immigrant investor program news
November 26, 2011 Leave a comment
The USCIS list of Regional Centers has added two entries (up to 204), but I think just accounting for multi-state centers. However I notice one new center I previously neglected to report:
USA Continental Regional Center (www.usacontinentalregionalcenter.com)
Geographic Scope: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties
Investment Focus: Construction of commercial and office infrastructures
November 9, 2011 Leave a comment
In today’s conference call Director Mayorkas introduced the document “A Work in Progress: Towards A New Draft Policy Memorandum Guiding EB-5 Adjudications” and fielded stakeholder questions. Many of the questions asked were irrelevant to the topic at hand so I won’t bore you with my recording, but there are a few tidbits of interest:
I recommend those active and knowledgeable in the EB-5 field to review and comment on the draft memo between now and Nov 25, when the comment period closes. Those looking for practical guidance now can skip this document because the content is incomplete and will change. People also shouldn’t look to this memo for new policy. The purpose of the memo is apparently just to collect all existing EB-5 guidance in one handy location with headings — unexciting but useful and appropriate.
November 4, 2011 4 Comments
The USCIS Office of Public Engagement has just emailed an invitation to a teleconference next week 11/9 (1 pm EST) to chat with Director Mayorkas about “new USCIS policy guidance on the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program”. Could this be the comprehensive guidance memo promised in this summer’s stakeholder meetings? I’m so excited! I’ll post links to the invite and the new guidance as soon as they’re posted on the USCIS website.
11/9 Update: here is the Draft Policy Memo.
November 1, 2011 2 Comments
2016 Update: This post no longer applies. Since 2013 USCIS has regularly approved Regional Centers with expansive, multi-state geographic areas. The economic impact report filed with Form I-924 must still justify the area requested, but USCIS is liberal in the justifications it will accept. The AAO decision Matter of R-T-E-R-C-, LLC (JUL152016_01K1610) discusses current requirements and the economic impact analysis used by one applicant to apply for all of Texas and part of New Mexico based on seven hypothetical projects.
[Original Post]
Until recently, I saw Regional Center proposals and amendments approved with geographic areas much larger than the impact area of the initial projects specified in the application. But apparently those days are over.
I previously pointed out that Slide 35 of the 9/15/2011 EB-5 Stakeholder meeting seemed to indicate a new restrictiveness regarding Regional Center geographic area:
–A Regional Center must demonstrate in the Form I-924 that its activities will focus on the requested geographic region, and not simply on isolated and unrelated areas within the region
–It may be more appropriate for the Regional Center to initially request a geographic area that is in keeping with the economic impacts of the existing project, and then subsequently file an amendment request for an expanded geographic area as the details and location of future projects become known
Now I’m seeing RFEs that not only suggest but seem to require that Regional Centers must initially request only the geographic area that’s in keeping with the economic impacts of their existing projects. For example, see this text from a recent RC application RFE:
The proposal does not include data, analysis, and narrative discussing the economic growth for the requested geographic area of ___ contiguous counties of ___, ___, ___,etc. … [The applicant] may wish to narrow its requested geographic scope if the impacts of the anticipated capital investment projects will not realistically impact all counties listed in the geographic area.
2012 Update: I-924 RFEs have become more insistent on the issue of justifying geographic area. See for example this section of an RFE issued in July 2012:
Pay attention everyone out there preparing to file an I-924 form! The form and instructions only say you need to provide a map delineating the desired geographic area, but note that USCIS is actually looking for more, including “data, analysis, and narrative discussing the economic growth for the requested geographic area” plus capital investment projects that will realistically impact all the counties for which you wish to apply. Before my clients only needed to pay me for business plans covering each industry; now apparently I need to write up enough projects to ensure that we reasonably cover all desired counties/areas as well.
I’m not sure how I feel about these more specific guidelines. Obviously applicants with one little project who apply for a whole-state Regional Center just because they can are not in the spirit of the EB-5 program, which is designed to concentrate investment in limited geographic areas. But Congress probably didn’t intend either that USCIS treat Regional Centers as synonymous with immediate individual projects. By saying that an RC geographic area can only be as big as the impact of the RC’s initial project, the service seems to assume that the RC is just established and approved for that one project, not mandated for on-going business including facilitating subsequent investments in a variety of projects in a wider contiguous area. Does USCIS want to make the I-924 form basically just a pre-approval I-526 with indirect job creation, and discourage the RC from going beyond the scope of its initial project?
October 11, 2011 Leave a comment
I can’t tell if today’s press release from USCIS is announcing immediate implementation of any practical steps, but it’s nice to see these intentions reiterated:
USCIS will launch the “Entrepreneurs in Residence” initiative with a series of informational summits with industry leaders to gather high-level strategic input. Informed by the summits, the agency will stand up a tactical team comprised of entrepreneurs and experts, working with USCIS personnel, to design and implement effective solutions. This initiative will strengthen USCIS’s collaboration with industries, at the policy, training, and officer level, while complying with all current Federal statutes and regulations.
The initiative builds upon USCIS’s August announcement of efforts to promote startup enterprises and spur job creation, including enhancements to the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program. Since August, USCIS is:
- Conducting a review of the EB-5 process
- Working with business analysts to enhance the EB-5 adjudication process
- Implementing direct access for EB-5 Regional Center applicants to reach adjudicators quickly; and
- Launching new specialized training modules for USCIS officers on the EB-2 visa classification and L-1B nonimmigrant intra-company transferees.
September 27, 2011 Leave a comment
USCIS has published a proposed rule in the Federal Register dealing with “Treatment of Aliens Whose Employment Creation Immigrant (EB-5) Petitions Were Approved After January 1, 1995 and Before August 31, 1998.” This rule effects only a small group of people: investors whose Form I-829 petitions were pending at the time of the enactment of Public Law 107-273 in 2002. That this issue is finally being addressed indicates progress in the agency.
Click here for AILA comments on the proposed rule.
September 19, 2011 1 Comment
USCIS promised in its meetings last week that posted processing times for EB-5 would be updated to better reflect reality. According to the most recent report from the California Service Center (9/16), I-526 processing is at 8 months, I-485 is 4 months, and I-829 is 6 months. The list still doesn’t post estimates for the I-924. However I have noticed some improvement, with one recent client’s I-924 approved in 6 months and another in 4 months, and both without an RFE.
September 15, 2011 Leave a comment
In case you missed the 9/15/11 stakeholder meeting with USCIS, you can get a copy of the presentation here, and listen to audio that I recorded today by clicking on the media player at the base of this post.
The Q&A period included a number of interesting technical points. The panelists gave advice and made statements more generously then they usually do, but keep in mind that “it depends” is probably really the correct answer to most of the questions, even if the panel was too nice this time to fall back on that response. I’d caution everyone to keep context in mind and not latch on to sentences from a conference call as the final word on any issue. For example, I doubt you can file an I-829 showing that not all EB-5 investment in a new commercial enterprise has been actually put to use in any project, with the argument “remember that call when Kevin Cummins said…” Or count on “but that one time Sasha Haskell said…” when you file an amendment to industries by “just filling out the form” and then get an RFE pointing out that you failed to provide sufficient detail to show in verifiable detail how capital investment offerings in the requested industry will create jobs.
The presentation includes one extremely useful section: a list of the common reasons for Requests For Evidence and denials on I-924 cases. You can find this on slides 14-17 of the presentation, and I’ve also reproduced the content on my page of advice for applicants. The list really captures the few points I see repeated over and over on RFEs. It’s not hard to avoid an RFE; read this list and get your application right the first time.
Also note the topic of appropriate geographic areas for Regional Centers. The current I-924 form doesn’t really ask for anything on geographic area beyond a map with borders marked, and nothing prevents applicants from doing what, in fact, they do: apply for the location of their proposed project(s) plus as many surrounding counties as they dare — either because they might ever do something in those areas or (usually) to look big and assist marketing efforts. And a review of recently-approved centers shows that applicants are increasingly ambitious, with more and more full state and even multi-state centers approved. Probably this doesn’t matter since RC areas aren’t exclusive, but it isn’t what Congress had in mind when it specified that “A Regional Center may be granted jurisdiction over a limited geographic area for the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones.” I haven’t heard the issue raised much before, but now USCIS may be planning to crack down in this area. According to slide 35 of the presentation:
–A Regional Center must demonstrate in the Form I-924 that its activities will focus on the requested geographic region, and not simply on isolated and unrelated areas within the region
–It may be more appropriate for the Regional Center to initially request a geographic area that is in keeping with the economic impacts of the existing project, and then subsequently file an amendment request for an expanded geographic area as the details and location of future projects become known
I’m hoping that the forth-coming revised I-924 Form will offer more guidance on appropriate geographic areas and how exactly USCIS wants applicants to demonstrate the geographic focus of their activities.
This conference call also impressed me that the leadership at least is serious about receiving feedback through the EB-5 inquiry mailbox (for case-specific issues outside the new direct email communication) and the Office of Public Engagement email address (for policy issues). It seems that problems reported (and documented) in emails to OPE have actually been reviewed even by Director Mayorkas and used in training adjudicators, and that problems (for example in Regional Center approval letters) have actually been dealt with following emails to the EB-5 inquiry email address. And of course there’s the new direct email communication for all pending I-924 cases.
Audio recording of the 9/15 stakeholder meeting:
September 15, 2011 2 Comments
Here are EB-5 statistics reported in the 9/15/2011 EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting Presentation.
Current Regional Center Stats as of 9/15/2011
# of Active Regional Centers 173 # of Pending Initial RC Proposals # of Pending RC Amendments Stats on Initial Regional Center Proposal Filings
FY 2010
(Oct 2009 – Sept 2010)
FY 2011 Q1 – Q3
(Oct 2010 – Sept 2011)
# of Initial RC Proposal Filings 110
176 # of Amended RC Proposal Filings 42 73 % of Initial RC Proposals Denied 45% 33% % of RC Amendments Denied 29% 16% Statistics I-526 and I-829 Petitions
(Recall that petitions are not necessarily adjudicated in the year in which they are received)
# of I-526 Received # of I-526 Approvals % of I-526 Approved FY11 Q1 – Q3 2608 999 82% FY10 1955 1369 89% FY09 1028 1262 86% FY08 1257 640 84% FY07 776 473 76% FY06 486 336 73% FY05 332 179 53%
# of I-829 Received # of I-829 Approvals % of I-829 Approved FY11 Q1 – Q3 1753 426 93% FY10 768 274 83% FY09 437 347 86% FY08 390 159 70% FY07 194 111 69% FY06 89 106 64% FY05 37 184 62% EB-5 Visa Statistics
Total EB-5 Visas Issued FY11 Q1 – Q3 3,706* FY10 1,885 FY09 4,218 FY08 1,360 FY07 806 FY06 744 * preliminary estimate
Note that USCIS did not this time provide numbers for pending applications, and also didn’t report estimated processing times. They are currently revising the formula for calculating processing times (the previous formula estimated time to an adjudicator’s desk, not time to completion). The next CSC processing times report should include the more realistic estimates.
September 14, 2011 3 Comments
Today’s Conversation with Director Mayorkas proved to be very interesting. I liked the forum — an open conversation with 25 attendees chosen on a first-come-first-serve basis. We heard some familiar voices and familiar soapboxing, but generally the meeting format allowed for genuine discussion and for extended follow-up and interaction on important issues. Director Mayorkas once again came out looking good — knowledgeable about the program, pro-active, serious, sympathetic, and sensible. No issues were resolved in the context of this discussion, but a few noteworthy items:
Most of the meeting time was given to participants and their opinions and suggestions. The group united in calling for increased consistency, and divided on whether USCIS should be more or less vigilant. Here are a few minutes of audio from what I consider a highlight of the call, including the most thrilling for-against more regulation exchange and the best organizational suggestion (from about 24 minutes in):
September 13, 2011 Leave a comment
I just received this email from the USCIS Office of Public Engagement:
USCIS Begins Implementation of Enhancements to the EB-5 Program
Dear Stakeholder-
USCIS is implementing the first phase in a series of proposed enhancements to the EB-5 program. Beginning today, Form I-924 applicants will be able to communicate directly with USCIS adjudicators via e-mail in an effort to streamline the process and quickly raise and resolve issues and questions that arise during the adjudication process. The Form I-924 is the Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Information on how direct e-mail communication will work can be found in the attached Question and Answer document and by clicking here.
USCIS intends to monitor the progress of this new line of communication to assess whether changes are needed and to implement any required changes on a real-time basis. If you have feedback in response to your use of the direct line of communication for the Form I-924, please submit your comments to opefeedback@uscis.dhs.gov.
USCIS is eager to implement all of the proposed enhancements to the EB-5 program that it first announced on May 19, 2011. USCIS is currently exploring how it can accelerate the implementation of premium processing, which customarily takes months due to the need to revise the applicable forms. USCIS is currently hiring economists and other experts that will enhance and accelerate the adjudication process and also help constitute the Decision Board that was first described on May 19.
Implementation of enhancements to the EB-5 program is a high priority for USCIS. Director Alejandro Mayorkas will provide more information about the status of the proposed enhancements and other action items for this program in his first Conversation with the Director this Wednesday, September 14, and in the national stakeholder engagement on Thursday, September 15.
Regards,
Office of Public Engagement
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
www.uscis.gov
Note once again the reminder that USCIS is working hard to make premium processing a reality, and that it will take “months” at least.
August 11, 2011 9 Comments
Today I listened in on the first teleconference in the “Conversations with the Director” series focusing on Opportunities for Business Entrepreneurs within the U.S. Immigration System. Director Mayorkas participated the call, along with representatives from the Office of Policy and Strategy, Service Center Operations, and Office of Chief Counsel. The call included almost two hours of public Q&A, largely focusing on the L-1, E-2, and H1-b programs. It proved mainly a forum for the public to air concerns about adjudication problems, and for the leadership to listen sympathetically and say they’d look into it. A few points of interest for the EB-5 community:
Status of EB-5 Processing Changes. Director Mayorkas provided the following update:
Adjudicator Training. The leadership is undertaking adjudicator training in an attempt to address problems and inconsistencies, and several callers were encouraged to send their problem RFEs to the Office of Public Engagement (public.engagement@dhs.gov) for use in the training.
July 18, 2011 Leave a comment
Yes, I did note that the USCIS list of approved regional centers was updated on 7/11 and 7/18, but not with any new centers. I spoke last week with a company that filed its application in November and just received an RFE. In the 6/30 EB-5 presentation, USCIS reported “target processing time” of 4 months and “current processing time” of 4.5 months for RC initial designation proposals. However Sasha Haskell clarified on the call that by “processing time,” USCIS means the time the proposal waits before review starts, not the time to complete review. She said that “turnaround times” are too case-specific to estimate, but I can estimate 7-9 months based on my recent observation of RC initial proposal processing.
The USCIS Office of Public Engagement announced today the availability of new performance data for a number of petitions, including the I-485 (which is the follow-up to I-526 for EB-5 investors who are currently in the US on a different visa). Here is a summary of the data reported so far for employment-related I-485.
| I-485 Employment Application Data | |||
| Approvals | Denials | Pending | |
| 2009 | 16,496 | 5,310 | 30,652 |
| 2010 | 19,841 | 4,752 | 20,243 |
| 2011 (Q1 & Q2) | 6,551 | 1,544 | 3,810 |
Source: USCIS
I’m not sure how to read this data. The file doesn’t provide “receipt” data for the employment-related I-485, and doesn’t clarify what the “pending” column means. It could appear that a whole bunch of pending petitions disappeared between 2010 and 2011, but I’ll assume that’s not the case.
July 14, 2011 4 Comments
NOTE: Please see my more recent post on this topic: https://blog.lucidtext.com/2011/10/28/diversified-investmentmutual-funds/
I wonder about the diversification question in the 6/30 USCIS Quarterly EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting Q&A:
5.Diversification
Question: Can an EB-5 Investor in a Regional Center divide his money into 2 or more businesses so long as each business satisfies EB-5 requirements? Can he do this in EB-5 Direct?
Response: Yes, according to 204.6(e): Commercial enterprise means any for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of lawful business including, but not limited to, a sole proprietorship, partnership (whether limited or general), holding company, joint venture, corporation, business trust, or other entity which may be publicly or privately owned. This definition includes a commercial enterprise consisting of a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provided that each such subsidiary is engaged in a for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of a lawful business. This definition shall not include a noncommercial activity such as owning and operating a personal residence.
If by “2 or more businesses” the questioner means “2 or more separate businesses” I believe the answer should in fact be “no,” or “it depends.” The 2003 Yates Memorandum on the 2002 DOJ Appropriations Act says: “With respect to cases where the alien entrepreneur filed a Form I-526 petition after August 31, 1998, the new law does not permit such an alien entrepreneur to meet the requirements for the removal of conditions by combining investments in multiple commercial enterprises. The investment of capital in only one commercial enterprise remains a requirement for these cases.” USCIS further elaborates in Question 11.b of the 6/30 Q&A that by “diversification” in the direct EB-5 context it only means dividing investment “within” the new commercial enterprise (ie among a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries), which is consistent with the law and probably isn’t what the questioner had in mind.
According to my understanding, the answer on diversification involving unrelated job-creating entities is “no” for stand-alone EB-5 (based on Public Law 107-273 as quoted above) and “it depends” in the Regional Center context. In Regional Centers, “commercial enterprise” and “capital investment project” can be separate (ie see the 6/16/2010 Stakeholder meeting summary), opening the possibility that an investor could invest in one commercial enterprise (satisfying Public Law 107-273) which could then go on to invest in multiple capital investment projects. According to the 3/17/2011 EB-5 stakeholder’s meeting, multiple capital investment projects are okay so long as they are spelled out in advance: “A regional center may opt to structure EB-5 capital investment projects that involve multiple investment vehicles. However, USCIS has consistently maintained that a regional center must transparently show at the Form I-526 stage the specific job creating entities/projects in which the investor’s capital will be invested, supported by comprehensive business plans and an economic analysis that provides a reasonable methodology for estimating the job creation that will occur as a result of these complex investments. I-526 petitions may not be approved for investments (or loans) to businesses that will not be identified or selected until after the approval of the petition. Such a strategy is not EB-5 compliant as the EB-5 program is not an attestation-based program. Prospective job creation must be demonstrated at the Form I-526 petition through USCIS review and approval of the business plan and associated economic analysis for the actual capital investment projects that will receive the immigrant investor’s capital. This documentation provides the foundation for the adjudication of the I-829 petition to determine if the investor has met the requirements for removal of conditions pursuant to INA 216A and 8 CFR 216.6. The Ninth Circuit has held that USCIS may not “de-couple” I-526 petition approval from I-829 approval. See Chang v. U.S., 327 F.3d 911, 927 (9th Cir. 2003). This means that, using Form I-829, alien investors must demonstrate compliance with the EB-5 program rules by confirming the fulfillment of the investment scheme and business plan that USCIS approved at the I-526 petition stage. See id.”
July 14, 2011 9 Comments
We know about recent cases in which USCIS has questioned state-designated TEAs, specifically designation of individual census tracts and groups of census tracts. And we were curious to see how they’d explain that in the 6/30 EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting. Here’s what went down. (With time references to my MP3 recording of the second half the meeting, as posted below.)
[minute 29] Kevin Cummings of the Office of Policy and Strategy acknowledged current frustrations regarding inconsistency and unpredictability in TEA designations. “We’re examining a couple of different options in this regard, things we can do to make the TEA designation more predictable. But it’s something we’ll probably have to discuss at a senior level. And I expect that we’ll probably be able to discuss that with our senior leadership during the month of July.”
[minute 45] Q:Can my state give me a designation of a TEA area per their calculations?
Kim Atteberry: I would suggest that it should be a reasonable, transparent, and reproduceable methodology.[minute 48] Q: The 2009 memo talks about USCIS not having the authority to question the governor’s designation of TEA status, but then within just a couple of lines it implies that USCIS does have that authority. So I’d like to get an answer if possible about whether USCIS has and can question a governor’s designation of a TEA.
Kevin Cummings: Like I said earlier, we are examining the TEA issues and that is one of the aspects that we’re taking a real close look at right now. So I’m not prepared to further comment on that right now at this time. But hopefully we will, um, resolve some of these issues within the next several weeks.
Q: Okay, has USCIS questioned, has USCIS overturned something in the past when there was a designation by the governor’s office?
[silence…whisper whisper whisper… silence]
Mary Herman: Sorry Sir, we’re just consulting.
Kevin Cummings: No, I mean you just have to look at the existing regulations at this time, and the TEA designations do have to be supported by valid methodologies. Um… so… I mean that’s all I can tell you on that at this point.
Q: Uh, okay, thank you.[minute 50] Q: Regarding TEAs, are you seeing any trends toward using census block groups as qualifying political subdivisions?
[silence]
Sasha Haskell: A census tract or a grouping of census tracts is not a political subdivision. The only means by which a grouping of census tracts could qualify would be as a geographic area.
[silence]
Q: Okay, but my question was about block groups.
Kim Atteberry: Block groups are also just geographic designations, not political.
Q: So there’s neither bias for nor against using block groups?
[silence]
Kim Atteberry: Uh, I don’t think so. I think so long as you know, sound data is supported by you know transparent reasonable methodologies, then, no, that they’re just simply a grouping of census tracts.
Q: Well thank you very much.[minute 55] Q: A quick follow-up to the discussion that was just had about census tracts. And I just want to be clear about this. So if the governor of a state designates a single census tract as a high unemployment area and that represents the most current data available — let’s say by BEA — that is or is not recognized by USCIS.
Kim Atteberry: I assume that it would be based on the appropriate BLS methodologies, etc. etc.
Q: Yup. It’s 2010 annual data. So it’s the most currently available.
Kim Atteberry: Yeah, I mean, I can’t see why… I mean… as long as methodology is there and you can see what’s going on, I don’t see why that would be a problem.
Q: I only ask because I thought that I heard that someone said that a census tract is neither a legal nor a political boundary.
Sasha Haskell: It is not. A political boundary. A census tract may qualify as being a geographic area but it is not, it doesn’t meet the definition of a political subdivision.
Q: So then we’re qualifying a single census tract under which of these two prongs? It’s either a legal boundary or a geopolitical subdivision?
Sasha Haskell: Well I would look at the regulations…
Q: Hahaha… It says “a single…legal or geo-“– I don’t have it in front of me — all I’m asking is does a census tract qualify for one of those two, if the state says “we designate a high unemployment area.”
[long pause]
Sasha Haskell: Yes, it probably would.
Q: Hahaha…
Sasha Haskell: You know, without seeing specifically what you’re talking about…
Q: This is a single census tract! That’s a period. It’s not like there’s a lot of ambiguity to it–
Mary Herman: Next question–
Q: We’re worried about aggregating or gerrymandering, but we’ve drilled it down to a single census tract–
Sasha Haskell: We’re not talking about gerrymandering. We’re talking about has the state followed the guidelines that are laid down in 204.6(5) by providing the methodology, and if the methodology is in keeping with what our memo says, then most likely if that is followed it would be qualifying. I really don’t know what to say beyond that.
Mary Herman: Thank you Sasha and thank you for your question David. Can we move on to the next question please…
6/2012 Update:See also this 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.
5/30/2013 Update: The information in the 2011 post below is now outdated. Please see pages 7-8 of the 5/30/2013 EB-5 Adjudications Policy Memorandum for USCIS’s current policy on Targeted Employment Area designation.
July 13, 2011 3 Comments
A warning to all Regional Centers from the 6/30 EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting Presentation (slide 14): You are not free to use images of the USCIS/DHS logos on your website and promotional material. USCIS will be reviewing your material with the I-924a filing, and by law it can prosecute misuse of its logo leading to fines and/or up to six months in jail for the offender. 90% of regional centers, this means you! [Note: the slide doesn’t say the logo absolutely may not appear, just that it oughtn’t be misused. This shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s just a reminder to be as careful with the USCIS logo as you are with corporate logos.]
July 13, 2011 2 Comments
For those of you who didn’t listen in on the 6/30 EB-5 stakeholder’s meeting with USCIS, here’s the sad news:
Regarding the proposed changes to USCIS’s processing of EB-5 cases and the possibility of premium processing, Director Mayorkas reported that USCIS leadership needs an indefinite amount of time to review 170 pages of comments received on the proposed changes and consider implementation. He said that USCIS cannot provide even a ball-park estimate of when this review might be completed or when changes might begin to go live. He expressed his commitment to making things happen “as soon as possible,” and suggested that changes might be rolled out in stages.
Regarding current processing times for I-924 and I-526 applications, Sasha Haskell announced that the posted “processing times” refer to the amount of time it takes a petition to reach an adjudicator’s desk, not to turn-around times. Furthermore the service cannot estimate how long the review process takes.
July 13, 2011 1 Comment
The printed materials from the 6/30 EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting were re-posted yesterday on the USCIS website with no revision. Click here for the EB-5 Presentation 063011 Slides and June 2011 Stakeholder Meeting Q&A. I’m also posting my recording of the second half of the meeting:
June 30, 2011 2 Comments
Here are EB-5 statistics reported in the 6/30/2011 EB-5 Stakeholder’s Meeting Presentation.
Current Regional Center Stats as of 6/30/2011
# of Active Regional Centers 147 # of Pending Initial RC Proposals 83 # of Pending RC Amendments 9 Stats on Initial Regional Center Proposal Filings
FY 2010
(Oct 2009 – Sept 2010)
FY 2011 Q1 & Q2
(Oct 2010 – Mar 2011)
# of Initial RC Proposal Filings 110
146 # of Amended RC Proposal Filings 42 55 % of Initial RC Proposals Denied 45% 31% % of RC Amendments Denied 29% 22% Statistics I-526 and I-829 Petitions
(Recall that petitions are not necessarily adjudicated in the year in which they are received!)
# of I-526 Received # of I-526 Approvals % of I-526 Approved FY11 Q1 & Q2 1601 407 81% FY10 1955 1369 89% FY09 1028 1262 86% FY08 1257 640 84% FY07 776 473 76% FY06 486 336 73% FY05 332 179 53%
# of I-829 Received # of I-829 Approvals % of I-829 Approved FY11 Q1 & Q2 1150 166 86% FY10 768 274 83% FY09 437 347 86% FY08 390 159 70% FY07 194 111 69% FY06 89 106 64% FY05 37 184 62% USCIS noted that it is still working on a system to distinguish RC from stand-alone filings and that an estimated 90-95% of I-526 petitions are currently associated with Regional Centers.
EB-5 Visa Statistics
Total EB-5 Visas Issued FY11 Q1 & Q2 2,129* FY10 1,885 FY09 4,218 FY08 1,360 FY07 806 FY06 744 * preliminary estimate
May 19, 2011 Leave a comment
Wow, it’s really happening! USCIS has posted its proposed changes to processing of EB-5 cases, and comments are invited! Opportunities for expedited processing are offered! Review by experts is promised! Director Mayorkas just emailed us as follows.
Dear Stakeholder –
As many of you know, we at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are reviewing our policies and practices to ensure our careful and thoughtful administration of our nation’s immigration laws. A hallmark of our review is our engagement with you; your ideas and comments inform our decisions as we strive to implement the best ideas.Through our review, your input, and other analysis, we have identified needed improvements to a wide array of policies and practices. Some of these improvements have been implemented and many are to follow. We look forward to your feedback as we make continued progress on these improvements.
As part of our broad review, and echoing President Obama’s call to promote immigrants’ entrepreneurial spirit, we have focused on the Immigrant Investor Program, commonly referred to as the EB-5 Program. It is a program designed to attract investors and entrepreneurs from around the world to create jobs in America. In the two decades since its creation, the EB-5 Program has never met the annual cap of 10,000 visas.
The EB-5 Program often involves complex applications and sophisticated business projects that require prompt attention and expert review in order to achieve their potential. Our focus on this program, and the input you have provided, has led us to propose a series of significant improvements to it. These changes include an accelerated adjudications process, with premium processing; the creation of specialized intake teams to handle the Form I-924 applications, coupled with the applicants’ ability to communicate directly with the specialized intake teams via email; and, the creation of an expert Decision Board to render decisions on the applications and to afford applicants with an in-person or telephonic interview to resolve issues.
In keeping with our commitment to soliciting your ideas and input, we have posted the proposal for public comment on the Operational Proposals for Comment page. We will accept your comments at opefeedback@uscis.dhs.gov for 20 business days, until June 17, 2011.
We recognize the importance of the EB-5 Program and its goal of creating jobs. We recognize the importance of all of our policies and practices in realizing the goals of our nation’s immigration system. Thank you for working with us in service of those goals.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas
Director
EB-5 Updates 