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

March 21, 2014 1 Comment

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

Filed under EB-5 Law & Policy, EB-5 Statistics, New RC

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

March 7, 2014 Leave a comment

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

Filed under New RC

New RCs (CA, CNMI, DC, FL, MD, NJ, NY, PA, OR, VA, WA), Brookings Report

February 7, 2014 Leave a comment

New entries to the USCIS Regional Center List 1/22 to 2/6/2014:

The Brookings Institution has released a report on “Improving the EB-5 Investor Visa Program: International Financing for U.S. Regional Economic Development.” The report was carefully researched (and even cites me), provides a very nice overview of the EB-5 program’s history and current status, and has awesome graphics. To me its conclusions and recommendations seem theoretically reasonable but practically innocent, making the report not as significant as it might have been. But it’s still a worthwhile reference.

Filed under EB-5 in the News, New RC

2014 Events, EB-5 Stats, New AAO Decisions, New RCs (CA, CO, FL, GU, MD)

January 23, 2014 1 Comment

EB-5 Events
It’s time to sign up for the best EB-5 event of the year: IIUSA 7th Annual EB-5 Regional Economic Development Advocacy Conference in Washington, D.C. May 7-9, 2014. I look forward to seeing you there! Also notice the IIUSA 2014 Webinar Series, with monthly webinars on topics including industry advocacy, securities laws, due diligence, retrogression, economic impact analysis, EB-5 in the capital stack, adjudication trends, TEAs, I-924a, and escrow and fund administration. The IIUSA webinars last year were substantive and timely, and I look forward to this new series.

EB-5 Statistics
If you’re interested in trends in receipts, approvals, and denials of EB-5 petitions, see: “IIUSA Obtains I-526/829/924 Adjudication Data for FY2013, Releases Comprehensive Dataset (1991-2013).” The FY2013 data shows a growth in receipts over 2012 of 8% for I-526 petitions, 71% for I-829 petitions, and 82% for I-924 applications. USCIS already doubled the number of approved Regional Centers in FY2013 by approving 220 applications, and – unless many of those 436 new I-924s received in 2013 were amendments – RCs will be facing a very crowded field moving forward. We’re on track to hit the annual EB-5 visa allocation cap of around 10,000 based on filings, with the only uncertainty being whether USCIS can manage to process enough I-526s in one year to make that happen (and whether processing times will speed up enough that Chinese investors would even notice being retrogressed). As with most things in EB-5, this issue is complicated. If you want to read more, see “Department of State Predicts EB-5 Visa Retrogression for China” on the EB-5 Insights Blog and “FAQs on EB-5 Quota Backlog” by Ron Klasko.

New AAO Decisions
Since last time I checked, USCIS has uploaded 18 new 2013 AAO decisions on I-525 cases. (May 24 to June 18, and September 23 to November 15). Besides RFEs, which aren’t public, AAO decisions are my best chance to see what’s going on behind the scenes with adjudications and current policy applications. For me, the most interesting decisions in this batch are SEP232013_01B7203, which addresses a Regional Center’s attempt to claim deference to prior approvals, refers extensively to the 5/30 policy memo, and considers what amendments mean; JUN052013_01B7203, which withdraws the director’s assessment of a business plan’s credibility; and MAY242013_01B7203, which discusses which business activities prior to I-526 filing will help the investment to qualify as “fully invested and placed at risk.” Nearly all AAO decisions on I-526 cases include a section on source of funds problems. People involved in that area may particularly want to read JUN182013_03B7203, which goes into detail on what went wrong with a typical China source of funds scenario involving real estate. Or for comedy, you can review MAY242013_02B7203, which treats a petition for investment in a business that will trade in healthcare products and/or operate a restaurant and/or import textiles and/or export fly traps and avocado oil.

New RCs
New entries to USCIS’s Regional Center list 12/30/2013 to 1/22/2014
Live in America-California Regional Center (California)
U.S. Gateway Regional Center, LLC (California)
InvestAmerica EB-5, LLC (Colorado)
My Florida Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
E Development Corporation dba EDC (Guam)
Birch MD BioPark Regional Center (Maryland) USCIS Approval Letter

Filed under EB-5 Events, EB-5 Statistics, New RC

New RCs (CA, FL, IL, WA), retrogression, program assessments, due diligence

December 31, 2013 4 Comments

By my unofficial count, USCIS approved 213 Regional Centers in calendar year 2013. This brings the current number of Regional Centers to 424 – double the number this time last year. We can thank the EB-5 program office in Washington DC, which opened in April and has been handling I-924 applications, and the May 30th EB-5 Policy Memo, which brought new clarity and flexibility to Regional Center adjudications.

New RCs added to the USCIS list 12/11/2013 to 12/23
Global Investment Regional Center (California)
U.S. Golden Pacific Regional Center, LLC (California)
Valley Inception Regional Center (California)
EB-5 South Florida Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
Illinois Valley Regional Center (Illinois)
Great Ocean Regional Center (Washington)
West Washington United, LLC (Washington)

The California Service Center has been working hard on I-526 petitions but still faces an enormous backlog, with 7,083 petitions pending or awaiting customer action as of October 2013. (To see the trends, use the “Check My Case Status” tool on the USCIS website.) Even with the processing delays, a record 8,567 EB-5 visas were used in FY2013, approaching the annual quota of around 10,000 visas. For analysis of what this means and issues we can expect in 2014, see US Dept. of State Statistics on EB-5 Visa Usage Indicate Backlog in FY2014 is Likely (IIUSA Blog, 12/23/2013) and THE IMPACT OF CHINESE QUOTA RETROGRESSION ON EB-5 INVESTORS AND EB-5 INVESTMENTS by Tammy Fox-Isicoff and H. Ronald Klasko.

2013 has been a year of intense scrutiny for the EB-5 program. Significant new entries in the log of criticisms and defense include Robert Divine’s December 23rd article in The Hill Immigration service’s investment program is a winner, and the DHS Office of Inspector General report on the EB-5 program (see The Office of the Inspector General Releases Report Critical of the USCIS Administration of the EB-5 Regional Center Program by Laura Foote Reiff and IIUSA Statement on EB-5 Program Report by the DHS OIG).

A common theme through the highs and lows of 2013 has been the importance of due diligence. So as the year closes, here are links to some of my favorite due-diligence-related articles and resources from the year.

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC

IIUSA Alert, New AAO Decisions, New RCs (AL, CA, FL, HI, IA, LA, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, WA)

December 18, 2013 Leave a comment

The sensational EB-5 stories proliferating on the Internet inspire Ms. Boring Verifiable Detail here to get back in gear. IIUSA has issued a notice reacting to the hype funded by opposition to President Obama’s nomination for DHS deputy secretary, and I encourage you to read the IIUSA Member Alert here. I’ll leave you to the Washington Post if you want spicy whispers suggesting that EB-5 is an unchecked den of iniquity, but if you want the dull details of what actually happens to people who try to game the EB-5 system, note that USCIS has uploaded more AAO decisions on I-526 cases. (The February, May, September, and October decisions in the Decisions Issued in 2013 folder are new since last time I checked.) The decisions give a behind-the-scenes look at USCIS’s efforts to scrutinize and challenge EB-5 petition detail, and to deny any filings that don’t toe the line of clean money fully invested in business activities that can create qualifying jobs. I’m particularly interested in MAY072013_01B7203, which discusses investment and job creation timing and nexus; MAY172013_01B7203, a decision on a New Orleans RC case that overturns challenge to a state TEA designation but confirms the need for a portfolio investment to identify specific fund uses at the I-526 stage; and SEP052013_03B7203, which explains the options for an I-526 petition when the sponsoring RC has been terminated. The later decisions include an opening reminder that: “This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions.” Nevertheless, we get so few official policy announcements that I take what I can get of hints, and am quoting below a whole section from the 5/7/2013 decision’s discussion of what has the burden to create jobs: the “new commercial enterprise” or the individual EB-5 investment. This is the theoretical issue at the heart of the extremely significant question of which job creation an investor can claim, and how the timing of capital release affects job counts. The 5/7 AAO decision emphasizes the individual investment, and treats investment/job creation nexus as “before/after” issue rather than allowing a “but for” argument. We often see RFEs from adjudicators struggling to see any factors in causation besides chronology, but this is the first time I remember seeing the AAO wax theoretical on the matter. Any thoughts from the attorneys out there?

Section quoted from MAY072013_01B7203, AAO decision on an I-526 petition for direct investment.
…On November 7, 2012, the petitioner filed an appeal with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). On appeal, counsel asserts: (1) the three jobs created prior to the petitioner’s initial investment should be attributed to the petitioner; (2) the two jobs created between the petitioner’s initial investment and the maturation of the NCE’s certificate of deposit should be attributed to the petitioner…
1. Employees Hired Prior to Investment
Regarding the three employees hired prior to the petitioner’s initial investment, counsel’s appellate brief asserts that these individuals’ jobs should be considered to have been created due to the petitioner’s investment. Counsel characterizes the hiring of personnel prior to an investor’s infusion of capital as common and a business reality. At issue, however, is not whether the order of events constitutes a normal business-related process, but whether, by following this order of events, the petitioner has established that his investment is responsible for any earlier job creation. Counsel’s appellate brief also states: ”The Regulations merely state that to qualify, it must be shown that the new commercial enterprise (not ‘the investment’) will create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 qualifying employees.” Counsel further asserts that had Congress intended to “require that employment creation strictly follow the date of an alien investor’s investment transfer, it would have specifically required proof that ‘the investment will create not fewer than ten (10) full-time positions …. ‘ But as written, the statutory language focuses on the ‘new commercial enterprise’ instead.” The language counsel quotes does not specifically address situations involving multiple investors. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g), however, does specifically addresses businesses for which there are multiple investors. Significantly, 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g)(l) allows for a pooled investment with other EB5 investors “provided … each individual investment results in the creation of at least ten full-time positions for qualifying employees.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, in situations involving multiple investments, the regulatory language focuses on the “investment” as creating the jobs rather than the NCE. Furthermore, under the initial evidence requirements, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j) states: “A petition submitted for classification as an alien entrepreneur must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has invested or is actively in the process of investing lawfully obtained capital in a new commercial • enterprise in the United States which “Will create full-time positions for not fewer than 1 0 qualifying employees;” (Emphasis added.) The emphasized language implies that an alien has already invested or committed capital to the NCE, and that subsequent to this investment the required employment creation will result. Significantly, the regulations do allow for job preservation, but only where the petitioner invests in a troubled business. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(e) (definition of troubled business), (j)(4)(ii). The petitioner does not claim to have invested in a troubled business. Counsel also references proposed policy guidance which states that an immigrant investor is not required to have already invested his or her capital in the NCE, as long as the investor establishes that he or she is actively in the process of investing the required capital. To be actively in the process of investing the required capital, the investor must demonstrate that his or her funds are actually committed to the NCE. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(2). The petitioner has not demonstrated any actual commitment of his funds prior to September 1, 2011. Regardless, the issue of whether the petitioner is actively in the process of investing is a separate question from whether USCIS will credit the petitioner with jobs in existence at a business other than a troubled business when the petitioner began investing. In light of the above, USCIS will not credit the petitioner with the employees hired prior to his investment. …
ii. Subsequently Hired Employees
Regarding the two jobs created after the petitioner’s initial investment but before the certificate of deposit matured, the AAO does recognize these jobs as being attributable to the petitioner’s investment as he had relinquished control of the funds to the NCE. It was the NCE that elected to invest the funds rather than to allow them to sit dormant in a bank account.

Also, a belated updated on new Regional Centers. In 2013 USCIS has approved about 205 new RCs, by my count, bringing the total number of RCs to 417 as of 12/11. I look forward to being able to link to the USCIS approval letters for each of these centers. In these days of rumors and misinformation, we really need basic transparency about the identity and mandate of all Regional Centers.

New RCs added to the USCIS list 11/18/2013 to 12/11/2013
New Orleans & Gulf Coast Regional Center, LLC (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi)
American California Regional Center (California)
North America Wind Power LLC (California)
San Diego Regional Investment Center, LLC (California)
American Builders Regional Center (Florida)
Florida Gateway Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
Live in America – Florida, LLC (Florida)
Eight Islands Regional Center, LLC (Hawaii)
Liberty Nebraska Regional Center, LLC (Iowa, Nebraska)
Ohio Regional Center, LLC (Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky) Approval Notice
Live in America – Northwest Regional Center, LLC (Oregon, Washington)
Global City Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
Related New York City Metro Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
Birch North Carolina Regional Center (North Carolina)
Southeastern Higher Education Regional Center (South Carolina)
Civitas Laredo Regional Center, LLC (Texas)
Houston EB 5 Regional Center (Texas)
ACIC Management, Inc. Regional Center (Washington)
UPDATE: The name “Midwest EB-5 Regional Center LLC” was changed on the USCIS list to add a comma, not removed from this list as I previously reported in error.

Filed under EB-5 in the News, EB-5 Resources, New RC

New RCs (CA, CO, FL, NC, TX, VA, WA, WV), CSC complaints

November 20, 2013 Leave a comment

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS list of approved Regional Centers from 10/31 to 11/18

EB-5 in the News
The most buzzed-about EB-5 article this week is a Washington Times piece: “Immigration staffers pressured to rush visas for wealthy investors” (Nov. 18, 2013). The story provides an interesting look behind the scenes of EB-5 adjudications at the California Service Center. Those who have waited months upon months and then years upon years for paperwork to be reviewed may find it hard to believe that the ISOs could feel rushed, or that finally appealing to supervisors/Congressman to help move things along could backfire by pushing those rushed ISOs into resentment and suspicion. This article gives disgruntled insiders’ views, and may encourage us to have more sympathy for adjudicators in their complex task — and perhaps to share their suspicion when some groups appear to succeed in orchestrating preferential treatment.

Filed under EB-5 in the News, New RC

New I-526 form, new I-RIMS product, I-924a, new RCs (AL, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, KS, LA, MS, MT, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, TX, WA, WI)

October 31, 2013 Leave a comment

October has been a busy month in the business plan department; apologies to frequent blog visitors. Here’s what I think you should know of recent happenings.

New I-526
USCIS has issued a new version of the I-526 form and instructions (09/24/13 edition). Previous versions of the form will only be accepted through the end of this year, so bookmark http://www.uscis.gov/i-526 instead of using what you have on file. If you accidentally use an old form, you’ll file in the wrong place. (The new I-526 instructions don’t give a filing address but direct petitioners to consult the USCIS website for an address – currently the Dallas Lockbox facility). Otherwise, the new I-526 doesn’t look dramatically different from the previous editions.

New I-RIMS Product
The IMPLAN Group, creator the IMPLAN methodology used by many RC economic impact studies, has stepped up to create a new product that works like the BEA’s now-discontinued RIMS II system, only using IMPLAN data sets. This looks like good news for the many RCs that liked RIMS II and hoped to continue using familiar methodologies even as the BEA is no longer providing updated data sets. For more information, see the IMPLAN Group page on 2011 I-RIMS Data, and an article on the IIUSA blog “New IMPLAN “I-RIMS” Product Introduced & Available as Alternative to RIMS II.” To refresh your memory about what happened to RIMS II, see the BEA’s notice on Impact of Sequestration Reductions on the Availability and Quality of Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

I-924a Reminder
Approved Regional Centers, don’t forget that the clock is ticking for you to file a Form I-924a for fiscal year 2013. See http://www.uscis.gov/i-924a and http://www.uscis.gov/forms/questions-and-answers-form-i-924a. If you don’t file by December 29, USCIS will contact you in the Spring with a nice letter threatening to terminate your RC. IIUSA has had a chance to see the I-924as filed in 2011 and 2012, and is hosting what should be a very useful webinar on 11/19/2013 on
“3rd Year of Regional Center Annual Reporting on Form I-924A.” To participate, sign up at
http://eventcallregistration.com/reg/index.jsp?cid=41196t11

Other useful items

  • IIUSA has another promising webinar on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 1pm on the subject of “EB-5 Bridge Financing & Escrow Options.” Register at: http://eventcallregistration.com/reg/index.jsp?cid=41195t11
  • Those of you concerned with keeping securities registration exemptions may benefit from Steven Anapoell’s helpful article on “Determining Whether a Potential Investor is a Resident or Non-Resident for Securities Law Purposes”
  • Speaking of keeping on the right side of the SEC, if you are a Regional Center principal, please pick up the phone right now and make two calls: one to your website designer to temporarily disable your RC’s website, and one to your favorite attorney to review the website content before it can go back up again. I recently checked a lot of websites in process of refreshing my Regional Center directory, and was torn between suspicion of the mysterious RCs with no web presence and sorrow on behalf of those RCs whose websites are full of content that could get them into trouble. I can see that websites are often left to innocents in the marketing department who have no idea which pretty pictures, useful information, and careless word choice could derail the RC and all its offerings. Don’t let that happen to you!

New Regional Centers
I have decided to quietly update my Regional Center directory as I receive new information, and to announce new RC names only in occasional posts. If I have contact info or other detail about these Regional Centers, you’ll find it in my directory. I also started a log of recent Regional Center approval letters to track information of interest to me (the length of I-924 processing times, the number of approvals based on actual vs. hypothetical projects, the economic methodologies being approved, and so on). To date I am only able to link to letters for 46 of the 179 Regional Centers approved (by my count) so far in 2013, but I will continue to update the log as I get additional information. Maybe one day these public licenses will all be made publicly available! Thank you to Regional Centers that have shared their letters. Note also that the IIUSA Regional Center Directory includes relatively comprehensive listings for all IIUSA-member RCs.

New entries to the list of approved Regional Centers at www.uscis.gov/eb-5centers from 9/24/2013 to 10/28/2013

Filed under EB-5 Events, New RC, Updates from USCIS

New RCs (AK, AZ, CA, FL, GA, IL, KY, MA, NH, NC, NJ, NV, NY, PA, RI, TN, TX, WA), FINRA, AAO Decisions

September 24, 2013 Leave a comment

New Regional Centers
New entries to the USCIS list of Regional Centers from 9/6 to 9/23/2013:

Alaska Gold & Mining Regional Center, LLC (Alaska)

Optima Arizona Regional Center, LLC (Arizona)
http://www.optimaweb.com/

California Pacific Regional Center, Inc. (California)
http://californiapacificregionalcenter.com
Designation Letter

CMB Southeast Regional Center, LLC (Florida, Georgia)
http://www.cmbeb5visa.com

American YiYo Regional Center (Georgia)
http://yiyo.net/

DMI Real Estate Chicago (Illinois)

Live in America – Boston Regional Center LLC (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island)
http://www.liveinamerica.us/

Live in America – New York Regional Center LLC (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
http://www.liveinamerica.us/

Nevada Development Fund LLC (Nevada)

Carolina EB-5 RTP Regional Center, LLC (North Carolina)
http://www.carolinaeb5.com/

American Oil Regional Center (Pennsylvania)

Pangaea Regional Center, LLC (Kentucky, Tennessee)
Contact: Joe Gillas (409) 370-1553
USCIS Designation Letter with project approval

Central Texas Regional Center (Texas)
http://brassfunds.com/

American Opportunities Regional Center, Inc. (Washington)

Puget Sound RC, LLC (Washington)

(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.)

FINRA Suitability Rule
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has issued new guidance as to how broker-dealers should take into account aspects of the EB-5 Program when determining whether an investment is suitable. For analysis of this guidance and its implications, see:

FINRA Issues Guidance on Suitability Rule for EB-5 Securities Transactions
By Jackie G. Prester, Shareholder, & Robert C. Divine (IIUSA Vice President), Head of Global Immigration Practice, Baker Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. September 23, 2013

FINRA Raises the Bar on Due Diligence by Broker Dealers Involved in EB-5
By Dawn Lurie of Sheppard Mullin on September 19, 2013

New AAO Decisions

Since my last post, USCIS has uploaded new AAO decisions from January to March 2013 to its website folder for Form I-526 and Form I-829  “Decisions Issued in 2013.” Most of these new additions are couple-page dismissals of improper filings, but a few include detailed case analyses interesting to those of us who specialize in the technicalities of EB-5.

Background to AAO Decisions
Joseph Whalen has published a useful article explaining the types of AAO decisions, varieties of cases before the AAO, and points involved in case preparation and presentation. See “Quality of Case Preparation and Presentation Counts for Immigrant Investors or Entrepreneurs” (September 24, 2013)

Filed under EB-5 Law & Policy, New RC

EB-5 Event, New RCs (AL, CA, CT, FL, GA, IN, KY, MS, NC, NJ, NY, PA, PR, SC, TN, VA), New AAO Decisions, TO Training

September 6, 2013 4 Comments

EB-5 Event Reminder
If you are reading this blog as a way to investigate the EB-5 program, save yourself time by making sure that you have the CDFA Intro EB-5 Finance WebCourse on your calendar (Sept. 18-19). The Council of Development Finance Agencies has organized one of the very few EB-5 events whose number one purpose is to educate, not to sell products and services, and the line-up of topics and contributors looks great.  If you have something to learn in EB-5, I don’t think you can find a more solid, comprehensive, and time-efficient introduction than this course.

New Regional Centers
New entries to the USCIS list of Regional Centers from 8/16 to 9/6/2013:

168 America Regional Center, LLC (California)

FutureCare Regional Center of Southern California, Inc. (California)

HT Asset Holding Inc. (California)
http://www.htassetholding.com/

San Francisco EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (California)
http://www.sfeb5rc.com/
Designation Letter

South Florida EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
www.southfloridaeb5rc.com/

Southern Film Regional Center, LLC (Georgia)

Civitas Indiana Regional Center (Indiana)
http://www.civitascapital.com/

CP Southern Regional Center (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia)
www.cphomes.net
Designation Letter

Encore Mississippi Regional Center (Mississippi)
http://encore.bz/

New York Metropolitan Regional Center (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)

US EB5 New York City Regional Center (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)

U.S. Business Regional Center Inc. (New York)
http://www.usabrc.com/

Carolina Global Regional Corporation(North Carolina, South Carolina)
Designation Letter

North Carolina – East Coast RC (North Carolina, South Carolina)
www.progfs.com

Reside in America Puerto Rico, LLC (Puerto Rico)
c/o The LCP Group, White Plains NY. Ph: (212) 692-7228
USCIS Designation Letter

Dominion Mid-Atlantic Associates, Inc. (Virginia)
http://www.dmaarc.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.)

2013 AAO EB-5 Decisions

I-924 Decisions (see Request for Participation as a Regional Center Decisions Decisions Issued in 2013)
Issues: geographic area, industry focus, “general proposals,” “hypothetical” projects and approvals

In 2011-2012, we saw a trend toward increasing granularity in Regional Center approvals, with USCIS insisting that RCs submit to the mandate to “focus on a limited geographic area,” and to strictly define their industry focus down to at least the 4-digit NAICS code level.  I had wondered whether the 5/30/2013 EB-5 policy memo would effectively blow the lid off such limitations, and it seems that it has. I definitely didn’t report new five-state Regional Centers last year, but recent new approvals include many with expansive geographic areas.  The AAO decisions published in 2013 on I-924 cases both cite the 5/30 policy memo to overturn USCIS’s decisions to deny cases for being too general.  JUN122013_01K1610 discusses a Regional Center amendment that sought to add the whole of five states plus four industry categories defined at the 2-digit NAICS level. USCIS predictably denied this request, but the AAO withdrew the USCIS’s denial.  The AAO determined that:  “The record contains a general proposal based on Census Bureau and other data and general predictions concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital, the direct and indirect jobs that will be created as a result of such capital investments based on RIMS II data and  multipliers, and other positive economic effects. Thus, the AAO withdraws the director’s concerns. While the amendment request is approved, it is based on hypothetical projects and, therefore, is not  due any deference in future filings.”  JUL192013_01K1610 likewise indicates considerable leeway for what can approved at the I-924 stage, provided that the approval has a “hypothetical” basis.  USCIS’s denied the I-924 initial application because “The director determined that the applicant had not provided a business plan with verifiable detail regarding how the proposal will create sufficient jobs.” The AAO disagreed, determining that “The record contains a general proposal based on general predictions concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital, the jobs that will be created as a result of such capital investments based on RIMS II data and multipliers, and other positive economic effects. As the record contains a general proposal, the applicant is not required to submit letters of intent or commitment from the prospective sources of matching funds for regional center designation.”

I welcome the openness to general industry categories and hypothetical projects, but would caution new applicants about wide-ranging geographic area. If a course doesn’t make sense, the powers that be will eventually realize that it doesn’t make sense and change course.  I see the concept of limited geographic focus at the very core of the Regional Center program — its impetus and defining feature. Congress instituted the Regional Center program based on the economic concept that the synergies that result from pooling investment in a region give more bang for the buck than the separate effects of  individual investments here and there, as occurs with the traditional/direct EB-5 program. When a “Regional Center” covers the whole of five states, I don’t even know what the title means anymore.  I don’t want to return to the granularity of 2012, when USCIS likewise departed from Congressional intent by defining Regional Center designation so restrictively that it essentially just meant approval to pursue one project. But neither extreme restriction nor extreme flexibility are good for the program, and I hope and believe that we’ll soon find ourselves back to a reasonable middle ground, especially with respect to the key question of target geographic area.

I-526 Decisions (see Form I-526 and Form I-829  Decisions Issued in 2013)
Issues: “at risk,” “meaningful concrete action,” “overcapitalized,” “inconsistencies”

The 2013 investor petition decisions all involve I-526 petitions, and all but APR172013_01B7203 are for direct EB-5 cases. I’m interested to note that whoever’s now writing AAO decisions is highly detail-oriented and influenced by the precedent decision Matter of Ho. (In contrast to last year’s writer, who was all about Matter of Izummi and who didn’t bother with microscopic rehearsals of detail from the record.) In re Ho is best known for its paragraph definition of the comprehensive business plan, but our AAO writer repeatedly returns to the decision’s treatment of the “at risk” requirement. According to Matter of Ho: “Simply formulating an idea for future business activity, without taking meaningful concrete action, is similarly insufficient for a petitioner to meet the at-risk requirement. Before it can be said that capital made available to a commercial enterprise has been placed at risk, a petitioner must present some evidence of the actual undertaking of business activity; otherwise, no assurance exists that the funds will in fact be used to carry out the business of the commercial enterprise. This petitioner’s de minimis action of signing a lease agreement, without more, is not enough.” For the first time that I’ve noticed, the AAO repeatedly harps on the issue of “meaningful concrete action,” to the point of requiring the petitioner to provide evidence of funds already spent in the business, contracts already executed, and employees already hired prior to I-526 filing. I kept thinking I must be reading I-829 cases, but no. Take warning, direct EB-5 investors: if you have primary control over your business’s bank account, USCIS may require you to show evidence at I-526 that you not only invested $500K/$1 million but that your business has already spent or was irrevocably/contractually committed to spending that amount before you even filed the I-526 petition.
I wonder if the AAO is going overboard with its application of Matter of Ho, and will be interested to hear the lawyers’ take on this new batch of cases. Is it fair to deny a case because the petitioner provided, in RFE, a copy of a lease that post-dated I-526 filing? Because the petitioner, prior to I-526 approval, spent only a few hundred thousand of the one million invested in his business? It seems to me that the distinction between I-526 and I-829 is a key feature of the EB-5 program, and that we’re seeing a negative trend toward pushing I-829 requirements into the I-526 stage. I-526 is the plan review stage, and gives USCIS opportunity to shut down non-compliant proposals (and the investor the opportunity to change course, if EB-5 turns out not to be an option). I-829, then, is the stage where the petitioner demonstrates that he implemented his USCIS-approved business plan. I think it doesn’t make sense to require the I-526 petitioner to prove that he already did what he hasn’t yet been approved to do. 2013 AAO decisions that approach the at-risk requirement through Matter of Ho include APR012013_01B7203, APR032013_02B7203, APR152013_01B7203, APR152013_02B7203, APR162013_01B7203.
Besides the new focus on “meaningful concrete action,” our 2013 AAO writer is concerned that EB-5 enterprises may be “grossly overcapitalized” (not proving that their job-creating activities require the full amount of EB-5 investment). The decisions also devote pages to dissecting apparent inconsistencies in the record, and repeat the warning that “Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”

More on Tenant Occupancy
IIUSA has obtained and published a presentation used by USCIS to train adjudicators on “tenant occupancy” cases. I note that the disclosed material does not discuss the requirement to demonstrate whether tenant jobs would be new or relocated – the issue that emerged as the final deal-breaking issue in several recently-denied cases. But maybe this issue is just so juicy that it explains the many pages redacted from the presentation.

Filed under EB-5 Events, EB-5 Law & Policy, New RC

New Regional Centers (CA, FL, MA, ME, MI, NH, OK, TX)

August 16, 2013 15 Comments

The USCIS list of approved Regional Centers has been updated as of 8/16, with eight newly-approved centers bringing the current total number of Regional Centers to 336 by my count. To tally total centers, I count the entries on the USCIS list after removing duplicates and a few mistakes (old entries for renamed RCs and names that apparently refer to offerings, not Regional Centers).   Just to remind the world, I have no magic source for this information — anyone can go to www.uscis.gov/eb-5centers to consult the current list of approved centers, can check the “last updated” date at the bottom of the page, and can compare the current list to a previous list (or to memory, though that’s getting harder for me) to identify what’s new and calculate how many centers have been added over a period of time. I also don’t know info beyond Regional Center name unless I get it from Regional Center principals, Google, or FOIA requests. If you have more info to share about any of these centers, please email me and I will happily update my Regional Center list for my readers’ reference.

American Pacific Hotels Regional Center (California)

Faustus Capital LLC (California)
LinkedIn Info

BLMP Florida Healthcare Regional Center, LLC (Florida)
LinkedIn Info

Greystone Florida Regional Center LLC (Florida)

United States Investors Regional Center (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire)

Resource Regional Center Michigan, LLC (Michigan)

Chen Roberts Regional Center (Oklahoma)
http://www.chenroberts.com/

Medical Investment in Texas Regional Center (Texas)

(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.)

Filed under New RC

New RCs (AL, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, MI, MS, NJ, NY, OK, PA, PR, RI, TX, WA, WI)

August 9, 2013 1 Comment

USCIS continues to make progress on its backlog of I-924 applications, with 31 new Regional Centers approved in the last two weeks, for a total of 112 new centers approved this year. I look forward to being able to publish contact info and designation letters for all these centers. (Please comment or email me to update the info for your center.) There’s such a variety in Regional Center operators, including city economic development departments, well-established developers and business people, immigration attorneys, foreign agencies and recruiters, and assorted individuals without much digital trail beyond multiple businesses registered to home addresses. With that mixed bag of experience and ability to offer and administer US investments, and considering the proliferation of Regional Centers, the good players benefit from clarifying who’s who. The newly approved centers include the first Regional Center to cover Rhode Island and a number of new centers for under-represented areas including Connecticut, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. They also include applicants that weathered a very lengthy process to get approved. Congratulations, and best wishes as you proceed to bring investment and create jobs.

New USCIS-approved Regional Centers as of August 6, 2013

Alabama EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (Alabama)

U.S. Federal Investment Immigration Fund, LLC (Arizona)

American Alliance Regional Center (California)

American Development and Investment Regional Center (California)

Build America Capital Partners Regional Center LLC (California)
http://www.raelcorp.com/

California Future Partners (California)
http://www.californiafp.com/

California State Regional Center (California)
http://csregional.com/

California Sunshine Regional Center, LLC (California)
Contact: Lisa Li 415-279-0482
Geographic Area: The counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz in the state of California
Industries: Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (23622), Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses) (53112)
Designation Letter

Mebo Property Development, LLC (California)

Pacific Coast Regional Center (California)
Geographic Area: Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California
Industry Categories: Construction – Nonresidential (NAICS 23622), Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (NAICS 53112)

EB-5 Regional Center Florida, LLC (Florida)
Linkedin Info

EB-5 Ameri-Holdings, LLC (Florida)
http://www.eb5ameriholdings.com/

U.S. Prosperity Regional Center (Florida)

Gateway Georgia Regional Center (Georgia)

Green Card Gateway Regional Center (Illinois)
hawthorneworld.com

New Fortune Global LLC (Illinois)

Michigan-Indiana EB-5 Regional Center (Michigan, Indiana)
http://www.cicnova.com/

Gulf Coast Renewables & Redevelopment, LLC (Louisiana, Mississippi)
LinkedIn Info

New England Regional Center for Economic Development Inc. (Rhode Island, Massachusetts)
http://www.immigrationboston.com/
Geographic Area: The counties of Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymoth, and Suffolk in the state of Massachusetts; the counties of Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence, and Washington, in the state of Rhode Island
Industries: Residential Building Construction (2361), Nonresidential Building Construction (2362), Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (5413), Nursing Care Facilities (623110), Continuing Care Retirement Communities (623311)
Approval Notice

Atlantic City Regional Center (New Jersey)
LinkedIn Info

East Coast Renewable Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey)

Empire State Regional Center (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut)

Oklahoma Regional Center, LLC (Oklahoma)
http://www.giantcapital.biz/

Iconic Caribbean EB-5, LLC (Puerto Rico)
LinkedIn Info

Frisco Texas International Development Center (Texas)
http://www.friscoedc.com/

Hidalgo McAllen Reynosa Regional Center, LLC (Texas)

RGV EB-5 Regional Center (Texas)
http://www.weitzmorgan.com/

Texas EB-5 Regional Center (Texas)
Email: http://usfreedomcap.com/
Geographic Area: The counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Parker, Somervell, and Tarrant in the state of Texas
Industries: Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly (6233), Traveler Accommodation (7211), Restaurants and Other Eating Places (7225), Lessors of Real Estate (5311), Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities) (6231), architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (5413), Nonresidential Building Construction (2361), Residential Building Construction (2361), Other Personal Services (8129)
Designation Letter

Pacific Northwest Regional Center (Washington)

Seattle Metro Regional Center LLC (Washington)
www.nyeb5.com
Geographic Area: The counties of King, Pierce, and Snohomish in Washington
Industries: Construction of Commerical/Institutional Building and New Multifamily Housing (236000), Retail (44/45), Warehousing and Storage (493100), Residential Unites, Operations & Maintenance (531000), Hotels (721000), Restaurants (722000), Parking Spaces (812930)
Designation Letter

Wisconsin EB5 Regional Center LLC (Wisconsin)
http://www.firstpathway.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.)

Filed under New RC

New RCs (CA, DC, FL, GA, MD, NV, TX, TN, VA)

July 22, 2013 10 Comments

The USCIS EB-5 office continues hard at work on the Regional Center application backlog, with 11 new designations last week bringing this year’s total to 81 new Regional Center approvals. The new staff still seem to be feeling their way on the question of what RC approval means. The two recent approval letters that I have are very different, though issued only three days apart. Both the Nevada State and EB5 Express approvals are based on hypothetical projects, but the EB5 Express letter goes out of its way to specify that this is a “limited decision” based on “approving” some projects and “disallowing” others (with “approving” not meaning approval with reliance, and with “disallowing” not meaning to disallow but simply to not approve at this time). The EB5 Express letter is also interesting as additional evidence of USCIS’s stand on counting tenant jobs among the impacts of real estate development projects. This time I’m listing the new RCs in order based on the information I have about them. If you are associated with one of the centers so far unattested on the Internet, please publish some information about your business and send me an email. Otherwise I’m left Googling registered addresses and wondering – for example – what EB-5 has to do with importing genuine python skins. For those of you who have shared information, thank you, and welcome to the community!

New USCIS-approved Regional Centers as of July 19, 2013

Nevada State EB-5 Regional Center, Inc.
Website: http://nveb5.com/
Geographic Area: Carson City, Douglas and Lyon counties, Nevada
Industry Categories: Traveler Accommodation (7211), Other Personal Services (8129), Engine Turbine Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing (3336), Scientific Research and Development Services (5417), Animal Slaughtering and Processing, Non-Residential Building Construction, Professional and Commercial Equipment and Suppliers of Merchant Wholesalers
Designation Letter

EB5 Express Regional Center
Geographic Area: San Francisco and San Mateo counties, California
Industry Categories: Hotels (except casino hotels) and Motels (721110), Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (NAICS 334413) Battery Manufacturing (NAICS 33591)
Designation Letter

Rosti Capital Regional Center (California)
http://www.rosticap.com/

Encore S. CA RC, LLC (California)
http://encoreeb5.com/

Encore Wash D.C. RC, LLC (District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia)
http://encoreeb5.com/

Encore Nashville RC, LLC (Tennessee)
http://encoreeb5.com/

Robstown Improvement Development Corporation EB-5 Regional Center (Texas)
http://www.robstownidc.com/

L.A. Life Regional Center (California)

The Z Global Corporation Regional Center (California)

US EB5 Florida Regional Center (Florida)

American Investment and Immigration Center, LLC (Georgia)

(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.)

Filed under New RC

New RC (CA, IL, IN, MT, NC, NJ, PA, TN, UT, WA, WI), EB-5 Statistics, New SEC Rule

July 15, 2013 Leave a comment

The USCIS Ombudsman’s Office 2013 Annual Report to Congress includes an interesting compilation of data on EB-5 petition processing and EB-5 Visa Usage.

EB-5 IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAM VISA DEMAND
Visas

FILING DATA ON FORM I-526, IMMIGRANT PETITION BY ALIEN ENTREPRENEUR RECEIPTS
I-526

FILING DATA ON FORM I-924, APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL CENTER UNDER THE IMMIGRANT PILOT PROGRAM
I-924

So far, 2013 is looking like a better year for I-924 approvals. Last week USCIS updated its list of approved Regional Centers with 12 new Regional Centers, for a total of 70 new centers approved this year. I suspect that I-924 processing has unclogged in part because the option of approving I-924 applications without granting deference to the I-924 documents allows USCIS to defer serious review and hard decisions to the I-526 stage. USCIS is circumventing its deference policy with a deferrence policy, as it were. However, I’m happy to see some good applications getting approved. Congrats to OIS-NCA LLC for getting Regional Center approval in less than a year without an RFE, to Chicago Healthcare Fund Regional Center for achieving not only I-924 approval but also Exemplar I-526 approval (a rarity these days), and to Utah Invest Regional Center for triumphing over an arduous review process. I would congratulate the rest of you too if I had more information. Please share your approval letters and contact info with the community!

New Regional Centers

California

California Development Regional Center
Website: http://www.caldevrc.com/

OIS-NCA LLC
Website: http://ois-usa.com/
Geographic Area: California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Industry Categories: Nonresidential Building Construction (NAICS 2362), Traveler Accommodation (NAICS 7211)
Designation Letter

Waylee Investment, LLC

Illinois

Blue Ribbon Regional Center, LLC

Northern Illinois Regional Center
http://www.cabreracapital.com/

Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

Chicago Healthcare Fund Regional Center
Website: http://www.eb5chicagohealthcarefund.com/
Email: info@chicagohealthcarefund.com (Managing Director: Ari Weinberger)
Geographic Area:
Illinois counties: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, Will
Indiana counties: Jasper, Lake, Newton, Porter
Wisconsin county of Kenosha
Industry Categories: Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly (NAICS 623312), Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220)
Designation Letter

Montana

USA Montana Energy Regional Center
Website: http://usamerc.com/

New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Lion’s Regional Center
Website: http://www.lionspd.com/

North Carolina, Tennessee

Appalachian EB-5 Regional Center

Utah

Utah Invest Regional Center, LLC
Website: http://www.utahinvest.com/
Geographic Area: Utah counties of Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Juab, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Toole, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Wayne, Weber
Industry Categories: Personal Care Services (NAICS 8121), Motion Picture and Video (NAICS 5121)
Designation Letter

Washington

WRC EB-5 Regional Center, Inc.
Website: http://www.wrceb5.com/

Yareton Investment Funds Regional Center
Website: http://www.yareton.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.)

Finally, I recommend the article What the SEC’s Elimination of the Prohibition on General Solicitation for Rule 506 Offerings means to the EB-5 Community by John Tishler, posted on the Sheppard Mullin blog on July 12, 2013.

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC, Updates from USCIS

New RCs (CA, LA, TX), RIMS II Cut

July 2, 2013 5 Comments

The USCIS Regional Center list has been updated with six new centers, for a total of 58 new approvals in 2013.

Louisiana
Continental Americas Regional Center
Website: http://www.carceb5.com/

California
American Greenland Regional Center

American Vantage Regional Center

Golden Bear Regional Center

Lake Elsinore Regional Center

Texas
Ameri-Link Capital Regional Center
Website: http://amerilinkcapital.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.)

It’s interesting to note that three of the new California centers (American Greenland, American Vantage, and Golden Bear) each filed a suit in California Central District Court on 2/8/2013 against Daniel M Renaud et al.

Also, I’m belatedly aware that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is eliminating RIMS II as part of its sequestration reductions! RIMS II has been one of the most popular methodologies for EB-5 economic impact reports in recent years, and we’ll be sorry to see it go. It’s lucky that USCIS is no longer requiring Regional Centers to file amendments to change economic methodologies. To quote from a 6/19/2013 notice from the BEA:

Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS) – BEA will eliminate its RIMS II product, which currently generates products on demand as events warrant. The RIMS II program will continue to accept and process orders, which are fulfilled on a cost-recovery basis, through the end of the fiscal year. BEA will not build and develop the data needed to update the data set and fulfill orders in future years. RIMS II provides modeled estimates to the private sector and Federal, state, and local governments on the impact of a change in economic activity on a specific region’s economies. For example, RIMS II was used to estimate the economic impacts of Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon Event.

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC

New RCs (CA, NC, WA)

June 14, 2013 Leave a comment

The USCIS list of Regional Centers has been updated with more new entries, for a total of 52 new centers approved so far in 2013. The new approval letters do not include the usual note in Section II about an amendment request being required if investment opportunities arise outside the approved geographic area and industry categories.

California
Regional Economic Development & Investment Group
www.redigeb5.com
Geographic Area: California Counties of San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Stanislaus
Industry Categories: Wineries (NAICS 31213), Restaurants & Other Eating Places (NAICS 7225), Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 23622), Beer Wine and Liquor Stores (NAICS 44531), RV Parks and Campgrounds (NAICS 721211), Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (NAICS 53112), Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities (NAICS 71131), Caterers (NAICS 72232)
Designation Letter

North Carolina
Encore Raleigh/Durham Regional Center
http://encoreeb5.com/
Geographic Area: ?
Industry Categories: ?

Washington
Path America KingCo, LLC
http://pathamerica.com/
Geographic Area: ?
Industry Categories: ?

(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.)

Filed under New RC

New RCs (CA, NJ, OR, WA), Processing Statistics

May 31, 2013 Leave a comment

The USCIS Regional Center list has added more new entries, for a total of 49 new centers approved in 2013. Congratulations to Powerdyne for receiving approval of an application filed in May 2012 — comparatively record speed.

California
Powerdyne Regional Center, LLC
http://www.powerdyne.com/
Geographic Area: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California
Industry Categories: Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing (NAICS 3324), Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution (NAICS 2211)
Designation Letter

New Jersey
N U.S. Immigration Fund – NJ, LLC
http://www.visaeb-5.com/

Washington and Oregon
EB5 West LLC

(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.)

As of this week, the approval letters still define the designation by saying: “USCIS approves the applicant’s request to focus, promote economic growth, and offer capital investment opportunities in the following geographic area and industry categories….” I wonder what approval letters will say going forward, now that we have a Policy Memo stating that amendment requests are not necessarily required if investment opportunities arise outside the approved geographic area and industry categories. What if anything defines/limits RC designations now? In his article Key Points from USCIS EB-5 Policy Memo published May 30, 2013, Robert Divine suggests that the new memo brings new value as well as risks to Regional Centers.

IIUSA has obtained statistics for I-526, I-829, and I-924 processing in Q1 and Q2 2013. To summarize:
I-526s: 3,285 received, 1,526 approved, 483 denied
I-829s: 427 received, 467 approved, 24 denied
I-924s (includes amendments and applications for initial designation): 325 received, 65 approved, 13 denied

Filed under EB-5 Statistics, New RC

New Regional Centers (GA, IL), Legislation Updates, ELIS, Due Diligence

May 29, 2013 Leave a comment

The USCIS list of approved Regional Centers has added another three entries (now 46 new centers in 2013).

Georgia
Southeast Foreign Investment Center LLC
http://www.southeastforeignic.com/

Illinois
Chicago Metro Regional Center, LLC
http://www.nyeb5.com/contact.html
Geographic Area: Illinois counties of Cook, Lake, Will and Du Page
Industry Categories: New Multifamily Housing Construction (NAICS 236116), Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 23622), Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers (NAICS 53121), Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers (NAICS 71394), Convenience Stores (NAICS 44512)
Approval Notice

Chicago Regional Center
http://www.chicagorc.net/

(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.)

Chicago Metro Regional Center has the first designation letter that I’ve seen come out of the new Washington DC office, signed by Daniel Renaud as Acting Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program rather than by the California Service Center. Congratulations! I’m interested in the “Job Creation” sections of recent approval letters, and how they discuss economic model approvals, hypothetical vs. I-526 review, and deference. I also wonder about the significance of NAICS code lists appearing twice in recent approval letters, once under the “Regional Center Designation” heading and once under the “Job Creation” heading. Could this distinction open the possibility for Regional Center codes to be relatively general, even as 4-digit+ codes are used in the economic model? I hear rumors that USCIS may be hammering out a new statement on industry category requirements that loosens the highly restrictive trend toward granular industry approvals.

In other EB-5 news, Congress is continuing to discuss immigration reform legislation that includes significant EB-5 provisions. USCIS is working on implementing electronic filing for I-526 petitions, and held a conference call on 5/23 to discuss logistics and solicit feedback. And due diligence continues to be a hot topic of EB-5 conversation.

Filed under EB-5 in the News, New RC

More DC news, CA TEA update, IIUSA conference, New RCs (AR, CA, MS, MD)

May 10, 2013 Leave a comment

A few more important posts from this week:

Also, additions to the USCIS Regional Center list bring the total new centers approved in 2013 to 43.

Arkansas and Mississippi
Liberty South Regional Center
http://www.libertysouthusa.com/

California
San Gabriel Valley Regional Center
http://sangabrielvalleyrc.com/

Maryland
Maryland Area Regional Center, LLC
http://goeb5visa.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.)

Filed under EB-5 Events, New RC, Updates from USCIS

New RCs (CT, FL, MA, NY, PR) and TEA Resources

April 25, 2013 1 Comment

Regional Centers
The number of new Regional Centers approved by USCIS this year is up to 40, as the USCIS Regional Center list has added five new entries.

Connecticut
New England Regional Center

Florida
Gardens Regional Center, LLC

Massachusetts
Arundel Capital Partners
Website: http://arundel-group.com/
Geographic Area: Suffolk County, MA
Industry Categories: Commercial and Institutional Building Construction (NAICS 236220), Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (NAICS 531120)
Designation Letter

New York
American Regional Center for Entrepreneurs
Email: info@arcfe.com
Geographic Area: New York, Bronx, Queens, Kings, Nassau, and Westchester Counties, NY
Industry Categories: Nonresidential Building Construction (NAICS 2362), Residential Property Managers (NAICS 531311)

Puerto Rico
Omega Puerto Rico Regional Center, LLC
Website: http://omegaregionalcenters.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.)

Targeted Employment Area (TEA) Resources
Impact Data Source has published useful resources related to TEAs. For analysis of newly-released unemployment data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, a list of state agencies responsible for TEA designations, and an awesome interactive map of unemployment rates nationwide, see:

Blog Post discussing finalized average annual 2012 unemployment data – http://www.impactdatasource.com/2013-tea-data/

EB-5 TEA Map web page – http://www.impactdatasource.com/eb-5/tea/

Full Screen EB-5 TEA Map – www.impactdatasource.com/map

List of State Agencies Certifying TEAs – http://www.impactdatasource.com/eb-5/state-agencies-teas/

Determining the unemployment rate of a given area is one element in the process of determining TEA qualification. It’s also necessary to strategize about how to define the boundaries of the area to be designated, to consider the timing of designation, and to understand how the process works at the state level. As usual, Kate Kalmykov has a useful post on this topic: Determining if Your EB-5 Project is Located in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA). See also the following recent guidance from USCIS regarding TEA designation.

from p. 7-8 of the 5/30/2013 EB-5 Adjudications Policy Memorandum
a. “Targeted Employment Area” Defined

The statute and regulations governing the EB-5 Program defines a “targeted employment area” as, at the time of investment, a rural area or an area that has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. A “rural area” is defined as any area not within either a metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the Office of Management and Budget) or the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii), (iii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). In other words, a rural area must be both outside of a metropolitan statistical area and outside of a city or town having a population of 20,000 or more.

Congress expressly provided for a reduced investment amount in a rural area or an area of high unemployment in order to spur immigrants to invest in new commercial enterprises that are principally doing business in, and creating jobs in, areas of greatest need. In order for the lower capital investment amount of $500,000 to apply, the new commercial enterprise into which the immigrant invests or the actual job creating entity must be principally doing business in the targeted employment area.

For the purpose of the EB-5 Program, a new commercial enterprise is “principally doing business” in the location where it regularly, systematically, and continuously provides goods or services that support job creation. If the new commercial enterprise provides such goods or services in more than one location, it will be deemed to be “principally doing business” in the location that is most significantly related to the job creation. Factors to be considered in making this determination may include, but are not limited to, (1) the location of any jobs directly created by the new commercial enterprise; (2) the location of any expenditure of capital related to the creation of jobs; (3) where the new commercial enterprise conducts its day-to-day operation; and (4) where the new commercial enterprise maintains its assets that are utilized in the creation of jobs. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 174.

As discussed fully below, investments through the Immigrant Investor Program can be made through regional centers and the new commercial enterprise may seek to establish indirect job creation. In these cases, the term “principally doing business” will apply to the job-creating
enterprise rather than the new commercial enterprise. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(6); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 171-73 (discussing the location of commercial enterprises to which the new commercial enterprise made loans).

The immigrant investor may seek to have a geographic or political subdivision designated as a targeted employment area. To do so, the immigrant investor must demonstrate that the targeted employment area meets the statutory and regulatory criteria through the submission of: (1) evidence that the area is outside of a metropolitan statistical area and outside of a city or town having a population of 20,000 or more; (2) unemployment data for the relevant metropolitan statistical area or county; or (3) a letter from the state government designating a geographic or political subdivision located outside a rural area but within its own boundaries as a high unemployment area. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(6).

b. A State’s Designation of a Targeted Employment Area

The regulation provides that a state government may designate a geographic or political subdivision within its boundaries as a targeted employment area based on high unemployment. Before the state may make such a designation, an official of the state must notify USCIS of the agency, board, or other appropriate governmental body of the state that will be delegated the authority to certify that the geographic or political subdivision is a high unemployment area. The state may then send a letter from the authorized body of the state certifying that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(i).

Consistent with the regulations, USCIS defers to state determinations of the appropriate boundaries of a geographic or political subdivision that constitutes the targeted employment area. However, for all TEA designations, USCIS must still ensure compliance with the statutory requirement that the proposed area designated by the state in fact has an unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. For this purpose, USCIS will review state determinations of the unemployment rate and, in doing so, USCIS can assess the method or methods by which the state authority obtained the unemployment statistics. Acceptable data sources for purposes of calculating unemployment include U.S. Census Bureau data (including data from the American Community Survey) and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (including data from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics).

There is no provision that allows a state to designate a rural area.

Q&A from USCIS’s Executive Summary of the 5/1/2012 EB-5 Quarterly Stakeholder Engagement

Q: Will a single or multiple contiguous census tracts be considered as a geographic subarea?

A: USCIS encourages that standard Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimation methodology be used. In the event that subareas for which Local Area Unemployment Statistic estimates are not regularly produced, such as census tracts, the TEA applicant should be aware of the following: (1) the census-share technique be used ONLY where inputs for the preferred BLS methodology are not available and (2) only household-only inputs be used, in order to eliminate the impact of the Census 2000 Group Quarters processing error. More information regarding this answer can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics webpage at: http://www.bls.gov/bls/empsitquickguide.htm

Q: Can a qualifying census tract with unemployment 150% of the national rate be certified as a TEA?

A: Yes, but designation will depend on the quality and timeliness of the data used to support the 150% of the national average rate of unemployment claim. Acceptable data sources for purposes of calculating unemployment include Local Area Unemployment Statistics produced by a government agency, U.S. Census Bureau data, and data from the American Community Survey.

Q: Has there been any progress on further defining an acceptable vs. gerrymandered TEA? Will USCIS be providing additional guidance?

A: This issue is being examined in the context of the draft memorandum, which will be posted for comment in the near future. [See pages 6-8 of 2/14/2013 version of the draft EB-5 policy memorandum.]

And a final reminder: A Targeted Employment Area is not the same as a Regional Center. Non-Regional Center investors can invest in TEAs at the $500,000 level. Regional Centers can cover areas that are not designated TEAs. It’s a common misconception that Regional Center investments are $500,000 and direct/non-regional center investments must be $1 million. That’s not the case. The amount of EB-5 capital that must be invested depends simply on whether or not the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business and creating jobs in a “targeted employment area” defined “as, at the time of investment, a rural area or an area that has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.” Whether the investment is within a Regional Center or not makes no difference to the TEA qualification and qualifying investment amount.

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC

← Older posts

Newer posts →