Proposed New EB-5 Regs (priority dates, investment amounts, TEAs)

On January 13, the Federal Register is publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule-making titled EB-5 Investor Program Modernization (DHS Docket No. USCIS 2016-0006). The notice proposes and explains the rationale behind new EB-5 regulations on priority dates, investment amounts, and targeted employment areas, among other changes. The Notice gives a comment period ending on April 11, 2017, and the regulation amendments could go live at any time after that point – though I assume not very soon thereafter, since the notice solicits and will presumably receive extensive public comment.

Summary of Proposed Regulation Amendments in DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006

1. Priority Dates: Allow an EB-5 petitioner to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 petition for any subsequently-filed petition. (In other words, an investor with an approved I-526 in one project could choose to file a new I-526 in a different project while keeping the original priority date. This would benefit investors whose project or regional center has trouble after petition approval, but before the investor receives a visa number. The regulations do not restrict investor reasons for choosing to file a new petition.)
2. Investment Amounts: Increase the standard minimum investment amount to account for inflation, reduce the differential between standard and TEA investment amounts, and implement automatic increases every five years based on inflation (rounded to the nearest 100,000).  Based on CPI increases since investment amounts were set in 1990, this means that the standard minimum investment would become $1,800,000 in 2017. The TEA amount, set at 75% of the standard, would be $1,350,000 in 2017. The investor would be required to contribute the minimum investment amount that is designated at the time the petition is filed.
3. Targeted Employment Areas: Eliminate state designation of TEAs, and have DHS determine TEA qualification by applying its own uniform standards to evidence presented by investors and regional centers. For high-unemployment TEAs, DHS would only designate an MSA, county, city, or project tracts. (A project tract TEA is the census tract where the project is located, or a group comprising any or all census tracts that touch the tract where the project is located — but not a group including any indirectly connected census tracts). The regulations do not specify which unemployment data DHS would use or accept. (This document compares TEA regulations in the proposed regulations to current policy and legislative proposals.)
4. Other technical changes: define a process by which derivatives may file Form I-829 if not included on the principal’s position; provide greater flexibility in selecting the I-829 interview location; remove the requirement that investors report to a district office in order to receive a permanent resident card; miscellaneous other changes (including clarifying that an investor can be sufficiently engaged in an NCE merely by virtue of being an equity holder, without requiring a management or other active role).

The notice goes into extensive detail about USCIS’s thinking and research behind the proposed changes (which is interesting in itself, even apart from context), and invites stakeholders to respond with equally substantial data and analysis. I look forward to IIUSA or others stepping up to help organize a serious stakeholder response. We need to do better than hundreds of individual stakeholders mailing to basically just say “this would hurt” and “we don’t like change.” (Update: Comments can be reviewed at this link.)

The regulators at USCIS and legislators in Congress share similar goals — to modernize the EB-5 program and change certain aspects of the program in need of reform — but so far the draft legislation and proposed regulations suggest quite different changes. I wonder whether Congressional staffers will be influenced by these Notices of Proposed Rule-Making as they continue to refine legislation. (Update: The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 8 to discuss the proposed regulations.) I note that the draft regulations frequently reference Congressional intent as expressed around 1990, but not current discussions in Congress.

Policy Manual EB-5 Section: What’s New

The EB-5 program just shifted onto a new and slightly different foundation. USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part G, published today, is now the controlling source for EB-5 policy guidance. Usually we get a review and comment period before new policy goes live, but the effective date for this policy (which I’ll call PM 6G for short) is November 30, 2016.

PM 6G consolidates and replaces (and expands on) the May 2013 EB-5 Policy Memo, EB-5 sections in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual, and other related prior USCIS guidance. It’s intended as a compendium of existing policy, but it’s not identical to the previous guidance. Here are significant points that I notice (based on reading PM 6G side-by-side with the May 2013 Policy Memo, and consulting my memory).

PM 6G introduces a few new petition filing instructions:

• Chapter 3(B)(3) states that a regional center I-526 petition for a project not previously reviewed by USCIS must identify the project “as an actual project being presented for the first time,” and  “should contain an affirmative statement signed by a regional center principal confirming that the regional center is aware of the specific project being presented for the first time as part of the immigrant investor petition.”
• Chapter 4(A) states that a regional center I-526 petition for a project previously reviewed by USCIS must submit the previously-approved documentation together with the investor’s documents. This is required even though the regional center previously submitted the documentation with the Form I-924. The petition must also include a copy of the regional center’s most recently-issued approval letter.
• Chapter 5(B) states that a I-829 petition must include relevant documents previously submitted with the Form I-526, including the comprehensive business plan and economic impact analysis, if the petitioner is relying on such documents to meet his or her burden of proof. “This information is necessary to indicate whether there are material changes that would impact deference.”

PM 6G includes a few items that might be arguable as new policy:

• Chapter 2(A)1 has a section on “using loan proceeds as capital”
• Chapter 2(D)4 says that “USCIS may request additional evidence that the indirect jobs created, or to be created, are full time.” (The May 2013 Policy Memo had stated the opposite: “Due to the nature of accepted job creation modeling practices, which do not distinguish whether jobs are full- or part-time, USCIS relies upon the reasonable economic models to determine that it is more likely than not that the indirect jobs are created and will not request additional evidence to validate the job creation estimates in the economic models to prove by a greater level of certainty that the indirect jobs created, or to be created, are full-time or permanent.” We need to get PM 6G revised to reflect that reasonable approach.) Chapter 2(D)(4) also confusingly defines direct jobs in the context of regional center job creation and economic analysis as “those jobs that establish an employer-employee relationship between the new commercial enterprise and the persons it employs.” This should be revised or expanded to reflect the alternate meaning of a “direct” job that is in fact used by economic models.
• Chapter 2(D)6 incorporates the content of the 12/20/2012 Operational Guidance on tenant occupancy
• Chapter 3(D) says that amendments are optional for changing a regional center’s “industries of focus, business plans, or economic methodologies,” but does not say that amendments are optional for a change in geographic boundaries.  The May 2013 Policy Memo had included geographic boundaries on the list of changes for which an amendment was not required.
• Chapter 5(B) defines a first-in policy for allocating jobs to EB-5 investors, absent other agreement  (departing from the recent practice of saying no investors get jobs if there aren’t enough for all and there isn’t a job allocation agreement)

PM 6G provides some new examples, clarifications, and re-emphasis:

• Chapter 2(A)2 lists types of documents that can be used to help demonstrate source of funds
• Chapter 2(A)2 lists “administrative fees, management fees, attorneys’ fees, finders’ fees, syndication fees” as examples of expenses that will be considered to erode capital made available to the job-creating entity, if paid out of the EB-5 qualifying investment amount
• Chapter 2(A)5 repeats the old point that TEA qualification is determined for each petitioner based on the  project location’s TEA status at the time of that petitioner’s investment or I-526 filing, while re-emphasizing the implication that the project location is not necessarily a TEA for all time, and just because some early investors qualified for the reduced investment amount isn’t determinative for later investors in the same project
• Chapter 2(D)3 lists examples of evidence to be provided for a job-sharing arrangement in order to show that it truly involves job share of a full-time position, and not combination of part-time positions
• Chapter 2(D)5 re-emphasizes that a reasonable economic methodology must be based on reasonable inputs, and gives examples of economic model inputs and relevant documentation to help establish their reasonableness. This discussion is repeated in Chapter 5(B), with odd lack of distinction between evidence required at the I-526 and I-829 stage.
• Chapter 3(A) describes new detail required of the operational plan filed with the I-924 Application for Regional Center
• Chapter 3(B)1 suggests specific content for the “general proposals and predictions” in a regional center application relying on hypothetical projects
• Chapter 3(E) describes the process and issues in regional center termination
• Chapter 4(C) and 5(C) discuss material change in terms of the same principles but with different language and different examples from the May 2013 Policy Memo. Unlike the memo, the manual discusses and gives examples of changes that would NOT count as material.
• Chapter 5(B) tries to discuss evidence for regional center job creation at the I-829 stage, but needs more work to clearly address issues specific to regional center as distinct from direct investments, and to differentiate what’s required at I-829 from what’s required at I-526
• Chapter 5(B)1 gives examples of kinds of construction jobs that do and don’t count as intermittent

What is the significance of PM 6G?  For investors, I guess it doesn’t make much difference because it doesn’t include major policy changes (yet) and basically says what their consultants knew already. It will just be a handy place to find all EB-5 policy, being more comprehensive and better written than the May 2013 memo. Attorneys will want to get busy finding problems and commenting on details that need to be changed.  I’ll have to spend Christmas going through years of blog posts and other documents updating the content and citations to reference PM 6G instead of the various superseded guidance and policy sources (and maybe spend Easter the same way when PM 6G gets revised based on new regulations). I dislike the fluidity of the online Policy Manual, and for myself am copying the content into stable old-fashioned page-numbered documents with navigation.(Here is a link to my folder, which I expect will eventually include many dated versions. You’re welcome to share, keeping in mind that the online manual is the most reliable source for the most current content.)

I look forward to linking to other reactions on the manual here, and may modify my own comments in this post.

Policy Manual EB-5 announcement

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [mailto:uscis@public.govdelivery.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 9:29 AM
Subject: USCIS Message: Policy Manual Available for Comment Employment-Based Fifth Preference Immigrants: Investors

Dear Stakeholder,

USCIS seeks your input on the USCIS Policy Manual item listed below which contains either new or revised policy guidance. Please note that this item is effective as of the date shown below.

Type of Document for Comment: USCIS Policy Manual
Title of Document: Employment-Based Fifth Preference Immigrants: Investors
Related Documents: Policy Alert
Opening & Closing Dates for Comment: November 30, 2016 – December 14, 2016
Effective Date of Policy: November 30, 2016

Please send all comments to publicengagementfeedback@uscis.dhs.gov and be sure to include the following to make your comments clear:

State the title of the relevant volume and section in the subject line of your message;
Refer to a specific portion of the document;
Explain the reason for any recommended change; and
Include data, information, or authority that supports the recommendation.

If you are unable to access the document through the link provided above, please do the following:

1. Go to www.uscis.gov/outreach
2. Select “Feedback Opportunities” on the left side of the page
3. Select “Policy Manual for Comment” on the left side of the page

Kind Regards,

USCIS Public Engagement Division

Final Fee Rule, Processing Updates, RC Withdrawal

Today the Federal Register published U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule, a final rule adjusting the fees required for most immigration applications and petitions. USCIS invites stakeholders to participate in a Fee Rule Engagement teleconference on November 2, 2016 from 3:30 to 4:30 PM EST. (To register, click on the USCIS registration page.)

The final rule is similar to the proposed rule that we reviewed this summer, with the addition of DHS response to public comments. Here are the portions of the rule particularly significant to EB-5 (summarized from PDF pages 17-20, 30-31, and 41 of the final rule).

Fee Increases

EB-5 petitions and applications become more expensive to file as of December 23, 2016.

The fee increase for Form I-924 is especially drastic, and I’m surprised to discover that USCIS apparently did not hear public feedback on its two most obvious problems: that it was assessed based on inaccurate assumptions about regional center revenue, and that it will discourage regional centers from voluntarily using I-924 to file the amendment requests and Exemplar I-526 that USCIS wants to encourage. IIUSA and AILA – did you drop the ball on commenting, or did USCIS just not pay attention? But the rule is final now, so we live with it. And Regional Centers, you might want to hustle to file any exemplars and amendments before December 23.

Processing Issues

• The rule does not promise that fee increases will bring improved service for EB-5 petitions. The rule states that higher fees will be used to recover costs needed to sustain current operating levels, pay a share of services that DHS provides on a fee-exempt basis to others, bolster IPO’s fraud detection and national security capabilities, and make limited investments in technological improvements to bolster information security. These uses have merit, but none are directly linked to improved EB-5 processing times. But the rule does claim that the new I-924 fee “was, in part, calculated to allow USCIS to hire additional staff to process Forms I–924 and provide better and more thorough service.”
• The rule includes in passing this interesting tidbit on how IPO currently handles I-829 adjudications:

DHS appreciates the suggestions for improving EB–5 processing times. DHS clarifies that USCIS already has processes in place to streamline adjudication of the business-related portions of multiple Forms I-829 associated with a single, new investment project. Specifically, when USCIS receives a regional center-associated Form I–829 that involves a new commercial enterprise, USCIS reviews the first two petitions associated with that new commercial enterprise to determine if there are specific project-related issues that would apply to all petitioners associated with the new commercial enterprise. After completing that review, USCIS commences adjudication of all Forms I–829 associated with that new commercial enterprise filed within a given period. Similarly, when USCIS receives a regional center-associated Form I–829 that involves a previously reviewed commercial enterprise, USCIS immediately assigns that petition for adjudication. In other words, USCIS currently adjudicates Form I–829 petitions in ‘‘first in, first out’’ order by new commercial enterprises.

• The rule gives the welcome news that “USCIS is transforming how it calculates and posts processing time information to improve the timeliness of such postings, but more importantly, to achieve greater transparency of USCIS case processing.” To that end, “USCIS is evaluating the feasibility of calculating processing times using data generated directly from case management systems, rather than with self-reported performance data provided by Service Centers and Field Offices” and “USCIS is also considering publishing processing times using a range rather than using one number or date. This approach would show that, for example, half of cases are decided in between X and Y number of months.” (Or, as Sir. Humphrey Appleby might say: of course we understand that you want a usable processing report, and have convened an interdepartmental committee to conduct a feasibility study that will make recommendations at the appropriate juncture, in due course, when the moment is ripe, in the fullness of time. Rome wasn’t built in a day.)
• The rule says that “USCIS does not have immediate plans to allow electronic filing for EB–5 requests, but appreciates commenters’ desire to avoid voluminous paper filings. USCIS plans to allow electronic filing for EB–5 requests in the future.”

Regional Center Withdrawal Procedure

The rule recognizes the problem that “Currently, there is no procedure for regional centers seeking to withdraw their designation and discontinue their participation in the program,” and offers to provide a withdrawal procedure to “allow a regional center to proactively request withdrawal without the need for the more formal notices sent out by DHS.” To this end, the rule amends the EB-5 regulations, replacing 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6) with the text I quote below. The new language is similar to the previous 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6) except that it adds failure to pay fees as a reason for termination and adds a rather vague paragraph stating that a regional center may notify USCIS by letter or other means if it wishes to withdraw from the program. The paragraph does not clarify what the letter should include, where it should be sent, what kind of decision USCIS has to make about the letter, and to what extent such a regional center will be treated differently from another whose designation is terminated involuntarily.

PART 204—IMMIGRANT PETITIONS
■ 8. Section 204.6 is amended by revising paragraph (m)(6) to read as follows:

• 204.6 Petitions for employment creation aliens.

* * * * * (m) * * *
(6) Continued participation requirements for regional centers.
 (i) Regional centers approved for participation in the program must:

(A) Continue to meet the requirements of section 610(a) of the Appropriations Act.

(B) Provide USCIS with updated information annually, and/or as otherwise requested by USCIS, to demonstrate that the regional center is continuing to promote economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment in the approved geographic area, using a form designated for this purpose; and

(C) Pay the fee provided by 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(XX).

(ii) USCIS will issue a notice of intent to terminate the designation of a regional center in the program if:

(A) A regional center fails to submit the information required in paragraph (m)(6)(i)(B) of this section, or pay the associated fee; or

(B) USCIS determines that the regional center no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.

(iii) A notice of intent to terminate the designation of a regional center will be sent to the regional center and set forth the reasons for termination.
(iv) The regional center will be provided 30 days from receipt of the notice of intent to terminate to rebut the ground or grounds stated in the notice of intent to terminate.
(v) USCIS will notify the regional center of the final decision. If USCIS determines that the regional center’s participation in the program should be terminated, USCIS will state the reasons for termination. The regional center may appeal the final termination decision in accordance with 8 CFR 103.3.
(vi) A regional center may elect to withdraw from the program and request a termination of the regional center designation. The regional center must notify USCIS of such election in the form of a letter or as otherwise requested by USCIS. USCIS will notify the regional center of its decision regarding the withdrawal request in writing.

RC designation: use it or lose it (AAO termination decisions)

What is an EB-5 regional center? What kind of tool is the regional center program meant to be? These questions do not have clear answers. We can see USCIS’s uncertainty in its continually changing template for regional center designation letters, with each iteration giving a slightly different statement of what’s being designated exactly and what responsibilities are inherent in designation. AAO challenged USCIS’s fuzzy standards for approving or denying regional center applications in the I-924 denial decision discussed in my previous post (Matter of A-C-R-C). And now the ambiguity around what defines a regional center in the first place is spilling into ambiguity about how a regional center lives or dies. USCIS has terminated 62 regional centers, mostly within the last year. Two centers that appealed their terminations give us insight into USCIS thinking about the nature of regional center designation (see the 2016 Termination appeals folder on the USCIS website).

I’ll focus on JUN202016_01K2610 Matter of A-L-V- LLC (presumably referring to American Life Ventures Everett, LLC, which was terminated in March 2015) because it’s such a clean case. USCIS and the AAO grant that A-L-V pursued multiple potential EB-5 projects over the years, filed I-924A on time every year, and was not involved in any kind of trouble, but nevertheless deserved termination based on failure to promote economic growth. A-L-V (which was designated in 2008) argued that potential projects had not been developed as actual projects due to and out respect for economic conditions, that the regulations do not expressly state that a regional center must be ready to sponsor a project within a particular timeframe and provide marketing related information, and furthermore that its efforts in actively and continuously pursuing EB-5 projects demonstrate that it is promoting economic growth. Neither USCIS nor AAO accepted these arguments. For them, the bottom line was that A-L-V had not raised EB-5 investment and was not actively engaged in soliciting investors (and thus that NCEs and JCEs has not been formed and EB-5 investment had not created jobs) for eight years. A-L-V was not given credit for prudence or high standards in taking time to choose viable and appropriate projects before pursuing EB-5 offerings.

The following paragraphs are copied in both the 2016 termination decisions, which makes me think that they reflect a formal statement from USCIS that deserves careful attention.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) defines a regional center as “any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” In order for the regional center to demonstrate such economic growth, it “must provide updated information to demonstrate the center is continuing to promote economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment in the approved geographic area … on an annual basis,” through the filing of its annual Form I-924A. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0083, supra, at 23; 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6). The phrase “continuing to promote economic growth” indicates that the regional center has previously promoted economic growth and is presently doing so. In determining whether the regional center has promoted economic growth and is continuing to do so, several factors should be collectively considered. These aspects include the amount of aggregate immigrant capital and aggregate direct and indirect job creation or preservation; the number of industries that have been the focus of immigrant investment capital investments; the total new commercial enterprises (NCEs) or job creating enterprises (JCEs); and the quantity of Forms 1-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, and Forms l-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, that have been filed reflecting capital investments sponsored by the Applicant.

The EB-5 Program provides for flexibility in the types and amounts of capital that can be invested, the types of commercial enterprises into which the capital can be invested, and how the resulting jobs can be created. This flexibility serves the promotion of investment and job creation and recognizes the dynamics of the business world in which the EB-5 Program exists. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0083, supra, at 27. Application of this flexibility will vary based on circumstances. For example, it is reasonable to provide greater flexibility to a regional center with a more recent USCIS designation whereas a regional center with a longer period of designation that has not shown any economic growth to the geographic area, may receive less flexibility. In addition; the regional center’s progress in developing actual projects should be taken into account, including the steps taken to identity and pursue developmental projects, how the projects have progressed in the pipeline, and the likelihood of those projects promoting economic growth in the immediate future. Moreover, USCIS may consider any reasonable, temporary delays, such as natural disasters or litigation, which may have prevented the regional center from promoting economic growth in a timely manner, and any alternative plans or actions taken as a result of unexpected delays. This flexibility, however, is not an open-ended allowance in which the regional center can indefinitely explore potential projects or remain stagnant on either a hypothetical or actual plan.

Let’s think about the answer to the question “What is an EB-5 regional center?” that’s implied in the A-L-V termination and this statement. The answer I’m getting is: “A regional center is an entity engaged in raising EB-5 capital and developing EB-5 projects.” This definition appears to protect regional centers with an active EB-5 offering, and also regional centers that are not shy about promoting EB-5 to investors despite not yet having a viable project. This definition threatens entities who applied for regional center designation in order to have EB-5 available as one tool in the toolkit, while also using other economic development and financing tools. Indeed two of the most recent regional center terminations were of economic development agencies that appear to be reputable and active in promoting economic growth generally. But I guess they did not sponsor an EB-5 project within the timeframe that USCIS considered necessary to maintain regional center designation. This aggressive “use it or lose it” stance is counterproductive. Why wouldn’t we want public agencies and other virtuous parties to be able to treat regional center EB-5 as one of several economic development and financing tools – something to have on hand and ready to use if and when the need arises, although EB-5 is only the right tool in select cases, and would be used only occasionally? It’s not as if the designation taken away from Little City Economic Development Corporation opens a new place for someone else – so why revoke it?  I guess that USCIS is panicking because ill-defined designation standards have produced a roster of 800+ regional centers of wildly varying character and motivation, and now it’s faced with the challenge of culling the crowd.  Culling may be necessary, but something’s not right when public agencies and active but over-prudent RCs are among the first victims. (For more discussion, see the comments.)

UPDATE: I recommend Joseph Whalen’s Position Paper Presented to IPO on RC Termination.