2015 Q3 Petition Processing

August 24, 2015 5 Comments

Because we’d all like to see some upward-trending lines for a change today, here are charts showing EB-5 petition processing statistics for the first three quarters of FY2015. The third quarter stats are not official yet, but I calculated them from numbers verbally reported by IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci at last week’s stakeholder engagement. (UPDATE: now they are official, and posted here by USCIS  here.) The improvement in I-526 processing volume is particularly significant and heartening.
Q32015I526 Q32015I829

We also learned from Mr. Colucci that I-924 submissions have spiked, with 252 receipts since the beginning of the fiscal year and about 55 filed in July alone.

The Q&A portion of the teleconference provided some interesting insights into the huge variation we see in processing times, with some approvals coming through in weeks and others dragging on for years. Julia Harrison admitted that a bunch of 2012 and 2013 cases had gotten out of order for various reasons, particularly in connection with the moves from the California Service Center and then between facilities in Washington D.C., and that USCIS was now prioritizing older cases that had fallen through the cracks. USCIS confirmed that they do have separate workflows for RC and non-RC cases, and that the direct EB-5 workflow has gotten much slower. This contradicts a rumor I’ve heard promoted that direct cases can expect faster processing than RC cases, but USCIS stated that they’re working hard to bridge the gap between the RC and direct workflows.
The chart of IPO processing times is not so pretty (and also not very informative, considering that the standard deviation seems to be 12 months), but here it is (based on times posted here).
IPOtimes

Filed under EB-5 Statistics, Updates from USCIS

USCIS reminder not to use DHS Seal or Signature

August 14, 2015 Leave a comment

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [mailto:uscis@public.govdelivery.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:30 PM
Subject: USCIS Message: Unauthorized Use of the DHS Seal

Dear Stakeholder,

USCIS would like to remind you that no one, including EB-5 regional centers, may use the official U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seal without first obtaining express written approval from the Secretary of DHS or the Secretary’s designee. The Secretary’s express written approval is also required to use the DHS seal coupled with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) signature.

If an EB-5 regional center or related entity displays the DHS seal or USCIS signature on its website, electronic and printed forms, or promotional and marketing materials without express written approval, USCIS may refer the regional center or related entity to the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission for further action.

If you use the DHS seal or USCIS signature without approval, you may be:

·        Improperly implying that the U.S. government is endorsing the regional center,

·        Inaccurately suggesting a special relationship with USCIS,

·        Engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practice under 15 U.S.C. §§ 45 and 52, and

·        Violating U.S. criminal statutes which protect the DHS seal and USCIS signature and which address the improper use of federal agencies’ seals, official badges, identification cards and other insignia. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 506, 701 and 1017.

Improper use of the DHS seal and USCIS signature can confuse the public and prevent them from being able to identify what communications are officially from DHS or USCIS. This negatively impacts DHS’ and USCIS’ ability to effectively communicate with the American public. Therefore, DHS only permits the use of the DHS seal and USCIS signature for very specific purposes.

For information on how to request approval to use the DHS seal, visit this DHS page.

Kind Regards,

USCIS Public Engagement Division

Please do not reply to this message. Contact us at Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov or USCIS-IGAOutreach@uscis.dhs.gov with any questions.

Filed under Updates from USCIS

RC Reauthorization Status, New RCs

August 6, 2015 4 Comments

Reauthorization Status
The current authorization of the Regional Center program is set to expire after September 30, 2015, and timely reauthorization is looking doubtful what with our representatives being on vacation much of the time between now and then, and with none of the proposed/pending legislation looking advisable to pass without discussion and revision. What will happen on October 1 if Congress hasn’t acted in time? We also asked this question in 2012, last time the program was up for reauthorization, and got vague answers from USCIS (“This as a question that will just have to be addressed when and if it occurs, and the Service does not have a response at this time” was the message at the 1/23/2012 EB-5 stakeholder meeting. The 5/1/2012 EB-5 stakeholder meeting executive summary stated that all existing regional center designations would expire automatically and that USCIS would not approve new Regional Center designations, but did not comment on what would happen with Regional Center-associated investor petitions.). We’ll see what USCIS has to say in next week’s engagement (8/13/2015). In the meantime, advocacy groups (IIUSA, EB5 Coalition) are still pressing for timely action, and we may after all get a bill passed at around 11:58 pm on the 30th, as has happened before. Here are the proposals on the horizon, so far as I know.

    • S.1501 – American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015. Sponsored by Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Grassley (R-IA). Introduced in the Senate on June 3, 2015, referred to committee, and much analyzed and largely panned since then by the EB-5 community. The bill’s good aspects – that it extends (by five years) and seeks to improve the Regional Center program and is sponsored by important people – seem outweighed by its problems – that its provisions would drastically redirect and severely curtail the scope of the RC program (discouraging large raises, large projects and urban development in favor of small EB-5-dominated projects in rural areas), and that it brands the RC program as a hotbed of corruption and proposes ham-fisted measures that wouldn’t necessarily forestall bad actors, who can be glibber than most in attesting virtue, but would place an unwieldly regulatory burden and risk on people actually trying to do things right. IIUSA reports that they continue to have close discussions with the bill’s drafters – and other relevant Senate offices – as alternative language is considered by the sponsoring offices.
    • H.R.3370 – To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, and for other purposes. Sponsored by Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). Introduced in the House on July 29, 2015, and referred to committee. I think this is a pretty good bill (aside from being nearly unreadable in bill form – read Rep. Lofgren’s section summary first before you try the legislation itself or you’ll get confused). The bill proposes a couple new EB visa categories in Title I (I don’t see the proposed EB-6 category being used much, as VC risk/unpredictability and immigration aren’t a great mix, but in any case it wouldn’t take visas away from or otherwise affect the EB-5 program) and discusses the EB-5 Regional Center program in Title II (starting on p. 17). The bill would permanently authorize the RC program, double the qualifying EB-5 investment amount (which is a leap, but not unreasonable considering investor visa thresholds in other countries), open the possibility of doubling the annual EB-5 visa allocation, and make other changes that I think would generally improve the footing of the EB-5 program. The proposals regarding TEAs and job creation (p. 38-41) strike me as particularly well-considered and reasonable. The concurrent filing and premium processing provisions would be very popular (though with a fee of only $5000, I believe that 100% of EB-5 petitioners would go for premium processing, making the service impossible to deliver in practice). The proposals for improved program integrity in this bill look serious but largely reasonable and justifiable rather than punitive and alarmist, as in S.1501. I’m just concerned that this bill, like S.1501, charges USCIS to regulate – and holds RCs responsible for keeping in line – a constellation of people who we’d all like to see controlled but who are not necessarily amenable to control by either RCs or USCIS. USCIS is supposed to work with the FBI to conduct background checks of and Regional Centers may be heavily sanctioned based on the behavior of anyone who can be considered “involved” with a regional center or an associated commercial enterprise (i.e. “if he or she is the principal, representative, administrator, owner, officer, board member, manager, executive, general partner, fiduciary, marketer, promoter, director, or other similar position of substantial authority for the operations, management, or promotion of the regional center or associated commercial enterprise, respectively”). In practice, does this mean that FBI agents have to show up at the offices of licensed migration agents in China who happen to be sourcing investors for Regional Centers and say okay hands out everybody, we’re taking fingerprints? How will the Chinese government feel about the US coming in to lay down the law in a domain that it is concerned to regulate itself and to protect from foreign influence? Considering that most EB-5 offers are made entirely abroad, and often by independent third parties who owe first allegiance to their own local regulations, how would Regional Centers handle the requirement “to monitor and supervise all offers and sales of securities which are made by associated commercial enterprises to ensure compliance with the securities laws of the United States, and to maintain records, data, and information relating to all such offers and sales of securities”? Certainly the selling and investor recruitment process is a major challenge, complication and source of confusion and vulnerability for the EB-5 program and for Regional Centers and deserves to be addressed, but easier said than done.
    • H.R. 616 American Entrepreneurship and Investment Act of 2015. Sponsored by Representative Polis (D-CO) and Amodi (R-NV), and now with 22 co-sponsors. Introduced in the House January 28, 2015, referred to committee March 17, 2015. This bill proposes permanently authorizing the Regional Center program without overhauling it, and briefly suggests a few modest and generally-welcome clarifications and improvements. I don’t know why this bill hasn’t gained more traction – possibly because the general mood seems to be that the program needs some significant changes if it’s to be made permanent.
    • Rumor has it that Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Representative Darrel Issa (R-CA) plan to introduce legislation in early September that will be similar to their SKILLS Act (HR2131) proposal from last year, with some additions. As originally written, this bill proposed new EB-6 and EB-7 categories (defined differently from Lofgren’s), tweaked a bunch of visa categories, and had one line about the Regional Center program, proposing to make it permanent. The new version will reportedly include some additional EB-5 program changes, but less drastic than those in S.1501.

Carolyn Lee has assembled a handy bill comparison chart. See also Pat Hogan’s letter on the mood in Washington as of Sept. 2015.

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 6/23/2015 to 8/3/2015

  • American Coast Regional Center (California)
  • EB-5 Impact Capital Regional Center, LLC (California and Nevada)
  • EB5 International, LLC (California): www.eb5international.com
  • EB5 Affiliate Network Washington, D.C. Regional Center, LLC (District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia): eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • Maryland Global Regional Center, LLC (District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia): www.cgrc.info
  • Civitas Northern Florida Regional Center (Florida): www.civitascapital.com
  • EB5 Financing Management Company, LLC (Florida)
  • Civitas Illinois Regional Center (Illinois): www.civitascapital.com
  • EB5 Affiliate Network State of Hawaii Regional Center, LLC (Hawaii): eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • Massachusetts Wealth and Happiness Regional Center, Inc. (Massachusetts)
  • EB5 Affiliate Network State of North Carolina Regional Center, LLC (North Carolina): eb5affiliatenetwork.com
  • Ocean Pacific Regional Center, LLC (Oregon)
  • Harmonia Regional Center, LLC (Texas): harmoniaeb5.com
  • Name Change: Gotham City Regional Center, LLC changed to Silverstein Properties Regional Center LLC (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania): silversteinrc.com

USCIS Website
I also note that USCIS has done a little revamp of the EB-5 section of its website, separating what used to be the main page into two pages, one about the EB-5 program and one about the EB-5 visa but still mysteriously (pointedly?) omitting the informational page that used to be there about the Regional Center program. They do slap a nice big forbidden icon on the link to the list of terminated Regional Centers, a list already with plenty of indignity for the subset of centers that landed there not by fault but by choosing not to continue with the program.

Filed under EB-5 Law & Policy, New RC

SEC Ireeco, State Dept, Economists, New & Removed RCs

June 24, 2015 3 Comments

I have a sleeve full of urgent articles on the nature of the Regional Center program, inspired by legislation debates, and also a desk full of yet more urgent business plans for clients worried about the legislation debates and eager to get their deals filed. So this blog is getting neglected, but here are a few updates.

SEC Action
The SEC has announced charges against a firm for acting as an unregistered broker for EB-5 investors. See the SEC’s press release SEC Charges Unregistered Brokers in EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. Michael Homeier emailed some helpful commentary on this case and Cathy Holmes has written a helpful article. This kind of action is not a surprise. The rules are clear and the SEC has repeatedly stated that it has its eye out for unlicensed persons receiving placement fees for introducing investors to investment offerors. EB-5 is a good place to hunt for this kind of offender, since the field includes many players who know more about immigration than about investment and are thus vulnerable to tripping up on securities issues. This case does not involve fraud, just failure to register, but the consequences are still serious and a good wake-up call for everyone. Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Talk to your counsel and make sure that nothing you’re doing could put you afoul of registration requirements. And recall that paying an improper fee can be just as wrong as receiving it. People who allege that EB-5 is a free-for-all should also take note of this SEC announcement, which reflects the fact that EB-5 investments are indeed regulated just like any other security.

State Department Update
The cut-off date for mainland China-born EB-5 visa applicants moved from May 1, 2013 to September 1, 2013, as of the July Visa Bulletin. This is good news, and means more Chinese investors who’ve passed I-526 can get in the queue to receive visas.

USCIS Updates
USCIS has posted notes from the June 4 stakeholder engagement with economists. The most recent update to IPO processing times (posted July 15) shows a fractional dip in I-526 times (to 13.4 months) and slight increase to I-829 and I-924 times (to 13.1 and 12.2 months respectively). USCIS has officially suspended its Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) for Form I-526, and the Regional Center Document Library is now inactive — not a surprise, considering feedback from the people who struggled to use these tools. Also note that there’s a new and significantly expanded edition of the Form I-829 (dated 5/7/2015).

New and Removed RCs
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 6/08/2015 to 6/23/2015

Additions to the USCIS Terminated Regional Center List 5/7/2015 to 6/9/2015

  • SZNW (California)
  • EB-5, MRC LLC (Michigan)

Filed under EB-5 in the News, EB-5 Law & Policy, New RC

S.1501 legislation introduced; USCIS engagement on job creation

June 4, 2015 10 Comments

USCIS Engagement with Economics
Today USCIS held its “EB-5 Interactive Series: Expenses that are Includable (or Excludable) for Job Creation.” Here is my recording of the call. When USCIS publishes its summary, and when economists make comments, I’ll link to them here. I didn’t hear anything ground-breaking except for one point that looks inconsistent with written policy, and should eventually be recognized as wrong, so I’ll reserve my comments.
UPDATE: USCIS has posted “talking points” from this engagement.

New legislation introduced into the re-authorization debate
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 1501 (American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act of 2015), legislation to reauthorize and reshape the EB-5 Regional Center program, and to change some aspects of the EB-5 program generally. UPDATE: Yesterday I posted a hasty rant on this bill, which I’ve decided to take down as reader response has encouraged me to look more carefully at the provisions before commenting. Take a look at the bill for yourself and see what you think. I may continue to revise this post with additional commentary.
Probably the best commentary so far on the bill is Two Key Senators Introduce Bill to Extend and Improve EB-5 Program By Stephen Yale-Loehr.

Filed under EB-5 Law & Policy, Updates from USCIS

NYU article, 2015 Q2 Processing Stats, May 5 AAO Killer, New RCs

June 2, 2015 Leave a comment

NYU Article
We now have a final version of the paper “A Roadmap to the Use of EB-5 Capital: An Alternative Financing Tool for Commercial Real Estate Projects” (May 22, 2015) by Professor Jeanne Calderon, Esq. and Guest Lecturer Gary Friedland, Esq. of the NYU Stern School of Business. For real estate developers considering EB-5, this paper is valuable for the database of examples alone, not to mention 70 pages that carefully explain how the program can work for real estate projects. The authors tell me that their project database with ongoing updates will be posted on the NYU Stern School of Business site.

2015 Q2 Processing Stats
USCIS has finally posted official EB-5 petition processing stats for Q2 2015. It’s wonderful to see that IPO is getting up to speed on I-829 processing while also increasing I-526 volumes. Meanwhile, note that volume of petition receipts has fallen each quarter this year.

2015 AAO Decisions on I-526 Cases
So far USCIS has posted four 2015 AAO decisions on appeals of denied I-526 petitions, including three sleepers and a bombshell. APR012015_01B7203 briefly remands the appeal to IPO in light of a court settlement, APR032015_01B7203 comes to an apparently reasonable conclusion that the business plan was not credible and waxes for several pages on “material misrepresentations” and their consequences, MAY082015_01B7203 dissects source of funds problems, and MAY052015_01B7203 pursues a blindly doctrinaire line on the requirement that “the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing.” In the MAY052015_01B7203 case, the offering memorandum filed with the original I-526 had a sentence that USCIS judged an impermissible redemption agreement. All investors signed and submitted an Agreement of Waiver to remove that sentence, and USCIS/the AAO didn’t dispute that the OM+waiver was now compliant but said that the petition still needed to be denied because the waiver post-dated I-526 filing and therefore the petitioner wasn’t technically eligible at the time of filing. This point is fair to the letter of the law, but one wonders, why decide to pound this technicality?  The petitioner did not include evidence of non-EB-5 capital commitments in the first petition filed in 2012, but duly provided the evidence when USCIS got around to requesting it in 2013. But USCIS/the AAO declined to credit the commitment letters provided in part because they post-dated the original I-526 filing. If this standard were applied fairly to all EB-5 cases – if no petitioner could file unless all other funding had been documented as raised before he filed – then multiple-EB-5 investor deals (most of the EB-5 program) would become next to impossible. Further, EB-5 would be limited to the projects that can and are willing to get all the conventional funding they need in the bank one to two years before they can hope to receive EB-5 investment (considering USCIS’s long I-526 processing times, and the common use of EB-5 escrows contingent upon I-526 approvals). In other words, EB-5 would be limited to projects that don’t need EB-5; that can take out their bank loans and go to work right away before investors even file I-526 and regardless of what happens with the I-526 petitions. The AAO decision hammers this point even further in the section that tries to apply the standard that “simply formulating an idea for future business activity, without taking any meaningful concrete action, is similarly insufficient for a petitioner to meet the at-risk requirement.” Specifically, the AAO/USCIS decided that the petitioner had not placed the required amount of capital at risk in part because the contractors who had been engaged to build the subject assisted living facility had not actually started work before the investor filed I-526. Naturally the petitioner needs to show more than a general idea for a future business, but this decision seems arbitrary and unreasonable in its application of the requirement. The business owner says “yes, here are the meaningful concrete actions we have taken” and the AAO lawyer says “no, I don’t think those qualify as a meaningful concrete action; you should’ve gone further” – what is this but an arbitrary judgment made by someone with no clear metric and no claim to qualification to assess the stages in establishing various types of business? And where is the acknowledgement of the one to two-year spanner that USCIS review puts into any development plan? And what would this mean, if applied fairly to all? Again, EB-5 would be limited to 1) projects that don’t actually need EB-5 investment, since they would be required to fully mature prior to/without it; and/or 2) investors who don’t really care about the EB-5 visa, such that they can develop projects well in advance of and independent of the fate of their EB-5 petitions. I think I’m upset about this case partly because it appears to involve the kind of business that many people would like the EB-5 program to support. EB-5 petitioners were providing about half of the capital needed to fund small assisted living facilities in Texas – a business that looks like it could have provided jobs in areas of genuine need and might not have gone forward without the EB-5 investment. Why press interpretations of the regulations that knock out this kind of investment, while further privileging deals that just use EB-5 to take out a few million of existing financing for some multimillion building project that was going ahead anyway? Someone is not thinking very carefully.

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 5/21/2015 to 6/1/2015

  • U.S. Investment Regional Center, LLC (Arizona): usirceb5.com
  • Alexico Los Angeles Regional Center, LLC (California)
  • California Blue Sky Regional Center, LLC (California): Designation Letter
  • California Investment Regional Center, LLC (California): www.eb5-circ.com
  • Economic Development & Investment Group LLLP (California)
  • Gateway California Regional Center (California): www.gatewayeb5.com
  • Western Pacific Regional Center, LLC (California, Oregon, Washington)
  • USEGF Florida Regional Center (Florida)
  • Advantage America Hawaii Regional Center, LLC (Hawaii): www.aaeb5.com
  • GO USA EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (Illinois): www.gousaeb5.com
  • American Regional Center-Las Vegas, LLC (Nevada)
  • Century New York City Regional Center (New York): www.centurynyceb5.com
  • Land of Sky Regional Center, LLC (North Carolina, Tennessee): www.landofskyregionalcenter.com
  • Ohio Lakeside Regional Investment Center (Ohio): www.uslakesideeb5.com
  • The Lawrence Economic Development Corporation (Ohio): www.lawrencecountyohio.org
  • JMIR Texas Mega Metro Regional Center, LLC (Texas)
  • Washington Foreign Investment Management Group, LLC (Washington): www.eb5wfimg.com

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

2013 EB-5 Impact Study, New & Removed RCs

May 22, 2015 Leave a comment

2013 EB-5 Impact Study
Every year IIUSA commissions an economist to analyze data on EB-5 investment amounts and job creation as reported by Regional Centers in their I-924A annual reports. The 2013 report was prepared by the Alward Institute for Collaborative Science, and has been just released — for free! See The Economic Impact and Contribution of the EB-5 Immigration Program 2013, prepared by David Kay. Past reports have been only available for purchase at a hefty rate; this one may be publicly available because IIUSA is hoping to get an updated version shortly based on 2014 annual report data. The report is a wonderful resource because it’s based on professional, peer-reviewed analysis of a comprehensive data set obtained via FOIA request, and helps translate the performance of individual Regional Centers into numbers for GDP and job creation by geographic area and sector.

New & Removed Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 5/11/2015 to 5/22/2015

Additions to the USCIS Terminated Regional Center List 5/23/2015 to 5/22/2015

  • Front Burner Restaurants Regional Center – Southern California(California)
  • Louisiana Mississippi Regional Center (Louisiana, Mississippi)
  • New Jersey Liberty Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Tennessee Regional Center, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Coastal Carolina Regional Center (South Carolina)

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC

Suggested RC program changes (Jeh Johnson letter)

May 21, 2015 2 Comments

The EB-5 Regional Center program needs another reauthorization from Congress before September 30, 2015, and debate is heating up as to what program changes may be packaged with the reauthorization. The last couple program extensions included only minor tweaks (and were for a shorter period than hoped), but some significant changes are likely this time around. An important document in the debate is a April 27, 2015 letter from Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles Johnson to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy (click the link to read the letter). Here’s my summary of (and parenthetical comments on) Secretary Johnson’s proposals:

  • That Congress define additional bases for terminating regional centers and denying applications and petitions, with a particular focus on fraud risk and national security concerns. (This doesn’t look like a big change from current practice, as USCIS has already fit a wide variety of reasons for Regional Center termination under the official justification of “no longer promoting economic growth,” and petitions can already be denied and revoked for fraud and misrepresentation. And one hopes that broader authorization wouldn’t turn into excuse for decisions based on mere suspicion or without notification or due process.)
  • That Congress provide USCIS with the options of fining or temporarily suspending a regional center, in addition to the option of terminating it.
  • That Congress authorize USCIS to require that all regional center principals be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. (This would be an important change from current practice.)
  • That Congress authorize USCIS to prohibit participation in regional centers and commercial enterprises by people with certain criminal and civil violations.
  • That Congress authorize USCIS to request reporting on and certification of regional center compliance with securities laws. (It’s not clear what exactly this would involve, and to what extent such a requirement would put a regional center in the position of having to certify compliance for activities by sellers or loan recipients that it doesn’t control.)
  • That USCIS be authorized to require and publish regional center annual reports that would include project progress reports, description of fund usage, and accounting of job creation. (It’s not clear how this would differ exactly from the current I-924A. With USCIS having omitted for years to follow up on promises to publish I-924A data, and hardly releasing any documents except as forced by FOIA, I’m skeptical of the promise/threat to publish.)
  • That USCIS be authorized to charge regional centers $20,000 per year to fund an “EB-5 Integrity Fund” that would underwrite audits and site visits.
  • That Congress refine the TEA definitions to limit them to a specified number of continuous census tracts and to include closed military bases by default. (Kudos, CMB lobbyists!)
  • That Congress increase the EB-5 investment amount for both TEA and non-TEA investments, and to link the investment amount to an inflation index from now on. (Mr. Johnson does not suggest an amount for the increase, but states that USCIS is separately writing an increased minimum investment into revised regulations.)
  • That Congress authorize USCIS to require regional centers to file business plans and offering documents in advance of individual investor filings. (Apparently, a sort of “dummy-I-526” process, which we’d like if processing times weren’t so long. Mr. Johnson also notes that this requirement is already being incorporated in regulations under revision.)
  • In the letter, Mr. Johnson also notes that he has approved a new protocol specifically defining and limiting how members of the public and Congress may communicate with USCIS, and limiting senior leadership intervention in case adjudications.

Secretary Johnson is not the only one who can write to senators and advocate for changes. Consider getting on board with advocacy efforts and contacting your Congressional representatives to express your views about Regional Center program reauthorization. IIUSA has drafted a letter with helpful comments on suggestions in the Johnson letter.

Filed under EB-5 in the News, Updates from USCIS

New & Removed RCs, Processing Times, Websites, Multifamily, NYT, Best Practices

May 15, 2015 Leave a comment

New & Removed Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 4/28/2015 to 5/11/2015

  • Golden State Economic Development Fund, LLC (California)
  • Encore Midwest Regional Center, LLC (Illinois and Missouri): encoreeb5.com
  • White Lotus Group Regional Center (Iowa and Nebraska)
  • Liberty Minnesota Regional Center (Minnesota and Wisconsin): libertyregionalcenters.com
  • American Regional Center Opportunity Fund, LLC (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania)
  • Vistar’s EB-5 Business Alliance of Texas LLC (Texas)

Additions to the USCIS Terminated Regional Center List 4/22/2015 to 5/7/2015

  • LaSalle County Business Development Center (LCBDC) (Illinois)
  • US HITEC Regional Center (Illinois)
  • Tennessee Regional Center, LLC (Tennessee)

Other Items of Note

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

4/22 Meeting Statements, New RCs, RC Terminations

April 29, 2015 Leave a comment

Note that the prepared remarks of Chief Colucci and Deputy Chief Harrison from the April 22 EB-5 Stakeholder Meeting have been posted on the USCIS website. So long as stakeholder engagements are about making statements, it is very nice to get these statements in written form.

New & Removed Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 4/13/2015 to 4/27/2015

Additions to the USCIS Terminated Regional Center List 3/28/2015 to 4/21/2015

  • Nevada California Regional Center (California, Nevada)

Regional Centers spooked by the growing list of terminations may be interested in Robert Divine’s article “Regional Center Terminations” on p. 18 of the March 2015 Regional Center Business Journal. Mr Divine discusses the process, reasons for, and consequences of termination. Recall that blatant securities violations are just one reason for termination, with others including lack of activity, failure to file Form I-924a, USCIS rejection of the model used for project development, and USCIS accusations of misreporting or mismanagement. In the April 22nd EB-5 stakeholder meeting, Chief Colucci revealed that the majority of recent Regional Center terminations have been associated with the Form I-924A, based on lack of filing or on matters raised during I-924A review. With that in mind, the article “Form I-924A as a National Security and Fraud Detection Tool” by Andersson and Bulter (p. 21 in the March 2015 RCBJ linked above) is also essential reading for Regional Centers. The article describes the I-924A review process as revealed by published DHS reports and an internal USCIS document (included, probably by accident, in a response to an IIUSA FOIA request). Reading about the process, it’s clear that USCIS is trying to be serious about Regional Center oversight. They will not only read the Form but screen program principals and investment entities through TECS (the modified Treasury Enforcement Communications System), coordinate with USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security in case of any questions, examine the Regional Center website for red flags (including use of USCIS logo, implication of USCIS endorsement, and guarantee of repayment or visa), perform Internet searches for derogatory information, scrutinize foreign ownership, and examine results from USCIS’s iCLAIMS database.

Filed under New RC, Updates from USCIS

4/22 Stakeholder Disengagement

April 22, 2015 1 Comment

UPDATE: The prepared remarks of Chief Colucci and Deputy Chief Harrison have been posted on the USCIS website. Thank you USCIS!

I apologize for reminding you to call in to today’s EB-5 stakeholder “engagement.” What a waste of time. I’ve uploaded my recording as usual on the off chance that anyone wants to repeat the ordeal, and hope that my groans aren’t too audible in the background. Here is a summary of call content with time references to the recording:

  • [2:04 – 9:24] IPO Chief Nicholas Colucci gives an update on staffing levels, processing volumes, and Regional Center terminations.
  • [9:25 – 15:18] IPO Deputy Chief Julia Harrison reiterates but doesn’t explain or justify USCIS’s new stand on cash as indebtedness and loan proceeds as qualifying capital (investor source of funds issues). She acknowledges that that “there are questions” but states that “this is the way we do it now” and disinvites debate. Her statement will eventually be posted on the USCIS website, and I’ll link to that (for what it’s worth) when it’s available (and expect to eventually link to the retraction, once reason prevails).
  • [15:20 – 1:50:00] There is a Q&A with lots of Q and very few A to speak of. Many stakeholders call in bristling with questions and legal reference related to the indebtedness issue, but don’t even get the usual vague courtesy that their input has been heard with thanks and will be seriously considered. Input and questions on this topic are explicitly not welcome. Stakeholders call in begging for answers on oft-repeated questions (increasingly urgent now with the China cut-off date) regarding sustaining investment and changes between I-526 and I-829, and once again receive no response (except “wait for our ‘essentially drafted’ draft policy memo, forth-coming ‘as soon as possible,’ for comment on these questions”). Division Chief John Lyons fails to even understand questions that involve processing time implications, and scares us once again with evidence that ignorance and irrationality start from the top. Oh I’m so depressed! There may be a few real insights somewhere in the Q&A, but other bloggers will have to find them.

Apparently USCIS has learned from the investigation into former Chief Mayorkas, who tried to engage with stakeholders and hear their ideas, who pressed for transparent and consistent policy, and who was willing to be convinced with reference to law and policy and business reality that adjudicator interpretations might be wrong. And now we’re back to the bad old days. The leadership on today’s call let us know that “this venue is for us to state our positions, not for debate” and furthermore “everything that we do here is on a case by case basis.” (They may as well have said: “We can’t give general guidance because our decisions are made individually and reactively, not shaped by consistent general principles, and also we can’t lift the veil on our case-by-case decision-making because that would involve answering case-specific questions, so really why are we all here talking?”).

A few bits of actual information from the call:

  • Next meeting: USCIS will host an “interactive engagement” with its economists on June 4th. The meeting will focus on eligible costs for job creation. I will duly post the invitation when it appears, for what it’s worth.
  • Staffing: As of now IPO has 101 staff, including 53 adjudicators and 21 economists, and has a target of 121 staff by the end of the year. Director Colucci thinks this will be sufficient to help processing catch up to petition receipts.
  • Processing Times: Posted processing times apparently include times for expedited petitions, meaning that normal processing averages are longer than posted. IPO has prioritized petitions that are outside of posted processing times, and “expects to finish cleanup efforts by the end of the year.”
  • I-924a and Regional Center Terminations: In FY2013, USCIS terminated eight Regional Centers for failing to file I-924a and another seven Regional Centers for not promoting economic growth. For FY2014, USCIS issued 57 Notices of Intent to Terminate to Regional Centers that didn’t file Form I-924a for the year, is preparing additional NOIT alleging that the I-924a filing reflects failure to promote economic growth, and has terminated four Regional Centers outside of the I-924a review process (one because it dissolved, another two because they were the focus of criminal complaints, and another for misallocation of investor funds).
  • Processing Volume: From October 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, IPO processing volumes were as follows (preliminary numbers):
    I-526 – Receipts: 5,250, Processed: 4,036
    I-829 – Receipts: 1,533, Processed: 341
    I-924 – Receipts: 170, Processed: 135

Filed under EB-5 Events, Updates from USCIS

New and Removed RCs

April 16, 2015 Leave a comment

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 3/23/2015 to 4/13/2015

Additions to the Terminated Regional Centers page:

  • Ariel International Regional Center (Texas)

Processing times for EB-5 petitions have been updated for April, but the numbers are identical to the previous report (I-526: 14.2 months, I-829: 12.3 months; I-924: 11.7 months).

Filed under New RC

IIUSA Day 1 (USCIS, DOS, SEC, FINRA)

April 14, 2015 Leave a comment

I’m at the IIUSA EB-5 Advocacy and Leadership Conference in Washington D.C., where the mood is mixed. The proposed legislation and congressional champions that we applauded at last year’s conference are now gone. Journalists who get paid for sensation and senators who didn’t get their way in confirmation hearings have had a heyday with EB-5, and there’s every incentive for the news to get worse as other officials with tangential EB-5 connections (e.g. Hilary Clinton) stand for election/roasting. (EB-5 makes a great political weapon if it looks inherently bad, so purple insinuation pays.) A few real-life scandals have happened besides the political mirage ones, not helping matters. Despite this gathering gloom, however, the tone here at the conference is not that depressed. The ballroom is full of people who are continuing to raise capital, who are seeing their own projects and investors succeeding and economic development happening in their own areas, and who know enough to put media reports in context. With this concentration of positive personal experience in the room, it’s easy to forget what’s outside. But we can’t be complacent, because the general public isn’t in our conference room, and scandal-mongering sounds louder than boring business success. Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff discussed the Regional Center program’s vulnerability and emphasized the need to convey a message that will give people confidence that EB-5 is good for America – a message that can be supported by solid and understandable job creation metrics, rigorous vetting of people and investments in the program, quality control in overseas marketing, and cooperation with local development agencies. (PS Membership Committee: This is also a time to push to increase IIUSA membership, aligning a greater number of concerned people with the best practices and education and message of IIUSA and broadening the financial base accordingly, not a time to redefine the association as an exclusive Big Boys Club effectively limited to those who make the most money from EB-5 Regional Centers.)

A few notes from today’s conference presentations…

USCIS Updates
The USCIS Investor Program Office did not provide a representative to this year’s meeting, but we did receive updates from Maria Odom and Fredrick Troncone from the CIS Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman is independent of USCIS but they liaise frequently with USCIS, have more power to extract information from the agency than we do, and ask the kind of questions we’d want asked. We got a preview of statistics that will be included in the Ombudsman’s annual report to Congress (forthcoming in June) and comments on staffing and retrogression. (The following are my notes from the live presentation, and I may need to correct some details after I can review a recording.)

  • 329 I-924 Regional Center applications are currently pending at USCIS.
  • I-526 investor petition filings showed a 50% increase in 2014 over 2013 (which had about as many receipts as 2012).
  • In FY2015, USCIS received over 5,200 I-526 petitions by the end of March.
  • As of the end of March, USCIS had 585 I-526 petitions with a Request for Evidence pending, 629 petitions with decision pending after response to RFE, and over 400 I-526 petitions with an outstanding Notice of Intent to Deny.
  • USCIS currently averages, per month, about 800 I-526s received and 630 I-526s processed. That means that the backlog of I-526s awaiting adjudication — already at a faint-worthy 13,027 petitions – is growing as receipts regularly exceed decisions.
  • USCIS’s plan to address the backlog, as reported to the Ombudsman, involves adding staff and approving overtime. Ms. Odom said that IPO presently has 54 adjudicators, 18 economists and 12 program analysts, and plans to add 25 more staff by the end of the year. (She also commented that this plan hardly seemed equal to really addressing the backlog). Ms. Odom noted the effect of USCIS’s Quality in the Workplace initiative, which replaced quantitative with qualitative goals – a good move for employee morale but creating challenges for setting goals related to number of petitions adjudicated.
  • USCIS’s promised policy memo related to retrogression is reportedly in final process, but apparently, mysteriously, the memo will not focus on the specifics of retrogression but rather on the issue of what constitutes material change. Oh well, material change is an important issue too. Ms. Odom’s understanding is that the much-questioned 2.5 year job creation window, stated in the May 30, 2013 policy memo, will be reiterated in the forthcoming memo. No word on whether the new memo may cover questions related to sustaining the capital investment or priority dates and child status issues.
  • We are reminded that the CIS Ombudsman serves as “an office of last resort” when there are EB-5 case problems. If you have a case that’s pending 60 days over posted processing times (or presents special issues) and you’ve already tried contacting USCIS about the problem, you can go to the Ombudsman. See http://www.dhs.gov/case-assistance.

DOS Updates
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of the Department of State’s Visa Controls Office, announced a May 1, 2013 cut-off date for mainland China-born EB-5 visa applicants. (You can also read this news, with commentary, in the Visa Bulletin for May 2015.) Per-country limits kick in when DOS foresees running out of visa numbers for the year – a new problem for the EB-5 program, which historically didn’t get close to using its annual allocation of around 10,000 visas. Now demand is up and we have our first cut-off date (affecting mainland China-born applicants, because they use a disproportionate number of EB-5 visas). Starting next month if you (and your spouse) were born in Mainland China and you get approval of an I-526 petition filed sometime after May 1, 2013, you can’t move forward in the visa stage of the process until DOS advances the cut-off date. (Everyone else is not affected.) Mr. Oppenheim anticipates advancing the cut-off date gradually, at least in conjunction with the new visa allocation that will come with the new fiscal year starting in October. It’s also possible that he might move the cut-off date back (which I learned is the only part of this process that’s accurately termed “retrogression”) if visa numbers prove even more limited than expected (which might happen if USCIS does improve its processing speed and volume). We’re encouraged to keep an eye on Item D in the monthly Visa Bulletin for periodic updates on movement of the cut-off date. The current cut-off date involves a wait of about two years (not terribly onerous, considering how long people have to wait for I-526 processing anyway), and demand trends suggest a wait of more like three years by the end of 2016. Panelists David Hirson and Bernard Wolfsdorf (and Robert Divine) pushed for clarification on procedural questions related to securing priority dates for child status protection, and Mr. Oppenheim promised that his legal department would be addressing such questions in a memo to be released in the next few days. (He may also have answered the question himself, but you’ll have to ask Mr. Hirson to translate into English!) Mr. Oppenheim also mentioned that visa usage is about 45% principals (investors) and 55% derivatives (spouse/children) – rather different from the 1/3 to 2/3 breakdown that I’ve heard previously. He warned specifically against trusting bloggers for visa advice, but nevertheless I’m repeating links to posts that I found helpful from Robert Divine and Ron Klasko.

SEC and FINRA
We got nice presentations from C. Joshua Felker (SEC Enforcement Division Assistant Director) and James Wrona (FINRA VP and Associate General Counsel) on the relevance of their agencies for EB-5 – but no breaking news that I could perceive. Felker mentioned five EB-5 enforcement actions but only named the three from 2013/2014. He did not discuss the forthcoming action involving some fee-taking immigration attorneys (see EB-5 Analytics for discussion of this important topic). The issue of whether/when a Regional Center may need to register as an investment adviser was also not really addressed (see Holmes & Shum’s recent article for discussion of this important topic). We got the usual reminders that SEC enforcement interests do cover registration issues as well as fraud, and that something that acts like a security is a security (and that acts like a broker, is a broker) regardless of what they’re called. I learned from Wrona that FINRA currently has about 60 broker-dealers engaged in EB-5 activity, a marked increase from previous years. The number of broker-dealers at the conference reflect this welcome trend. As we know, FINRA guidelines that particularly overlap with EB-5 include the suitability rule (which must consider both investment and immigration suitability for EB-5 per the Trustmont letter), the advertising rule, Bank Secrecy Act issues, and anti-fraud issues.

Filed under EB-5 Events, EB-5 Law & Policy, Updates from USCIS

New and Removed RCs

March 23, 2015 Leave a comment

USCIS continues to designate new Regional Centers and add others to the list of Terminated Regional Centers. For the past couple years, it’s been common for large operators to apply for multiple Regional Centers even if they didn’t have immanent projects for all the centers. This secured them the potential to sponsor investments over a wide geographic area, and positioned them to move forward promptly if projects were identified. Now, however, USCIS is being aggressive about terminating any Regional Centers not currently demonstrating contributions to economic growth, and we can expect to see many dormant centers being culled from the list. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I’m not comfortable with how the Regional Center list has bloated since the loose hypothetical project standard lowered the barrier to entry to for new RCs. On the other hand, I know of well-managed regional centers that have not recently sponsored a project but are committed to the program and have strong potential for future performance, and it seems a shame to nip them in the bud. Public agencies will also be less likely to consider EB-5 as a tool for the toolkit if maintaining Regional Center designation requires ensuring a constant stream of EB-5-funded projects.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 3/9/2015 to 3/23/2015

New Terminations, 3/9/2015 to 3/18/2015

  • New Jersey Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey)
  • EB-5, MRC LLC (Michigan)
  • American Life Ventures Everett, LLC (Washington)
  • Palm Coast Florida Regional Center (Florida)

Filed under New RC, Updates from USCIS

IPO Processing Times, 12/5 Engagement Notes, New RCs

March 9, 2015 Leave a comment

EB-5 Processing Times
The monthly processing update for the USCIS Investor Program Office shows slight increases to processing times for all EB-5 petitions.
times

12/5/2014 Engagement Notes
USCIS has posted a summary, transcript of the Director’s statement, and slides from the December 5, 2015 EB-5 stakeholder engagement. There’s no Q&A or other content that wasn’t presented at the meeting. To review the meeting in more detail, consult Robert Divine and Melanie Walker’s summary.

New RCs
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 3/4/2015 to 3/9/2015

  • California One Investment Center, LLC (California)
  • EB-5 Bonds California, LLC (California)
  • EB5 Florida Hotels & Investments Regional Center LLC (Florida)

Name change: from My EB5 Green Card Regional Center to My Florida Regional Center LLC DBA My EB5 Green Card Regional Center

Filed under New RC, Updates from USCIS

EB-5 for real estate projects, New RCs

March 5, 2015 Leave a comment

Roadmap to EB-5 as Financing for Real Estate Projects
IIUSA has posted a working draft of a paper by Professor Jeanne Calderon and Gary Friedland, Esq. of the NYU Stern Center for Real Estate Finance Research. (Update: the link now directs to the final 5/24/2015 version.)“A Roadmap to the Use of EB-5 Capital: An Alternative Financing Tool for Commercial Real Estate Projects” is a good resource for real estate people exploring the EB-5 option and looking for practical information about the program and detailed examples of how businesses have used EB-5. The authors confess the difficulty of researching this paper, and I think they occasionally put too much face value on claims by agents or Regional Centers about the greatness of their projects and wisdom of their strategies, but overall this is a very solid resource and provides useful guidance, particularly for EB-5-newcomers. I will link the paper on my Resources page and make an update when the authors publish a final draft.

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 2/23/2015 to 3/4/2015

  • Regional Center Fund of America LLC (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia): www.rcfamerica.com
  • Shrimp House US LLC (Florida)
  • Heartland Regional Center, LLC (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)

Removed from the list 2/23/2015 – 2/25/2015

  • Buffalo Regional Center (New York)
  • Silicon Valley Venture Investment Regional Center (California)
  • Tucker Development Corporation Regional Center (Michigan)

Filed under EB-5 Resources, New RC

2/26 USCIS SOF teleconference, New RCs

February 26, 2015 Leave a comment

USCIS Engagement on EB-5 Source of Funds
Today USCIS hosted an “EB-5 Interactive Series” teleconference on the topic of Requests for Evidence on Lawful Source of Funds for Investment. As promised in the invitation: “The topic of discussion will be lawful source of funds used for capital investment in the EB-5 program. We will discuss common reasons why petitioners receive requests for evidence and types of evidence that are helpful to submit.” The call was nicely detailed and highly technical and offered no surprises that I could spot, but then I don’t work with source of funds documentation. If this is your field and you want to review the call, you may download my recording. (See also the Klasko law blog and EB-5 Insights blog for comments on the call.) USCIS stated that it will not be posting an engagement summary, so we won’t have the convenience of just reading the prepared statements read on the call. USCIS concluded the call with four general tips for avoiding a source of funds RFE: (1) explain any inconsistencies in the documents provided; (2) if a required document is unavailable, explain why; (3) consider the probative value of evidence (ie evidence from an objective third party will be more compelling than evidence from you/your friend/your family/your company); (4) provide full translations of foreign documents. UPDATE: USCIS has posted these tips on a new EB-5 Evidence page.

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 2/3/2015 to 2/23/2015

  • EB5 United West Regional Center, LLC (California)
  • North American Center for Foreign Investments, LLC (California)
  • Pacific Investment & Immigration Regional Center (California)
  • Front Range Regional Center, Inc. (Colorado and New Mexico): www.pathwayseb5.com
  • BLT TriState Regional Center LLC (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York)
  • USCFID New York LLC (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
  • Midwest Regional Center, Inc. (Kentucky)
  • Northeast Monument Regional Center LLC (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island)
  • G.R.E.E.N. Regional Center (New Jersey)
  • The New Mexico Regional Center (New Mexico)
  • U.S. Immigration Recovery Fund NY, LLC (New York)

Removed from the list: Midwest EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (Ohio, Kentucky)

Filed under New RC, Updates from USCIS

ABC News stories, New RCs, IIUSA Conference

February 4, 2015 Leave a comment

ABC on EB-5 Investors
This has been a week of journalistic exposés of how unsavory high-net-worth people can be. The New York Times has published a series of articles unveiling shady characters who’ve been buying up prime New York real estate, the Guardian has a multi-part series on how HSBC’s Swiss private bank has facilitated financial malefactors, and ABC news has released a bunch of screamer articles and videos on EB-5 investors that ask the question “are suspected criminals, spies, terrorists buying their way into the US?”
There are a few lessons for businesspeople offering EB-5 investments. First, do be serious about vetting your investors, assuming you don’t want to end up some day with unsavory connections and cameras chasing you down a hallway. USCIS, the State Department, OFAC and their partners are much more serious and meticulous about vetting EB-5 petitioners than the ABC reports imply, but still you can’t be too careful with your own screening.
As you read the ABC stories yourself and field reactions from others, here are some points to keep in mind:

  • ABC’s key sources appear to be Senator Charles Grassley and a few disgruntled USCIS employee insiders who felt they were rushed and micromanaged;
  • Senator Grassley’s stand on immigration is to increase border security, beef up interior enforcement, oppose amnesty, scrutinize DHS, and find program abuse;
  • Each EB-5 investor’s petition currently takes an average 13.8 months to get reviewed by USCIS, which is not exactly a rush job; both the petition process and subsequent visa process involve stringent review and requirements;
  • In fact you can’t buy a green card in the US, not for $500,000 or for any other amount; some countries do have visa-for-sale programs but the US does not; the EB-5 program grants a visa in exchange for investor-funded business development resulting in job creation, not for money (to put the EB-5 program in context, see this Migration Policy Institute report on investor visa programs around the world);
  • The fact that an investigation exists is a cause for concern, but not sufficient basis for assuming that the investigation will close with a guilty verdict;
  • There are terrorists and spies and cheats in the world, but people are not terrorists because they’re Iranian and are not spies and cheats because they’re Chinese, despite ABC’s implications.

FYI: EB5info has posted a copy of the memo referenced in the story, and IIUSA and Klasko Law have issued reaction statements.

IIUSA Conference Registration
A reminder that this is the last week for early bird registration for IIUSA’s 8th Annual EB-5 Regional Economic Development Advocacy Conference on April 12-14 in Washington D.C. We’ll have a lot to advocate about this year.

New Regional Centers
Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 12/31/2014 to 2/3/2015

  • Dine’ Bi Keyah Regional Center, LLC (Arizona and New Mexico)
  • American Liberty Alliance (California)
  • Zhonghong Regional Center LLC (California)
  • Live in America – Colorado Regional Center LLC (Colorado): www.liveinamerica.us
  • EB5 Capital – New York Regional Center (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania): www.eb5capital.com
  • Birch Miami Dade Regional Center (Florida): www.birchcapital.com
  • Mariana Stones Corporation Ltd. (Guam)
  • Live in America – Indiana, Michigan, Ohio Regional Center (Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio): www.liveinamerica.us
  • Live in America – South Regional Center LLC (Kentucky and Tennessee): www.liveinamerica.us
  • Diamond City Montana EB-5 Regional Center, LLC (Montana)
  • Lubert-Adler Northeast Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey and New York): lubertadler.com
  • Queens Fort New York Regional Center, LLC (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania): queensforteb5.com
  • West Penn Regional Center (Pennsylvania)

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

1/12 IPO Processing Update, Terminated RCs

January 12, 2015 Leave a comment

Today USCIS updated processing time information for the Immigrant Investor Program Office. Average I-526 processing times took a modest but welcome dip, while average I-829 and I-924 processing times continue to climb.
IPO11202014
USCIS has still not restored the Regional Center program information page to its website, but it has added a new page titled Terminated Regional Centers. The page emphasizes USCIS power to revoke Regional Center designation and gives a walk of shame for Regional Centers that have lost designation, for reasons that may range from missing paperwork to misconduct. Blameless Regional Centers simply choosing to disband should seek to do so in a way that avoids being publicly listed together with the few RCs terminated for cause.

Filed under EB-5 Statistics, Updates from USCIS

12/2014 RCBJ, New RCs (FL, MN, NM, PR, TX, WA)

December 31, 2014 Leave a comment

I recommend the December 2014 edition of the Regional Center Business Journal for a wrap-up of what happened in EB-5 this year. Our hopes for USCIS’s promised annual EB-5 program report must deferred to 2015.

Additions to the USCIS Regional Center List, 12/8/2014 to 12/29/2014

20132014RCapproval

Filed under New RC

← Older posts

Newer posts →