EB 5 Dec 7-2011 Senate Hearing Recap

EB-5 Oversight: Effectiveness of Back-End Burden of ProofDuring the December 7, 2011, Senate Hearing1 on the prospects for EB-5 RegionalCenter Program Reauthorization, Senator Grassely spoke of what had beenreported to him concerning problems with the Regional Center Program. He putforth the information in order to allow the concerns and questions to be addressedfrom both sides. Two of the three witnesses were “pro” EB-5 and one was “con”or “anti” EB-5. Testifying in favor of permanent reauthorization were Robert C.Divine2 as a practicing attorney and on behalf of IIUSA, and William “Bill”Stenger3 of Jay Peak Resort in Vermont. Testifying against the bill underconsideration (to permanently reauthorize Regional Centers) and against EB-5 ingeneral, was David North4 of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). CIS is awell known DC think tank that is blatantly opposed to all immigration even thoughit proclaims itself to be pro-immigrant but only in smaller numbers. CIS’ motto asprominently displayed on its website is “Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant”. Idon’t buy it. The testimony which was offered either demonstrated a lack ofunderstanding of the basics of the EB-5 and Regional Center statutes andregulations or a disregard of them, as well as a penchant to misconstrue statistics.1 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=9b6937d5e931a0b792d258d9b365f21d2 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-12-7DivineTestimony.pdf3 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-12-7StengerTestimony.pdf4 http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-12-7NorthTestimony.pdf

Senator Grassely of Iowa, threw the neighboring South Dakota’s failed dairy farmcase out there as he probably knew it would be brought up anyway. While therepresentative from CIS (definitely not to be confused with the DHS agency:USCIS) cited that case as an example of the pervasive number of farm-workerswho happen to be unauthorized for employment, that case also stands forsomething else. Mr. North proclaimed a need for tighter controls and opposition toUSCIS’ “streamlining” efforts, citing that failed venture as. In reality, that caseactually demonstrated that such improper behavior will not be accepted. USCISdeclined to remove conditions from green-cards in that case. On certification,AAO used it, albeit only as a widely circulated non-precedent5 decision, to put theword out that such nonsense, and indeed illegality, won’t be condoned. The CISrepresentative was met with subtle yet obvious disdain after insulting at least twoSenators present.Mr. Divine tried his best to set the records straight within time limits but did notneed to do much convincing for the Senators present who were all on board and infavor of a permanent reauthorization. I am pleased that quite a few Senators havevoiced support but am confounded why only Senator Chuck Schumer of NY hasjoined Senator Leahy of VT as a co-sponsor of the bill (S.642). Although5 Apr142011_01B7203.pdf

additional Senators have voiced approval or at least have hinted support, nobodyelse has put their name on it. Senators Sessions, Cornyn, and Franken have shownsome favorable interest, but like oh so many have not yet become co-sponsors.While on the topic of who in Congress is supportive of EB-5, I am also pleasedthat Rep. Brian Higgins of NY is an initial co-sponsor with Rep. Rick Larsen ofWA for the House companion bill (H.R.2972). Additional supporters in theHouse who have joined are:  Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 10/5/2011  Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 11/15/2011  Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] - 11/4/2011  Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 11/1/2011  Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 10/26/2011I cannot image why the Senators and Representatives who have larger numbers ofRegional Centers in their states have not yet come on board. There are states withRegional Centers without any solid results yet, and there are some states wherenone have yet been approved, although of those, someone is likely “working on it”.Let’s take a look at which states do have Regional Centers and perhaps thoseMembers of Congress for those states can take a closer look at their positions.

State6 * Number of Regional Centers*Alabama 2Arizona 4California 55Colorado 4District of Columbia 4Florida 20Georgia 6Guam 1Hawaii 5Idaho 2Illinois 4Indiana 2Iowa 1Kansas 2Kentucky 2Louisiana 3Maine 16 As defined in INA § 101(a)(36) “The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, PuertoRico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands.”

Maryland 2Massachusetts 1Michigan 6Mississippi 4Missouri 2Montana 1Nevada 6New Hampshire 1New Jersey 1New York 9North Carolina 4North Dakota (Might cross into MN*) 1Ohio 4Oklahoma 1Oregon 2Pennsylvania 3South Carolina 1South Dakota 1Tennessee 2

Texas 12Utah 4Vermont 1Virginia 1Washington 12Wisconsin 4Wyoming 1 *Some Regional Centers cross state lines. UND is only one example. Information found at www.uscis.gov/eb-5centers as of December 7, 2011.So it seems that the issue is picking up steam and the Members of Congress needto get on board, we shall see.

EB 5 Dec 7-2011 Senate Hearing Recap

by BigJoe5 on Dec 07, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

EB 5 Dec 7-2011 Senate Hearing Recap — Document Transcript