To: USCIS IPO,
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
RE: Suggestion for specific changes to standard language used in
Regional Center Designation Letter and I-924 Approval Notice.
I was reading through some Regional Center Designation Letters and I-924 Application Approval
that are posted on the internet. Some phraseology just didn’t sit right with me. After reading a
few more I feel ready to articulate my current concerns. I hope it makes sense to you folks as well. I will
list a few points and then offer a blurb and other specific suggestions for your consideration.
1. One does not “adjudicate a project”.
2. You adjudicate a case, i.e.,an I-924 and/or an I-526 (and much later an I-829).
3. In that the preponderance of the evidence is keyed to a simple majority probability (>50% ),
which is usually expressed as “more likely than not”, the portion could be altered to read:
Upon the examination of an actual project in conjunction with the affirmative adjudication of an
initial I-526 petition, or an exemplar I-526 petition filed as an I-924 amendment, which appears more
likely than not to be able to create at least ten (10) qualifying jobs for qualifying U.S. workers per EB-
5 investor, USCIS will then give deference to materially unchanged supporting documentation for
that project in subsequent I-526 petitions. Upon filing, each I-526 petitioner shall still have to be
otherwise eligible in every respect for visa petition approval.
The following is from the May 27, 2014 DVRC Designation and Approval2
“It will be the responsibility of the individual investor to demonstrate that the assumptions and
estimates presented as inputs to the job creation methodology remain materially unchanged when
he or she files a Form I-526. When filing Form I-829 for removal of conditional status, the
individual investor has the burden of demonstrating that the assumptions and estimates presented
as inputs to the job creation methodology have not materially changed and have been realized (or
can be expected to be realized within a reasonable time).”
I generally like it but when it comes to the “burden of demonstrating…”, I’d like to see something
incorporated such that it is made clear that they “will need to substantiate that ‘realization’ through the
production of corroborating evidence”. Said ‘realization’ may take various forms. When it comes to the
collection of appropriate documentary evidence over the course of the subject EB-5 project, a thoughtful
plan should be in place from the beginning.
In notices based on “hypothetical projects”, I have a bad feeling when I read “ it will be the responsibility
of the individual investor…….plan showing by a preponderance….will create no fewer than 10…..” I
would like to see that “will” qualified by “more likely than not create…”. If I think of anything else, I’ll
/s/ Joseph P. Whalen
(716) 604-4233 or (716) 768-6506
Shouldn’t these letters be annotated as form I-292 in the footer?
Thank you Kate and Suzanne for sharing the Designation Letter/Approval Notice.