Venture Capitalist Visa Sponsorship Pilot ProgramIntroduction/BackgroundThere are currently non-immigrant visas for foreig...
IF on the other hand, all the required jobs have NOT already been created at the timeof filing, then a solid business plan...
up that will satisfy the individual EB-5 investors‟ capital investment and job creationrequirements. The Officially Design...
Current Potential Alternate Immigrant Entrepreneur PathUSCIS has recently sought to explore existing immigrant and non-imm...
NOTE: The NIW criteria from NYSDOT are QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENTcriteria from those required for the EXCEPTIONAL ABILTY clas...
matter authority. HHS makes a recommendation that USCIS gives great but notabsolute deference to in deciding if the organi...
combined with the initial period should have a finite maximum period (if not someonewill milk it mercilessly). Perhaps an ...
The proposed new INA § 203(b)(6) is a bit troublesome because certain provisions in(C) allow one to self-sponsor if they h...
Matter of Patel, 17 I&N Dec. 597 (BIA 1980), Decided by the Board December 11,1980. Patel v. INS, 638 F. 2d 1199 (9th Cir....
 Self-employment by an “unqualified investor” may be, and probably will be,        construed as unauthorized employment b...
employment in this capacity over the last five to six years. We do not believe,       however, that it is proper in this c...
the desired program via promulgation of regulations that include evidentiary burdens,methods of evaluation of the “various...
ConclusionI have a number of items that would help you in this effort posted at:http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5 The curr...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Venture capitalist visa sponsorship pilot program

760 views
692 views

Published on

Pending legislation is discussed. Nov 5, 2011

178 views in 43 minutes.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
760
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Venture capitalist visa sponsorship pilot program

  1. 1. Venture Capitalist Visa Sponsorship Pilot ProgramIntroduction/BackgroundThere are currently non-immigrant visas for foreigners who wants to come to the U.S.for the express purpose of starting or expanding a business. They are the E-1 TreatyTrader, E-2 Treaty Investor, the L-1 intra-company transferee (especially in thecontext of opening a “new office”), and the less likely H-1B. These non-immigrantpossibilities already offer alternative footholds for an alien to come to the U.S. andprove themselves to the venture capitalists or “Angel Investors” for future immigrantpathways. More on this aspect follows further below.Currently some of these folks could go it alone via an expansion financed on theirown that actually qualifies for the existing EB-5 investor visa. Some could pursue themore experimental but promising EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional abilityentrepreneurship with either an employer and labor certification, or a plan andqualities so exceptional that they can obtain a National Interest Waver (NIW). In thecase of an L-1A, a satisfied employer can file an I-140 for an EB-1C multinationalmanager or executive without a labor certification. Another possibility is the case ofan L-1B transferee with specialized knowledge (as well as anyone else in a valid non-immigrant status or other qualifications, if abroad), is for an employer to file an I-140for an EB-2 professional, or EB-3 skilled worker with an approved labor certificationfrom DOL.Current EB-5 Immigrant Investor VisaSection 203(b)(5) of the INA [8 USC § 1153(b)(5)] already allows an alien “investor”to seek an EB-5 immigrant visa for themselves and qualified family members. Thisrequires the alien to invest a minimum amount of capital and create ten permanentfull-time jobs for qualifying direct employees (on the alien‟s payroll). IF at the time offiling for visa classification the jobs have already been created they merely need toshow proof of it and then they get their lawful permanent residence on a conditionalbasis. Around two years later they file proof that the full minimum amount of moneywas actually invested and that the employees are still employed. Page 1 of 13
  2. 2. IF on the other hand, all the required jobs have NOT already been created at the timeof filing, then a solid business plan that describes how the jobs will be created must besubmitted. Around two years later they file proof that the full minimum amount ofmoney was actually invested, the plan has been executed successfully or is on thecusp of fulfilling its goals within a reasonable time, and that the employees have beenhired.Barring any complications, the conditions get lifted and that‟s the end of it. Thebusiness can fold up shop as soon as the conditions have been lifted. The“entrepreneur” has no further requirement to continue in business or continue to be anemployer. The investor who has had conditions lifted is free to retire or go to work forsomeone else. Additionally, in any EB-5 context, those ten jobs could have beenminimum wage jobs in the most boring, mundane, and thankless occupationsimaginable with no benefits that are not mandated under the law. EB-5 visas are areward for investing capital and creating jobs at least until the conditions are liftedfrom status and that is all, nothing more. Human nature often drives people to do theleast required. It is also a natural law to follow the path of least resistance.“Current” Immigrant Investor Pilot ProgramPub. L. 102-395, title VI, Sec. 610, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1874, as amended [8 USC§ 1153 NOTE] (this is NOT a part of the INA), provides for an Immigrant InvestorPilot Program. The Pilot Program has only a few statutory requirements, one is for thedesignated agency to promulgate regulations to make it work. Per the statute, the PilotProgram allows designated Regional Centers to aid the EB-5 investors by poolinginvestments in limited geographic area, defined economic zones, and in specific kindsof commercial enterprises as presented in their proposal etc... These Regional Center-affiliated investors may count and allocate collectively pooled direct and “indirect”jobs to satisfy their individual requirements.The Regional Centers have a “sponsorship” role and get heavily involved incoordinating projects for eager EB-5 alien investors. Existing regulations do not spellout the full role of the Regional Centers and they have only grown slowly over timedue to the efforts of a few advocates within the agency. The Regional Center sponsorsmust apply for the privilege of just being considered for USCIS‟ Official Designation.USCIS runs them through the wringer in an attempt to get approvable projects lined Page 2 of 13
  3. 3. up that will satisfy the individual EB-5 investors‟ capital investment and job creationrequirements. The Officially Designated Regional Centers charge the aliens forservices rendered in preparing and perfecting their petition filings and providingstandardized evidence packets to them along the way.Due to the fact that “other players” are involved in a Regional Center, the projectsare larger in size and the quality of new commercial enterprises is generally better.There is also a greater likelihood of sustained job growth over a longer time period.This is so because the Regional Center is motivated to continue to seek qualifyinginvestment opportunities and the eager alien investors who are willing to line up tosink their money into them. The steady (and steadily growing) pool of alien investorsand a good reputation earned by a Regional Center will attract more domesticinvestment as well. Domestic investors may be more willing to put their money in thepot when a Regional Center can point to funds that have been committed to theproject by eager aliens desperately seeking visas.There Is A Dark-Side To The Pilot ProgramINS mishandled the Regional Center proposal process earlier in the life of thisprogram. It was ALL trial-and-error, with plenty of errors. The world of high financehas always been ripe for fraud since long before immigrant investors came into themix. Of course, as DID HAPPEN in the past, some despicable bottom-feeders maystill attempt to seek Regional Center Designation just to scam alien investors whomay be abroad and have less (or no) recourse against the scammers. Eventually,Congress threw their constituents (who were scammed) a bone via the EB-5amendments after INS became entrenched and the program was stagnant for quite awhile because of these factors and all the bad press and lawsuits.Later, USCIS pumped new life into the Regional Center Program and because ofsome big thinking and open minds, things have advanced to where we are today. Theagency is finally getting its act together on a suitable scale and no longer has to relyon a few zealots. The agency leadership and the troops on the ground (CSC) havefinally coalesced in their viewpoints and bought-in to the need for EB-5 programreforms. The initial groundbreaking was done, and the foundation was broadlydesigned by the few advocates who have moved on. Page 3 of 13
  4. 4. Current Potential Alternate Immigrant Entrepreneur PathUSCIS has recently sought to explore existing immigrant and non-immigrantcategories for their potential use by entrepreneurs. They are listed in more detail in theintroduction above. The frontrunner among them seems to be the EB-2 NIW categorybut only if the alien and the plan presented by that alien are worthy of being acceptedas possessing three specific qualities. Those three qualities were identified by AAO inits last INS Precedent Decision in 1998, on the heels of the four EB-5 precedents.Matter of NY State Dept of Trans, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (AAO 1998), identifies:A. Intrinsic Merit. Eligibility is not established solely by a showing that thebeneficiary‟s field of endeavor has intrinsic merit. A petitioner cannot establishqualification for a national interest waiver based solely on the importance of thealien‟s occupation. It is the position of USCIS to grant national interest waivers on acase by case basis as demonstrated by the evidence in the individual record,rather than to establish blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization1. Theintrinsic merit of the occupation or field of endeavor must stand on its own inherentworth specific to this person in that job.B. National in Scope. Although the actual job may be in one location or within aparticular region, its overall effects must be shown to be more far-reaching orinterconnected more broadly in the overall analysis. Once again, this determination ismade on a case by case basis as demonstrated by the evidence in the individualrecord. The actual and/or prospective, cumulative and/or positive, benefits, effects,consequences, ramifications, and/or results of the alien‟s contributions through theproposed work must go beyond minimal, confined, limited and local in scope. Thereach of the alien‟s work must be substantial.C. In the National Interest. A and B focus on the occupation and the alien‟s workproduct, respectively. This final threshold is therefore specific to the alien and for anentrepreneur, their plan. The evidence submitted must persuasively demonstrate thatthe national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were requiredfor the alien. It must be established on a case by case basis as demonstrated by theevidence in the individual record that the alien will serve the national interest to asubstantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the sameminimum qualifications.1 Congress responded to this by creating a Physician Waiver with special conditions attached. Page 4 of 13
  5. 5. NOTE: The NIW criteria from NYSDOT are QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENTcriteria from those required for the EXCEPTIONAL ABILTY classification and arefluid and broad in concept. The evidence will be variable and MUST be overallconvincing. The nature of a prospective benefit is similar to but must exceed thescope required for the EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY (EA) classification itself. EA isitself merely one of the two possible threshold classifications which would normallyrequire a labor certification application through the Department of Labor. NIWeligibility comes after that threshold stage. Either EA alien or a professional mustexceed the scope of basic prospective benefit ordinarily required for the underlyingEB-2 visa in order to qualify for the additional benefit of a NIW.The first hurdle is to qualify for the underlying visa classification. Only a fullyqualified EB-2 can seek the further additional benefit of a NIW. In that the basicclassification already requires a high showing of evidence and worth, the NIWrequires one to leap an even higher hurdle. Determining exactly how much more isrequired is a highly subjective endeavor. This reality makes NIW eligibility a genuineissue of facts and the interpretation of them. This subjective determination is a pointof contention in most, if not all, such petitions.How About an Angel Investor Sponsorship Program?Rather than a Regional Center coming up with suitable projects to attract alieninvestors, how about swapping roles? What if a program were created to allowdomestic investors2 with money ready to invest to seek aliens with the plans worthinvesting in? Perhaps these “Angels” could apply for authorization from USCIS torecruit and petition for alien entrepreneurs in need of capital for start-ups whichseem likely, in their opinion, to create jobs in the U.S.3 This sort of Program couldborrow concepts from another similar licensure type of program now used to certifyhealthcare workers. The form I-905 is used by organizations that want permission toevaluate the credentials of foreign healthcare workers. If approved, the organizationsissue certificates to the alien to submit with their petitions and/or applications. USCIShas an inside track on the basis upon which the certificate was issued and can checkits authenticity directly with the issuing organization. These healthcare credentialevaluation organizations apply to USCIS and then USCIS consults HHS as the subject2 If a Domestic Angel is designated by USCIS, can he/she/they include foreign funds? Does itmatter? Will the funds vet themselves through other mechanisms like the SEC, OFAC, IRS, etc...3 This concept resumes in earnest on page 11, below. Page 5 of 13
  6. 6. matter authority. HHS makes a recommendation that USCIS gives great but notabsolute deference to in deciding if the organization will be designated as desired.USCIS is after-all an arm of DHS and does check “other qualifications” concerningthe organizations.Who in the federal government would have the best expertise to vet the organizationas to its abilities to properly vet the alien‟s start-up proposal? Dept. of Commerce?SEC? The Small Business Administration (SBA)? Someone else?Clearly Needed Congressional ActionIf Congress wants to write a law that orders USCIS to create an Alien EntrepreneurSponsorship Program which authorizes these Angel Investor Groups to vet start-upbusiness plans, it must either be:  VERY specific with little room for interpretation through regulations, or  EXTREMELY basic and give the agency a blank canvass and a broad brush through a mandate to write regulations that make the program work.I would ask Congress to load the Congressional Record with everything under the sunthat gives agencies and courts a source to pinpoint Congressional Intent on variouspoints in the future. Perhaps even affirmatively quash all prior rulemaking throughregulation or Precedents in order to provide the “blank canvass and broad brush” thatwill be needed to fulfill any broad general mandate to promulgate regulations in orderto “make it work”. I urge Congress to leave the actual statute as broad and vague aspossible with a large “sense of Congress section”, “purpose and findings” and some“specific definitions” but preciously little else. If it is Congress‟ desire tomicromanage such a program then do it from the start or else just give a free hand.One last point, all entrepreneurs (including EB-5‟s) should get a longer conditionalperiod (4 years as a standard could work, that should not slow naturalizationeligibility). As an alternative is an “optional single renewal or extension” of a two-year conditional status through the filing of an petition or application amendment dueto a material change after commencing conditional status. Congress shouldaffirmatively lock the priority date and incorporate the intent of CSPA for dependentchildren who might otherwise age-out (again, including EB-5‟s). Such an extension Page 6 of 13
  7. 7. combined with the initial period should have a finite maximum period (if not someonewill milk it mercilessly). Perhaps an absolute maximum to the filing for removal ofconditions could be six years from initial conditional residence date of the principle (ifthis is left out someone will try to work an extension maximum to the last “follow-to-join” dependent beneficiary‟s date of entry).Comments on Currently Proposed LegislationThe IDEA Act of 2011: Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America Act of2011 (H.R.2161)Title I, § 102The proposed new INA § 203(b)(6) seems reasonable overall. It appears to beespecially useful to ensure integrity via the following provisions: (B)(i)(II) because it requires at least ONE real and serious investor willing to put 100K at risk. Without that, the entire amount could come from numerous bogus investors who could be fronts funneling the alien‟s money back to him or just desperate family members contributing the money that would have been paid to coyotes or snakeheads (“professional” alien smugglers and immigration fraudsters). On the other hand, IF someone is going to “buy their way into the U.S.”, I‟d rather they spend the money to at least take a stab at trying their hand at entrepreneurship which might produce U.S. jobs than pay it directly to a criminal alien smuggling organization. (B)(ii) sets forth three possible avenues to lifting conditions that have some real teeth. The proposed EB-6 is geared towards drawing a larger proportion of genuinely committed entrepreneurs who are in it for the long-term as opposed to EB-5 which demands a higher commitment but in the sort-term only. EB- 5‟s really only follow that path in order to get a greencard and once conditions are lifted will usually bail out as fast as humanly possible. Most only finally commit to a project when somehow convinced of a sound and solid “exit strategy” (even if it is self-delusion or a bald-faced lie). Page 7 of 13
  8. 8. The proposed new INA § 203(b)(6) is a bit troublesome because certain provisions in(C) allow one to self-sponsor if they have most likely violated a current or prior non-immigrant visa and are thereby a “status violator”, “out of status” or a blatant“overstay”, made an “illegal entry” initially; or worst of all obtained a visa by fraud,misrepresentation, or concealment of at least one material fact. This provision appearto reward bad behavior. This potentiality will have greater negative press than the EB-5 charge of “buying a visa and subsequent citizenship”! The specific provisions thatcause me to have doubts are: „„(i) the alien has engaged in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership or similar entity) in the United States that benefits the United States economy; (ii) the enterprise has created full time employment for at least 3 United States workers;”I must ask: Exactly HOW did this alien enter the U.S. and manage to start thiscompany in the first place? Did she violate her F, M, or J student or exchange visitorvisa? Did the fraud begin at the Consulate interview when seeking their B1/B2business trip or tourist visa? Did he moonlight or walk off the job from his L-1A, L1-B, H-1B, E-3, etc... petitioning employer or was it a phony set up all along? How didthis person obtain an EIN (employer identification number) or business licenserequired to operate a business? Was SAVE used to issue that business license? If yes,was there fraud involved against the state or local government or against USCIS? Asan “employer” how did the alien lawfully manage to be accepted by E-Verify, or SSA,or IRS? Would availability of this option be restricted to E-1, E-2, certain O and Pnon-immigrants? Perhaps, I am overlooking some revision of INA § 101(a)(15)(B)such as to specifically allow one to enter for “business” if specifically stating up-frontthat the trip is with the intent “to become qualified for an EB-6 entrepreneur visa” (orany variety of entrepreneur visa) and having one‟s laser visa so annotated by DOS?All of these of the improper actions described above have been tried in the past andhave stood in the way of earlier immigrant investors and many others seeking visas oradjustment of status. The following case is but one example however, it explains“administrative grace”. Page 8 of 13
  9. 9. Matter of Patel, 17 I&N Dec. 597 (BIA 1980), Decided by the Board December 11,1980. Patel v. INS, 638 F. 2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1980), followed in the 9th Circuit.Heitland not applicable in the 9th Circuit.Patel, in the instant administrative appeal was found to meet the lower requirementsfor classification as an “investor”. However, “[t]he grant of an application foradjustment of status under section 245 is a matter of administrative grace. Anapplicant has the burden of showing that discretion should be exercised in his favor.”At p. 601 Based on the facts of this case, a favorable exercise of discretion is notwarranted.This respondent entered the U.S. on a student visa and immediately went to workwithout authorization and to compound that transgression affirmatively made falsestatements in order to conceal that fact in three subsequent extension applications forthe student visa. Confronted with his false statements he admitted them and asked formercy. He got none. “[W]here adverse factors are present, it may be necessary for theapplicant to offset those factors by a showing of unusual or even outstandingequities.” Id. While the IJ had even denied voluntary departure, the BIA granted 30days voluntary departure, subject to any extension granted by the District Director.Above found at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol17/2842.pdfProposed INA § 203(b)(6) additionally includes some definitions, one broaddefinition that gives rise to issues of differing interpretations is: „„(ii) INVESTMENT.—The term „investment‟ does not include any assets acquired, directly or indirectly, by unlawful means.”Consider the above definition, the following decision, and then consider if moneymade while employed without authorization is capital “acquired, directly or indirectly,by unlawful means.Matter of Lett, 17 I&N Dec. 312 (BIA 1980), Decided by the Board March 18, 1980.  Managing one‟s own investment by a “qualified investor” will not be deemed “unauthorized employment” that would bar adjustment. Page 9 of 13
  10. 10.  Self-employment by an “unqualified investor” may be, and probably will be, construed as unauthorized employment barring adjustment.  A Motion to Reopen deportation proceedings must be supported by prima facie evidence of eligibility for the relief sought.In the instant case, the respondent was also excludable by virtue of a criminal record.He was required to submit a waiver application (I-601) but did not do so. He had aqualifying relative (a USC child) for whom he must demonstrate extreme hardship ifhe were to be deported. The appeal was DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-filing aproperly supported Motion.Above found at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol17/2776.pdf A further word on the exercise of discretion in light of adverse, disqualifying, or non-qualifying facts or factors, or improper basis for an application or petition.Matter of Yarden4, 15 I&N Dec. 729 (Regional Commissioner 1976), DecidedAugust 6, 1976, held: In the absence of unusual or outstanding equities, an application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act will be denied as a matter of discretion where the labor certification supporting the application, or eligibility for exemption therefrom, was predicated on experience and/or income derived from employment held by applicant in violation of immigration laws. ***** “Exception is taken to the statement that the applicant has failed to establish he posses the one year of experience in a managerial capacity as required by the regulation. We agree with counsel that the record establishes the applicant‟s4 A complete non sequitur, as in off-topic, but...The holding in Yarden could be quite useful todefend the Religious Worker regulations for both immigrant and non-immigrant visas as to theexclusion of work experience gained while unlawfully in the United States. It is clearly not anew concept as evidenced by that Precedent which preceded the 2008 Religious Workerregulations by 32 years. The old “special immigrant” investor exemption and the “specialimmigrant” religious worker category both derive from INA § 101(a)(27) [8 USC §1101(a)(27)]. Page 10 of 13
  11. 11. employment in this capacity over the last five to six years. We do not believe, however, that it is proper in this case to grant an exemption from the requirements of section 212(a)(14) [labor certification process through DOL] by virtue of the applicant‟s experience gained or funds derived from employment while unlawfully in the United States.” At p. 731Above found at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol15/2513.pdfAn additional bit of awkward phrasing is found in other definitions relating to theindividuals or entities putting up the venture capital or “Angel” investors who wouldfund the alien entrepreneur. The awkward phrase is “with respect to a qualifiedimmigrant,” for several reasons that jump of the page. “Qualified immigrant” is notdefined nor is it accurate. The alien entrepreneur is an applicant, self-petitioner, orbeneficiary. That alien entrepreneur is a prospective or intending immigrant at bestbut is certainly not yet an immigrant. In addition the Angel investor or sponsor shouldbe defined in terms relating to their role in, and in relation to, the Angel InvestorSponsorship Program. Getting this point settled up front is critical in order to avoidlater administrative or judicial misinterpretations of a poorly worded regulatorydefinition that will largely ape the statutory language but is likely seek to address thepoints made in this comment.Some Mechanics of an Angel Sponsorship ProgramI suppose ten pages is enough of a build-up from the title and the brief mention at thebottom of five onto page six, to get to the point. It cannot be stressed enough as to theneed for a Programmatic Approach5 to the evaluation of the “Angel Sponsor‟s”qualifications and the designation process of the individuals and/or the entities theyrepresent. While the impetus for such a Program needs statutory roots, the nuts andbolts are best left the craftsmen, artisans, mechanics, and wordsmiths with the hands-on knowledge of existing systems, mechanisms and processes. The statute merelyneeds to express Congressional intent with a clear and firm directive6 to implement5 See: http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/ina-programmatic-approaches-v-individualized-case-by-case-analysis-8-2811-jpw6 I speak from personal experience, that average civil servant bureaucrats want clear directives(so they can pass the buck to someone else, i.e., we don‟t make the law we enforce it—of coursethat line omits the interpretation via regulations). They also want just enough flexibility to makeit workable with what they‟ve got and especially with things that are in-place and rather wellunderstood. A case in point is the time it has taken to develop SAVE and E-verify neither ofwhich yet has any DHS or USCIS regulations—they only have memos. Page 11 of 13
  12. 12. the desired program via promulgation of regulations that include evidentiary burdens,methods of evaluation of the “various players” as well as the creation of appropriateinformation collection instruments and processes. This phraseology wouldaccommodate paper forms and e-filing and does not rule out such things as makinguse of the EB-5 subject matter experts and “Decision Board” and/or e-mail and in-person or telephonic interviews or consultations. Again, it seems like it would befairly easy to marry the best practices from various existing yet disparate programswith qualities that would make the desired new program workable in short order.Aspects of existing forms, processes, and programs should be merged as much aspossible in order to make it come together quickly.For instance for the Angel Sponsors it would be easy enough to steal aspects from theQ-1 Cultural Exchange Program Sponsors who file I-129s for foreigners who willshare their culture through educational and public awareness and outreach efforts, theEB-5 Regional Center sponsor who file business plans and economic analyses with anI-924, and Healthcare Worker Credentialing Organizations who file an I-905 and haveto explain their vetting and evaluation techniques and expertise, as well as describeinternal testing and credentialing processes, their documentation (VisaScreenCertificates) and provide a way for USCIS to check the validity.The current proposed legislation calls for collaboration between DHS and Departmentof Commerce (DOC). Currently DOL has a large role in deciding labor conditionapplications for filing with an I-129 or a foreign labor certification (now PERM laborcertificates) for filing with I-140s when required. HHS has a role for determining thevalue of the work that can be done by the healthcare evaluation service applicants.The existing relationships between DOL and USCIS as well as between HHS andUSCIS and finally the relationship between USCIS (determining visa petitions) andDOS issuing and tracking total visas are things that will inform a new symbioticrelationship between USCIS and DOC. While consultations will be highly valuableand valued, they will not be the end of the story for an Angel Investment SponsorshipProgram Designation.Title V § 501I think it is far beyond time to make the Regional Center legislation an actual part ofthe INA, this is a great remedial action. IF this thing gets passed it will end nearlytwenty years of “pilot program” status which is also long overdue, especially now thatreal progress is being made and it has finally obtained better credibility and “buy-in”. Page 12 of 13
  13. 13. ConclusionI have a number of items that would help you in this effort posted at:http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5 The current count is 149 documents (ranging from1 to 223 pages). Many are my original works and some are items I found of interest,all are immigration-related.Of specific help with the topic of this recent hearing are:http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/ina-programmatic-approaches-v-individualized-case-by-case-analysis-8-2811-jpwhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/essentials-of-a-regional-center-proposal-public-copyhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/a-survey-of-the-immigrant-investor-visa-1966-2011-june-27-2011-jwhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/question-regarding-regional-center-project-size-requirement-july-12-2011-jwhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/eb5-and-eb2-entrepreneur-cheatsheethttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/eb2-entrepreneurs-final-hurdle-to-obtain-niwhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/a-realistic-look-at-an-eb2-niw-entrepreneurhttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/eb-2-niw-aao-nonprecedents-of-2010http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/eb2-niw-entrepreneur-examplehttp://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/l-nonimmigrant-entrepreneur-path-to-a-greencardThank You,/s/Joseph P. Whalen November 5, 2011e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 13 of 13

×