fully engaged” in plans for the new EB-5 program office, to be located in Washington DC, and reiterated his aspirations for this office as described in the December 3 conversation with EB-5 stakeholders. He also announced that Robert Cox of the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel has been named as acting chief of the immigrant investor program during the “bridge period.”

Listening to the call, which touched on issues ranging from deferred action for childhood arrivals to H1-B visa challenges to adoption to security concerns and more, reminded me that EB-5 stakeholders are greedy fish in a very big and crowded pond. People trying to take advantage of the EB-5 category have business deals and money and family futures on the line. Sure they deserve attention — but really which person with an immigration issue doesn’t have his or her career/family/life invested in the outcome. Kudos to the USCIS adjudicators who have to work under the pressure of all these individual stories and potential for personal tragedy even as they try to administer benefits justly.

New Regional Center (CNMI)

The USCIS list of approved Regional Centers has been updated with the first new entry of 2013:

Name: Marianas EB-5 Regional Center
Location: Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands
Scope: I have not yet found the designation letter, but you can read about the center in the Saipan Tribune.

I’ll be interested to see how the USCIS Regional Center list changes this year. 2012 (calendar year) saw just 19 new regional centers added to the list, as compared to 74 new centers in 2011. USCIS statistics for I-924s (initial and amendment applications) in FY2012 report 240 applications received and 98 processed (35 approved and 63 denied). One hopes that the new guidance memo will result in decisions being made on many pending applications.

New EB-5 Guidance Memo

In January 2012, I wrote a post about the Regional Center applications reported to be “on hold at USCIS headquarters pending resolution of an issue.” Now it’s January 2013, and many of those same applications are still on hold. We know the issue now, or some of the issues, but can we see a resolution? What can we take from the guidance memo recently released by USCIS?

It appears to me that the 12/20/2012 “Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-Occupancy” is a formal  presentation of the message that USCIS gradually released through Requests for Evidence and stakeholder meetings throughout the year. Specifically: An enterprise that invests EB-5 capital in commercial real estate development may count tenant employees as created jobs provided that it demonstrates a “reasonable causal link between the EB-5 enterprise and the job creation.” The causal link may be 1) financial (based on significant investment in the job-creating tenants), or 2) “facilitation-based” (based on removing a significant market-based constraint to the tenant job creation). In either case, the jobs must be new, not merely relocated. The memo allows that the I-924 application may analyze potential tenants by industry category rather than identifying specific tenants. It also grants that modifications to tenant arrangements between I-526 and I-829 do not necessarily constitute a material change. The underlying message is that USCIS did not change any policy or object to anything in principle (i.e. don’t sue us), but is only raising fact-specific questions about tenant job counts.

If you followed RFEs and stakeholder meetings last year, then you already know the basic principles presented in the guidance memo. What’s new? The memo clarifies that the options for showing nexus between investment and tenant jobs are either/or options rather than both/and requirements. “For applicants and petitioners that seek to utilize a facilitation-based approach, USCIS will not require an equity or direct financial connection between the EB-5 capital investment and the employees of prospective tenants.” The memo includes a form of the facilitation approach appropriate for a high unemployment area (which the tenant occupancy RFE omitted to do). The flexibility on I-924 application detail and material change are also new concessions.

I appreciate that USCIS has issued a formal, public statement about the question of counting tenant jobs. The memo articulates general policy, and states that “whether an applicant or petitioner has demonstrated that an EB-5 enterprise caused the creation of indirect tenant jobs will require determinations on a case by case basis and will generally require an evaluation of the verifiable detail provided and the overall reasonableness of the methodology as presented.” The memo leaves the adjudicators and us to figure out what constitutes overall reasonableness. I’d like to know how adjudicators understand the guidance to look for “evidence backed by reasonable methods that map a specific amount of direct, imputed, or subsidized investment to such new jobs.” (p 10-11 in the 5/1/2012 stakeholder meeting summary provide some detail, but I don’t know whether that Q&A reflects current USCIS thinking). I’d like to see examples of applicants succeeding at the task “to project the number of newly created jobs that would not have been created but for the economic activity of the EB-5 commercial enterprise.” I’d like to see to what extent applicants must go to “demonstrate that the economic benefits provided by a specific space project will remove a significant market-based constraint.” I want to know whether it’s possible to take advantage of the theoretical flexibility to not identify a tenant at the I-924 stage when one has to demonstrate in verifiable detail how many new jobs that unidentified tenant will create, and state a minimum four-digit NAICS code for the industry type. I want to know details on the settlement of Courtney Carlsson, et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and whether USCIS compromised on any issues raised in the Complaint on behalf of American Life investors whose I-526 petitions were denied in 2012.

The new guidance memo assures us (probably with Ira Kurzban in mind) that USCIS does not object in principle to counting jobs generated by tenants. That’s nice (and politic), but what I really want to know is whether it’s possible to count such jobs in practice. Based on the guidance provided, I can visualize an approve-able business plan for investment in a building that will house a new restaurant tenant that will receive start-up assistance. Certain build-to-suit scenarios in constrained markets also look do-able. I don’t think it’s clear yet how/whether the retail centers and office buildings that were a staple of EB-5 for years can now fit back into the equation.  Developers are welcome to try to show “verifiable evidence”  for “the number of newly created jobs that would not have been created but for the economic activity of the EB-5 commercial enterprise.” It remains to be seen whether economists and writers will be up for the challenge, and what adjudicators will make of our fact-specific arguments.

I think of applicants who filed Regional Center applications in 2011 and RFE responses back in Spring 2012, and who are still waiting to hear back from USCIS. We wrote many pages describing scenarios such as joint venture arrangements with identified tenants or funds for start-up expenses for prospective tenants. Responses included detailed market studies showing excess demand and constrained supply for specific types of commercial real estate in the local area, letters from identified tenants describing need for specialized space, and even pleas from local  economic development officials detailing how proposed projects would fill an existing investment void in the area to generate new demand for the tenant business. When USCIS starts giving feedback on such responses, then I will start to get excited. So long as those applications continue to sit while someone figures out how to apply principles in practice, I consider that the “tenant occupancy” issues remain technically “unresolved at headquarters” despite the nice new memo.

May 2013 Update: USCIS responded to the tenant occupancy applicants that I mentioned above, and the result is not pretty. For details, see my post Tenant Occupancy Saga Continues (NOID Chapter).

Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant Occupancy

From: Public Engagement [mailto:Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-Occupancy

Dear Stakeholders,

In May 2012, USCIS published operational guidance on EB-5 adjudications involving the tenant-occupancy methodology which explains how USCIS policy on deference to prior EB-5 adjudications applies in the context of determinations regarding the reasonableness of an economic methodology. Since this guidance was issued, USCIS has carefully considered responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) as well as input from other relevant government agencies and has issued further operational guidance to govern the adjudication of these cases.  This guidance will be applied to pending cases involving the tenant-occupancy methodology, as well as cases filed on or after the date of this guidance.

For more information, please see   “Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-Occupancy” on the USCIS.gov website http://www.uscis.gov/memoranda.

Kind Regards,

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

See the following post for my comments on the new EB-5 guidance memo.

RC designation letters

I’ve been complaining ever since USCIS reformatted its list of approved Regional Centers to list names only, with no contact information and no details about approved industries and geographic area for each center. I believe that everyone benefits from transparency about who is behind the Regional Centers and what they are designated to do. But now I’m happy, because USCIS has released letters of designation for nearly all the approved Regional Centers. A file with all the letters in alphabetical order can be found in the Electronic Reading Room on the USCIS website. I have also updated my Regional Center list with links to individual letters. (I’m still troubleshooting the format. If my link doesn’t take you to the correct page the first time, go back and try again.) I also recommend Lincoln Stone’s article analyzing “Trends in Approvals of Regional Centers in the EB-5 Investor Visa Program” based on these letters.

FY2012 EB-5 Petition and Visa Statistics

IIUSA has published the EB-5 processing statistics through Q42012 recently released by USCIS to AILA. The report shows that USCIS has been particularly busy with I-526 petitions, of which it received 6,041 and processed an impressive 4,634 in FY2012 (ending 9/30/2012). This year saw a record number of I-526 approvals and a record number of I-924 denials. The approval percentages for investor petitions fell slightly from FY2011, down to 79% for I-526 and 92% for I-829, while approvals for Regional Center applications and amendments tanked to an average 36%.



Source: USCIS

IIUSA has also published FY2012 EB-5 visa statistics released by the US Department of State. These numbers are significant because they show that EB-5 visas are, for the first time, threatening to exceed the annual allocation of about 10,000 visas. The State Department’s Visa Bulletin for December 2012 notes that “It appears likely that a cut-off date will need to be established for the China Employment Fifth preference category at some point during second half of fiscal year 2013. Such action would be delayed as long as possible, since while number use may be excessive over a 1 to 5 month period, it could average out to an acceptable level over a longer (e.g., 4 to 9 month) period. This would be the first time a cut-off date has been established in this category, which is why readers are being provided with the maximum amount of advance notice regarding the possibility.”



Source: IIUSA

IIUSA  has published an article on “THE IMPACT OF CHINESE QUOTA RETROGRESSION ON EB-5 INVESTORS AND EB-5 INVESTMENTS” by Tammy Fox-Isicoff and H. Ronald Klasko.

I also recommend Kate Kalmykov’s blog post on Understanding the Implications of Retrogression in the EB-5 Category and her follow-up post EB-5 Retrogression for China Unlikely in 2013, According to Department of State.

Also note that the State Department website now has an informative EB-5 page.

Help with I-924A

Alert all approved Regional Centers: Do not forget to file a Form I-924A with USCIS by December 29! This form is used to demonstrate a Regional Center’s continued eligibility for designation, and must be filed annually. If you forget, USCIS will send you a Notice of Intent to Terminate. It’s important to not only file the form but to prepare it carefully, since USCIS can review the information provided to judge whether or not your center continues to be eligible. The Form and Instructions are not very clear, but note that USCIS has published an FAQ about I-924A. Joseph Whalen has published a useful article on Addressing USCIS Form I-924A Instructions. Also note that  IIUSA has announced a webinar (November 9th 2pm Eastern) that will include a panel of experts discussing Strategies for Form I-924A Annual EB-5 Regional Center Reporting in 2012.

10/16 USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting

Unfortunately I was not able to be in Washington DC for today’s EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement with USCIS, but I did listen in by teleconference and have uploaded my recording of the call. The most significant update is that “next month” promises another “Conversation with the Director” including Director Mayorkas and Rob Silvers that will tell us what we really want to know: what’s happening with “tenant occupancy” and the EB-5 policy memo.  Today’s engagement deferred those topics, but did provide substantive comment on a number of issues. We heard a detailed description of the work flow process and staffing in the EB-5 adjudicative team and confirmation of the rumor that USCIS is working with the SEC to investigate some regional center activities. The panelists responded to questions regarding NAICS codes, construction timeline and job counts, job preservation for a troubled business, timeline for sustaining investment, conditions for use of bridge loans, and investment return in the form of real estate, among other issues. Ears pricked up when the panelists revealed some reasons that I-526 may be put on “operational hold” (e.g. all I-526 for one project on hold while the first is adjudicated, and I-526 for a Regional Center on hold while an amendment is adjudicated for that RC). I learned several things, though I’m never sure what I can take to the bank from a stakeholder meeting. Will the adjudicator who gets my I-526 with a new economic methodology be impressed when I play my recording of Blake Gotto at the 10/16 meeting saying that nothing precludes me from doing this instead of filing an amendment? Can I count on Kevin’s statement that a troubled business does not need to save the same positions that were in place prior to investment, so long as the head count remains the same, including FT/PT positions? I’ll have to listen again to the recording and re-read Matter of Hsiung. This meeting did not include a presentation, but I look forward to the eventual executive summary. I see that EB-5 Center has posted some notes on the meeting, and I will link here to other comment as it emerges. I’m also eager to hear reports from the IIUSA conference this weekend, which I am sorry to have missed as well.

What doesn’t work for Regional Centers

I’ve been too busy recently for much comment but want to at least link several important documents that deserve your attention.

The USCIS website recently posted three AAO Decisions affirming denial of Regional Center applications.

  • The decision dated January 18, 2011 affirms that a Regional Center application should not be approved if it applies for a geographic area without demonstrating how proposed investments will affect that area, requests industry categories without giving examples of investments in those categories, and declines to demonstrate that its “hypothetical” plans are realistic. The case centers on the question of what level of detail ought to be provided at the I-924 stage. The AAO argues that USCIS is right to ask for evidence to support job creation claims, especially since the agency is under pressure to accept projections approved at the regional center stage when it is adjudicating Form I-526 petitions. The decision does not preclude basing an application on hypothetical plans, but such plans  “must be sufficiently detailed and credible pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(m)(3)(iv) and (v) if USCIS is to approve the regional center proposal…. While a general proposal as contemplated by Congress may include hypothetical plans, they may not rely on investment costs and direct employment numbers that have no basis in reality.” I recommend Joe Whalen’s analysis of this decision, the issues involved, and the applicant’s mistakes.
  • The decision dated November 10, 2010 dissects problems with an economic impact report and its attempts to calculate job creation through DOE estimates for number of employees per square foot. If your reports use a similar methodology, read this case and ensure that your economist isn’t making mistakes like the ones that doomed this application. If you haven’t laughed and cried enough after reading the decision itself, read Joe Whalen’s analysis of the November 10 and November 23 decisions.
  • The decision dated November 23, 2010argues that USCIS does indeed have the right to hold applicants accountable to the current regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m), which have not been overturned by Federal Court or Congress. Repeating a point that has often been made of late:
      The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(ii) requires the applicant to provide “verifiable” detail as to how the jobs will be created. Nothing in the 2002 amendments to the pilot program suggests that the general proposal need not have verifiable detail at to how the jobs will be created pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(ii). Rather, the Congressional language expresses that the regional center proposal may be based on a general proposal rather than a specific project. “General,” however, does not have the same meaning as “vague.” The proposal, while general in nature in that it may cover several potential industries, must still provide verifiable detail as to how the jobs will be created in each industry proposed.

Not all frustrated petitioners and applicants take their cases to the AAO; others sue in court. The most prominent recent complaint was brought by no less than Ira Kurzban on behalf of a group of investors who had I-526s denied or revoked when USCIS found fault with the investment — an American Life real estate renovation/leasing project in the time-honored American Life model. The case is a must-read for existing Regional Centers who are nervous about how much their prior approvals mean now and how to deal with emerging issues such as tenant occupancy and NAICS code requirements. You’ll find a cautionary tale and eloquent arguments that you might try in your defense. Again, I recommend that you keep an eye on http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5 if you are interested in the unfolding of this and other EB-5 litigation.

But don’t abandon Lucid Text altogether, as I have two major additions cooking: a page with collected guidance from recent I-924 RFEs (“the real I-924 instructions,” I’m thinking of calling it, since the official instructions don’t tell you everything you need to know to get approved), and an informational page on stand-alone/direct EB-5 (as I’ve noticed increasing interest in and misinformation about this EB-5 option).

RC Program Extended to 2015

IIUSA reports that that U.S. House of Representatives today passed S. 3245 (412-3) – which includes a three year re-authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program through September 2015.  Having been passed by the Senate on August 2, the bill is now on its way to President Obama for signature – likely later this week.

September 28 update: President Obama has signed S. 3245, and the EB-5 Regional Center Program is now extended until September 30, 2015.

EB-5 Visa Stats by Country

The U.S. Department of State website has finally published the Report of the Visa Office 2011. The data is old news by now, but I still enjoy looking at the table that details EB-5 visas and status adjustments by country and type of investment. Now we know that in all the world in FY2011, only one Chinese investor and up to four Dutch took advantage of a Regional Center offering at the $1 million level. During the same period, there were over three thousand visas/adjustments in connection with Regional Center TEA/$500,000  investments. Stand-alone (non-Regional Center) EB-5 investments included a relatively large percentage at the $1 million level, with 230 visas associated with investments outside of TEAs as compared with 152 visas associated with TEA/$500,000 investments. Props to the lone Australian who is the only person in all of Oceania to have gotten an EB-5 visa in FY2011, and who didn’t even add spouse/children to the visa count. The total number of EB-5 visas issued nearly doubled between 2010 and 2011 and is projected to nearly double again in 2012 according to a State Department estimate. The annual limit for EB-5 is approximately 10,000 visas (7.1% of the total 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas.) Changing the visa allocation would require an Act of Congress.

The following charts summarize data from the FY2010 and FY2011 reports from the State Department Visa Office as well as the preliminary data for FY2012 reported to AILA in July 2012.

EB-5 visas issued and adjustments of status, by region
FY 2012 as of 06/2012 FY 2011 FY 2010
Asia

4,220

3,035

1,358

Europe

211

289

North America

89

111

South America

82

81

45

Africa

46

58

Oceana

1

24

Grand Total

(Estimate for FY 2012: 6,200)

3,463

1,885

EB-5 visas issued and adjustments of status, by foreign state chargeability
Country FY 2011
China-mainland born

2,408

Korea, South

254

China-Taiwan born

122

Iran

117

Great Britain

57

Mexico

53

Venezuela

46

India

37

Russia

30

Vietnam

26

Canada

26

Netherlands

26

Japan

20

Turkey

20

South Africa

19

Italy

16

Brazil

16

Germany

15

Egypt

12

France

10

All other countries

133

Total

3,463

Action to Reauthorize RC Program

IIUSA has  posted welcome news about solid action on the part of the Senate toward re-authorization of the Regional Center aspect of the EB-5 program (see S.3245) . Now let’s see if we can get the House to take up this matter before September 30th, when the current authorization is set to expire.

Senate acts to reauthorize EB-5 Regional Center Program for three years
IIUSA is thrilled to be present in DC to support Senate action yesterday to reauthorize the EB-5 Regional Center Program for three years via unanimous consent. The House is expected to do the same in September after August Congressional recess.
The bipartisan support of this Program should come as no surprise since its explicit purpose is U.S. job creation without adding a dime to the deficit (in fact, it contributes to deficit reduction through tax revenue generation by driving economic activity and adding high net worth individuals to U.S. taxrolls). IIUSA will continue to advocate for prompt action by the House in September to make sure this Program can continue its growing contribution to the U.S. economy, on track for over $2.0BILLION and 40,000 U.S. jobs in FY2012. Congressional action to reauthorize will allow FY2013 to account for even more economic impact.
With today’s jobs report ticking unemployment up to 8.3%, it is gratifying to know that Congress understands the importance of reauthorizing an emergent source of reliable, job-creating capital.

7/26 EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement

Today’s EB-5 stakeholder engagement was very substantive, with the USCIS panelists providing detailed answers to many questions submitted in advance of the call. I encourage you to review my recording if you weren’t able to join the teleconference. Robert Silvers, Senior Counselor to the Director, took an active role in this call and seemed well-prepared and genuinely engaged, upholding the standard set by Director Mayorkas.

Rob Silvers discussed process enhancements for EB-5, including the new EB-5 program office, new hires, case specialization, and the forthcoming review board for I-924 applications recommended for denial. He also suggested that a new draft of the EB-5 policy memorandum will be published in the next four weeks, and that movement on the “tenant occupancy” cases can be expected “very soon.”

Stakeholder questions addressed in the call included questions related to the requirements for sustaining investment, evidence requirements for I-924 petitions and amendments, metrics for determining acceptable geographic boundaries for a Regional Center, RFE practices, acceptable evidence of non-EB-5 capital commitments, acceptability of investor returns and distributions during the CPR period, acceptability of investors receiving real estate as a return on investment, counting jobs in business acquisition scenarios, and the issue of deference to prior approvals. For more detail see  the detailed summary of the call posted by the EB-5 Center blog, or review my recording of the call.