[HOT] I sympathize with CSC examiners when it comes to EB-5 Program

I really do.

You might reach an opposite conclusion if you read some of constructive criticisms on USCIS operation and adjudication of EB-5 cases I posted in this site, but I truly sympathize with CSC examiners adjudicating EB-5 cases for the following reasons:

1. The EB-5 law is messed up in that there are many contradictions and huge gaps that the current statutes and regulations do not cover. It's amusing when I hear both USCIS representatives and so-called EB-5 experts discuss the EB-5 law as if most of the issues have been clarified. One reason I do not like to appear as a panelist in any EB-5 seminars is because I would honestly have to say "Folks, this EB-5 law has so many holes to navigate through." I sympathize with CSC examiners in the EB-5 Unit who have to review and adjudicate EB-5 petitions.

2. I reviewed the EB-5 Training Materials provided to CSC examiners, and it lacks cohesion, and errs in trying to present and explain the EB-5 law as if the EB-5 law is one consistent body of law, when it should focus on how to best review and adjudicate EB-5 cases, in light of many inconsistencies. I sympathize with CSC EB-5 examiners who have to deal with unclear law.

3. No one at USCIS appear to explain to CSC examiners that the true meaning of "preponderance of evidence" standard of evidence that should be applied to EB-5 petitions. For example, examiners need to realize that even a Bill Gates will not be able to prove 100% the original source of his investment, if the "clear evidence" standard or "beyond reasonable doubt" standard was applied. The "preponderance of evidence" standard is basically "more likely than not" standard. I am being truthful when I say that over 90% if not 100% of all EB-5 petitions will be denied if "clear evidence" standard is used.

4. CSC examiners have to deal with mumbo-jumbo variations of "reasonable" methodologies to estimate jobs to be created. USCIS should and must set a single "reasonable" methodology and train EB-5 examiners to become better versed in this single methodology. There is no way that any examiner or US immigration attorneys can understand all this.

5. Many of the policy memos issued by USCIS in the EB-5 area are inconsistent and raise more questions than answer. Just as one example, December 2009 Neufeld Memo refers to "material change" and "capital investment project" but never discusses how these terms fit in the statutory or regulatory scheme, and how and why these concepts are in compliance with the EB-5 law.