[HOT] [Q] What is your take on the USCIS' recently-announced position on the "tenant-occupancy" jobs?
USCIS is saying that their newly-hired economists and examiners want more explanations and justifications from the regional center operators and/or petitioners on why tenants' employees should be counted, and that this request for additional explanations or justifications is not a change in USCIS policy but just a request for more details.
In our opinion, USCIS should just come out and say this request for additional explanations and justifications reflects USCIS' belief that this is a more "reasonable" way of applying input/output methodologies, but the problem is that some of USCIS' requests go beyond normal information supplied in job-creating projects pursued even by the government, and this request for the "excess demand" or request for proof that the subject EB-5 project is not displacing jobs from competitors in the geographic region is frankly a very unrealistic and unachievable requirement. If it's clarity that USCIS wants, it should just clearly say that they will no longer accept tenants' employees as new jobs period because they feel there is not enough nexus. This way, at least there will be no more confusion. Now, no one knows what USCIS wants. Or allow an open communication between USCIS economists and private economists so that they can run by their studies in advance to arrive at a conservative job numbers acceptable to both USCIS and regional centers.
Yes, there have been some regional centers who intentionally or mistakenly misapplied the IO methodologies, but to be honest, both USCIS and regional centers had to go through the process of learning. The EB-5 community is disappointed because USCIS gave no advance warning or explanations on what they expect and then suddenly unleashing RFEs. There seems to be no real communication between USCIS and the EB-5 community.