Judge Orders USCIS To Begin Accepting New EB-5 Regional Center Investment Applications – FAQ for Investors

Jun 30, 2022 | Investor Visas

On Friday June 24, 2022, a Federal District Court Judge ruled in favor of a regional center challenging USCIS’s implementation of certain portions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. In a nationwide preliminary injunction, the Judge ordered that preexisting regional centers retain their designation and may file for project pre-approval and investors can file related I-526 petitions. This is a big step forward since the Judge has ordered USCIS to begin accepting new EB-5 regional center investment applications.

Below are answers to questions commonly asked by investors:

What Does This Decision Mean For New Investors?
Regional centers that had previously been designated can now file the form I-956F project approval form and investors in that project will be allowed to file their form I-526 individual petitions without waiting for an approval.

Can Investors File Form I-485 Adjustment Of Status Together With Form I-526?
Yes, if an immigrant visa number is available, investors can file form I-485 adjustment application. (Presently only China has a waiting line, but the new set-aside categories of Rural Reserved, High Unemployment and Infrastructure are current and visas are available for persons chargeable to China). USCIS is now authorized to accept form I-485 adjustment of status for both pending and approved forms I-526.

Will Investors Who File I-485 Forms With Their I-526’s Be Able To Travel Outside Of The U.S.?
Unless the applicant has a valid H-1B, L-1, L-2 or H-4 visa, investors will need to obtain an advance parole travel permit. These permits are presently delayed and are taking over 9-10 months to process.

Will Investors Who File I-485 Forms With Their I-526’s Be Able To Work While Waiting In The U.S.?
If the applicant has valid work authorization, in most cases they will be permitted to work. The filing of the adjustment will provide work If the applicant has valid work authorization, in most cases they will be permitted to work. The filing of the adjustment will provide work authorization, but work permits have been delayed. We expecting to see improvements in work permit processing times and possibly see new work permits issued within 6 months of filing the adjustment application.

Advice For Regional Centers:
Regional centers are advised to file their form I-956F project certification as soon as possible so they can accept investors investments and file individual investor I-526 petitions. The Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) requires offering documents to be updated to ensure securities law and other disclosure requirements.

Do Regional Centers Still Need To File I-956 Forms?
Previously authorized regional centers do not need to file the form I-956 to support an EB-5 project or an individual petition but we are waiting for more guidance from USCIS.

What Happens Next?
Since this decision reversed the USCIS determination that previously approved regional centers were terminated , it appears the previously designated regional centers are now authorized to conduct business until a final decision is rendered. It is expected that USCIS will provide instructions in the next few days implementing this decision. USCIS could appeal the decision, but most likely USCIS will develop a process to implement the Judge’s decision. While unlikely, USCIS could try and defend its position by seeking a summary judgment. The good news is that properly filed applications will have to be accepted now and this decision benefits both regional center projects seeking to raise funds, and investors seeking green cards.

For more information regarding the EB-5 program contact attorneys Vivian ZhuJoe Barnett, or Bernard Wolfsdorf.

Related Posts:

Visa Denials Based on Communist Party Membership

By:  Joseph Barnett Reports from China indicate that the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou has recently increased immigrant visa denials based on INA Section 212(a)(3)(D) related to membership in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), despite the fact that such membership is required and involuntary for most to advance in university, business, or employment. These immigrant visa denials have been issued after applicants have been placed in administrative processing under INA Section 221(g) after completing an information sheet related to their employment and education history.  It is critical that visa applicants speak with experienced immigration attorneys prior to submitting a response to the Consulate, as this may be the only time to put forward an argument to the consular officer as to why this ground of inadmissibility does not apply.  For example, the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual provides relief for members whose membership was “non-meaningful,” as found by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rowoldt v. Pefetto, 355 U.S. 115 (1957) and Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy, 374 U.S. 469 (1963). Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP attorneys have had numerous successes preparing legal briefs to rebut claims of inadmissibility under INA Section 212(a)(3)(D).  Our firm has also obtained waivers for immigrant visa applications by filing […]

7 Things We Learned from New EB-5 Program Chief Sarah M. Kendall

By: Joseph Barnett Earlier this week, new Immigrant Investor Program Office Chief Sarah Kendall addressed the EB-5 community at the AILA/IIUSA EB-5 Industry Forum in Chicago, Illinois. We are happy to see this type of engagement by USCIS and are hopeful for continued dialogue to address the concerns of immigrant investors and regional centers. Here are seven things we learned from Ms. Kendall: 1. Minor Investors Ms. Kendall confirmed there is no age limit for minors filing as the principal investors but indicated that USCIS will continue to look at issues of contractual capacity and voidability of investment contracts. 2. Bridge Financing Ms. Kendall indicated it was difficult to provide specific guidance on the issue of bridge financing because of the “diversity of work and financial arrangements and structures.” She noted that the term of the loan, by itself, does not disqualify financing as a bridge loan that would receive credit for job creation purposed and that USCIS will look at interim nature of loan and contemplation of future receipt of EB-5 (or other) capital to repay the bridge financing. This is inconsistent with language in RFEs previously issued by USCIS. Additional guidance clarifying this important issue is required to provide certainty for […]