Skip to content

Menu

Greenberg Traurig, LLP logo
HomeAboutServicesEB-5 PresentationsArticlesContact
Search
Close

EB-5 Insights

Where Government Policies and Business Realities Converge

Executive Summary and Clarifications from May 1, 2012 EB-5 Stakeholders Meeting with USCIS

By Kate Kalmykov on July 18, 2012
Posted in EB-5 Program, Econometric Report, Non-Regional Center, Regional Center, USCIS Public Engagement

On May 1, 2012, the USCIS held their quarterly stakeholders meeting at the California Service Center.  Yesterday, the USCIS issued anUSCIS EB-5 May Summaryof that meeting, in which they attempt to address questions that were asked during the meeting but which could not be commented on during that time.  The following is an overview of important clarifications:

  • Although the USCIS adheres to a first in, first our process for adjudicating cases some I-924 filings including regional center designation applications, amendments and requests for project pre-approval are given to adjudicating officers familiar with the regional center applicant if possible.  This presumably explains the inconsistency in processing times between certain I-924 applicants.  USCIS requests that applications for cases that are similar to previous adjudications be identified at the outset to assist them with the assignment of cases.

 

  • Questions related to economic analysis can be posed directly to the USCIS economists on staff through use of the dedicated EB-5 email box.

 

  • Target time for processing I-924 request for evidence (RFE) responses is 30 days.

 

  • USCIS confirms that the welcomed proposed changes contained in the November and January draft memorandum are not considered formal policy guidance at this time.  However, they advised that a third iteration of the draft memorandum will be posted for public comment in the next few weeks.  (The same promise was made back in May at the meeting).

 

  • USCIS confirmed that an immigrant investor who is not associated with a regional center may deploy capital into a portfolio of businesses, so long as all capital is deployed through a single commercial enterprise and all jobs are created within that commercial enterprise.

 

  • Tenant Occupancy- USCIS outlined the following scenarios to illustrate their new policy:

 

  • The tenant business is a new business which did not merely move from another location .  This is not acceptable. None of the EB-5 capital would be flowing to the jobs created by the tenant.

 

  • The tenant business received cash from the development for tenant improvements This is not acceptable. The tenants would still be responsible for creating the jobs. The EB-5 capital would simply be improving/outfitting/customizing the structure already owned by EB-5 capital.

 

  • The tenant business received a loan from the development .  This is acceptable with caveats. This effectively represents the co-mingling of capital. Similar to the quid pro quo expenditure agreement referenced above, however, this will render the agency vulnerable to fraud because the tenants could form an agreement beyond the adjudicative scope of USCIS to funnel the funds back to the developer. In addition, USCIS would need to define the constraints of the loan amounts and duration. Otherwise, the developer could loan $0.01 to a tenant to take credit for any jobs created. Finally, the tenant business must verify that the jobs are new jobs not transferred from elsewhere.

 

  • The tenant received free rent or rent reductions.  This is acceptable with caveats. Similar to (b) above, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as the free rent/rent reductions acts as a loan. The same caveats apply here as in (b) above. In addition, this will cause a significant decrease in rental income for the EB-5 NCE, which should be an investment at-risk, not at-loss. USCIS would still need to define the constraints of the rental discount required, which effectively serves as a loan. It is highly unlikely, however, that the free rent or rent reduction over a 2.5-year period would sum to a total amount that could be considered a substantial investment in the tenant business.

 

  • The tenant received an equity investment from the development.  This is acceptable with caveats. Again, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as in (b) above. The same caveats apply here.

 

  • USCIS confirmed that bridge financing is acceptable – in the form of either debt or equity.  If the project commences based on the bridge financing prior to the receipt of the EB-5 capital and subsequently replaces it with EB-5 capital, USCIS will give the new commercial enterprise credit for the job creation under the regulations.  This guidance will be formalized in a forthcoming USCIS policy memorandum.

 

 

Tags: bridge financing, bridge loan, eb-5 executive summary, Tenant Occupancy, USCIS
Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Kate Kalmykov Kate Kalmykov

Kate Kalmykov represents clients in a wide-range of employment based immigrant and non-immigrant visa matters including students, trainees, professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty investors and traders, persons of extraordinary ability and immigrant investors. She also has extensive experience working on…

Kate Kalmykov represents clients in a wide-range of employment based immigrant and non-immigrant visa matters including students, trainees, professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty investors and traders, persons of extraordinary ability and immigrant investors. She also has extensive experience working on EB-5 immigrant investor matters, working with developers across a variety of industries and with private equity funds on developing new projects that qualify for EB-5 investments.

Read more about Kate Kalmykov
Show more Show less
Related Posts
  • Third Quarter Updates from USCIS on EB-5 Program
  • USCIS Announces Engagement with EB-5 Economists
  • USCIS on Tenant Occupancy...How Times Have Changed Since 2009
  • 2.5 Year Rule Stifles Economic Benefits of the EB-5 Program
  • AILA Issues Helpful Tips for Korean EB-5 Cases

Stay Connected

Follow GT on Twitter Join the Discussion on Facebook Subscribe to this blog via RSS View GT's LinkedIn Profile

Topics

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Shaoul Aslan‡
  • Charles F. Bass˘
  • Jennifer Blloshmi*
  • Kristen Burke
  • Lizbeth M. Chow ‡
  • Dillon Colucci
  • Scott Decker
  • Miguel A. Dominguez
  • Nataliya Dominguez
  • Patty Elmas*
  • Naomi Feinstein
  • Rosanna M. Fox
  • Dale Rose Goldstein
  • Elaine C. Greenberg
  • Simon Harms
  • Lawrence H. Heller
  • Jennifer Hermansky
  • Cole F. Heyer
  • Graham Iversen
  • Kate Kalmykov
  • Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Norman H. Lane
  • Ella Leviyeva
  • Luna Ma
  • Ian Macdonald
  • William Mack
  • Robert Y. Maples˘
  • Sarah M. Mathews
  • Lou Metsu˘
  • Anna H. Morzy
  • Lisa Navarro
  • Kristen W. Ng
  • Thuy-An T. Nguyen
  • Anita E.J. Ninan
  • Courtney B. Noce
  • Bianca Pipala ˘
  • Hayde Piraja Faria ‡
  • Bracha Pollack
  • Laura Foote Reiff‡
  • Bruce C. Rosetto
  • Nataliya Rymer
  • Rebecca Schechter
  • Martha Schoonover
  • Cate Sharp
  • Sylvia Sobczyk
  • Nadia Sowinski*
  • Gillian Sproul
  • Michelle S. Velasco
  • Jane K. Wang
  • John K. Wells
  • Yeyun Yang
  • Jia Zhao

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Lawsuit Challenging EB-5 Regulations May Succeed
  • Precedent for Mandamus Case set by EB-5 Lawsuit
  • Biden Administration Revokes Trump’s ‘Green Card Ban’ In Another Step Towards Restoring the Functioning of the U.S. Immigration System
  • Greenberg Traurig Wishes Our Clients and Colleagues a Happy Lunar New Year!
  • Visa Options and Issues for Students
GT Law Blogs

EB-5 Insights

Greenberg Traurig, LLP logo
Follow GT on Twitter Join the Discussion on Facebook Subscribe to this blog via RSS View GT's LinkedIn Profile E2 Law Blog GT LE Blog Inside Business Immigration Hospitality Law Check-In Immigration Greenberg Traurig Web Site GT Israel Law Blog Consumer Products Counselor Emerging Technology Views Cultural Assets GT London Law Blog Financial Services Observer GT Amsterdam Law Blog Legacy Advisors
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

About Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (GT), has approximately 2200 attorneys in 40 locations in the United States, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. GT has been recognized for its philanthropic giving, diversity, and innovation, and is consistently among the largest firms in the U.S. on the Law360 400 and among the Top 20 on the Am Law Global 100. The firm is net carbon neutral with respect to its office energy usage and Mansfield Rule 3.0 Certified. Web: www.gtlaw.com

Copyright © 2021, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog