Serving EB-5 investors in USA and Asia, with empathy and specialized skills gained through years of experience, our office focuses on quality rather than quantity.
For internal research purpose.
To tell the ASC what data they need, the USCIS places a code in the upper right corner of the ASC notice. Here is what those codes mean:
1 – 10 Prints Only - They will take a scan of your fingerprints.
2 – Photo, Signature, Index Finger Print - They will take a digital photo, obtain your signature and finger print your index finger.
3 – 10 Prints, photo, signature, and Index Finger Print - All of the above. If it can be done they will do it.
One single goal of USCIS for the EB-5 Program should be issuing clear guidances on many outstanding EB-5 issues and enforcing them consistently. There are still too many outstanding EB-5 issues, even though the EB-5 Program has been "revived" around 2003. EB-5 practitioners will tell you there are too many inconsistent decisions for the EB-5 Program to be relied upon by business persons.
Few examples of inconsistent decisions:
1. Even though the EB-5 project has been pre-approved by CSC via an amendment procedure by paying a hefty fee, CSC often will issue RFEs asking project-related questions even though there has been no material changes from the time of the pre-approval and/or fraud or misrepresentation.
After I-526 has been approved, if consular processing procedure is chosen, I-526 case file is sent by USCIS to the National Visa Center (NVC) which acts as a processing house to receive necessary documents and information and set up an IV interview date.
This version contains redlined changes to the November 9, 2011 draft overarching memo. If USCIS could arrive at a definitive and clear guidance for a SINGLE EB-5 issue which all CSC examiners will follow for every time USCIS holds a meeting, then there would be no more EB-5 issues misleading or confusing EB-5 regional centers, practitioners and investors. Discuss one single issue and then settle it and then move onto another issue -- that's the way it should work. USCIS has to issue clear guidance and then enforce the guidances through internal training and supervision -- that's the only way the EB-5 Program will progress.
Go to below link. This report reveals the inner-working and/or attitudes prevalent within the agency that controls the EB-5 adjudication. Very interesting stuff.
Read the below link for AILA's point of view:
Things do not look good regarding EB-5 cases and other cases.
For Internal Research Purpose. Until I-829 has been approved or there has been a final order of removal after I-829 denial, EB-5 investor and family members can obtain I-551 temporary stamps evidencing CPR status.
One difference I see is that where a LP is formed to make a commercial loan to a city agency for its infrastructure project, there is a precedent (Izumii case), but for purchasing bonds, there is no precedent case. We would not be surprised if this issue is revisited by USCIS in future.
It is a procedure allowed by USCIS whereby a regional center submits, in a form of an amendment to the regional center designation -- I have no idea why USCIS should consider a new project as an amendment of the designated RC when all one is asking is to confirm that the proposed EB-5 project falls within the parameters of the approved RC designation and complies with the EB-5 law -- for a pre-approval of a particular EB-5 project the regional center will embark on in a very near future. This procedure was set up by USCIS to give some consistency and shorten adjudication time frames for I-526 petitions filed in connection with a particular EB-5 project.
Written by Joseph P. Whalen, a former government employee who is familiar with the INA.
The below is an honest opinion article written by another EB-5 practitioner.
Most EB-5 practitioners would agree with what the author says. The article points out very troubling concerns, such as:
1. USCIS not working together internally.
2. CSC not consistent in policies.
3. CSC unable to shorten the I-526 processing.
USCIS has released the schedule for 2012 EB-5 Teleconferences as follows:
According to many EB-5 practitioners, these teleconferences are not that helpful. Also, EB-5 practitioners agree that CSC does not appear to follow what USCIS says in these teleconferences. Lastly, USCIS picks out only those agenda questions they want to answer; in other words, USCIS avoids tough questions, or their answers are too general in nature.
One knowledgeable EB-5 practitioner made several good points regarding the above article which we would like to share:
1. What is wrong with "gerrymandering" when the the law permits states to make TEA determinations, and states are certainly free to certify TEA based on a "gerrymandered" map. The article would have been more informative if the article could show why or how the TEA designation was unlawful.
2. The article implies that New Yorkers are fully employed, while people in Vermont are living in the street. That is false. There are plenty of places in NYC, including and especially in central areas, where unemployment figures are high.
Whether the judge's ruling delays or causes a problem for the project really depends on the nature of the lawsuit and whether the lawsuit is asking for an order to stop any construction from taking place. What we are saying is that it really depends on whether the lawsuit has any merit.
[Q] I have several options for gathering the funds needed to invest for the EB-5. I wanted to know if I can use advances from credit cards to make it happen?
No. Review the definition of "capital" which excludes unsecured (personally-owned properties) loan.
For internal research purpose. Restricted access.