Thoughts on the AAO I-924 Dismissal of September 5, 2014
Thoughts on the AAO I-924 Dismissal of September 5, 2014
By Joseph P. Whalen (October 5, 2014)
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716) 604-4233 OR (716) 768-6506 Page 1
On or about October 1, 2014, an appeal dismissal by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dated September 5, 2014, for a Form I-924, Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program that had been filed pursuant to Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1874 (1992), as amended, was posted on the USCIS website. Pages 2 through 6 of that decision follow some introductory remarks. I have added highlighting and commentary along the way which is clearly discernible from the text of the decision. A “clean copy” of the decision as it appears on the website is appended. But first, I discuss a few points.
In a nutshell, the request for Regional Center (RC) Designation was put forth by an E-2 nonimmigrant Treaty Investor who wanted to convert his E-2 investment into an EB-5 immigrant visa. The major problem was that he had no employees of his own. Heck, he did not even have any contractors that he might have converted. The only possible employment creation associated with his investment would have been “indirect jobs” in a tenant business1 which is why he desired Regional Center Designation. There were so many misguided notions in this application that it is difficult to figure out where to start. I won’t let that stop me, I think I can manage to provide some useful insights even if the ideas are less organized than I’d like. The following characteristics are clear signs that it won’t work as an EB-5 RC:
It would only involve one project EVER. In other words, it would be a “one-time only” deal. (See items here and here.)
It would only have one EB-5 investor EVER, as a landlord, see here.
The jobs already exist and:
o No new jobs will be added;
o The business is not being radically restructured;
o The business is not being expanded by 40% or more; and
o The business is not a troubled business where jobs will be preserved instead of lost. (See Part IV, here.)
Even the indirect jobs already existed.
1 As a mere landlord who did nothing to neither facilitate the establishment of the business nor stimulate any job growth, the indirect jobs would not count in any case.
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 2
While it is true that an “EB-5 Direct Investment” that takes place outside of the EB-5 Regional Center Program can succeed when the investor has long since started the business while in some other lawful nonimmigrant status; that success will require, inter alia, the creation of “EB-5 direct jobs”. Those “EB-5 direct jobs” require a true employer-employee relationship as understood in the immigration context. Those jobs will have to be for a select group of full-time work-authorized employees as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) and INA § 203(b)(5)(D) [8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(5)(D)]. (See more about jobs here and here.) The applicant who sought Regional Center Designation thoroughly misunderstood the basic precepts of the Program. That misunderstanding is plainly described by the AAO in the introductory portion of this appeal dismissal as shown in the following excerpt. “…………. .The applicant stated initially that the regional center "will be used to facilitate only the [Form] I-526 [Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur] for application of one high net worth foreign alien [the applicant's sole member]," who is unable to "apply on an individual basis" because his investment in a leased airport hangar during his stay as an E-2 nonimmigrant investor has created only indirect jobs. The chief denied the application, determining that the proposal did not demonstrate in verifiable detail how jobs will be created indirectly and did not describe how it will promote economic growth. On appeal, the applicant has not overcome any of the chief's grounds for denial. As an additional issue, the applicant has not demonstrated that its regional center proposal is consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment as required by statute. …” (AAO SEP052014_01K1610.pdf) at p. 2 While USCIS has not promulgated any regulation restricting Regional Center applicants to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the U.S. (or other lawful immigrants) or majority U.S.- owned businesses nor has Congress limited eligibility in the statute, it is highly doubtful that anyone envisioned that a non-immigrant E-2 treaty investor would seek Regional Center Designation in the manner that this applicant did. As I have stated previously, EB-5 Regional Centers are not meant to be used as “umbrellas” for mom-n-pop operations to count indirect jobs because they are places where non-qualifying employees would normally work (families) or as incubators for extremely small businesses that simply will not create enough permanent full-time jobs per investor. Many franchise businesses also will not qualify if based on a business model that relies on part-time workers or is seasonal in nature or is just not labor intensive enough for EB-5 purposes. See (AAO Nov162010_03K1610.pdf) at p. 2 noting that “…the applicant has not overcome all of the director's concerns especially as the direct employment projection for the Holiday Inn Express lacks
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 3
credibility. In addition, a review of the proposed limited partnership agreement reveals a term that is problematic.” [Emphasis added]. Another recent EB-5 case involved a direct investment also by an E-2 nonimmigrant. In that case it was through an EB-5 Direct Investment contained in an I-526 visa petition. Also in that case, the investor and spouse both worked in the business, along with the petitioner’s brother who while not disqualified by the family relationship was using an EAD which indicated that he was a nonimmigrant and therefore was also excluded from the regulatory definition of a “qualifying employee”. The decision did not specify but the brother may have been an E-2 “employee” in that E-2 business. Here is an excerpt from that decision which explains it well. “..The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) specifically precludes independent contractors from the definition of employee. Moreover, out of the remaining 11 employees, the petitioner, his wife, and his brother do not count toward the minimum of at least 10 employees. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) (definition of qualifying employee) excludes the petitioner and the petitioner's spouse. Regarding the petitioner's brother, the Form I-9 indicates that he has work authorization until June 2015, indicating that the petitioner's brother is a nonimmigrant, a category of workers that the regulatory definition of qualifying employee also specifically excludes. Consequently, only four of the 11 current workers meet the definition of both employee and qualifying employee at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).” (AAO JUL022014_01B7203.pdf) at p. 11. It is not impossible for an E-2 Treaty Investor to start out in that status and later seek an EB-5 immigrant visa, it is not easy. (See an article here.) Additionally, an E-1 or E-2 is not precluded from obtaining nonimmigrant status due to a known desire to seek an immigrant visa. Although worded slightly differently, it is an acceptable “dual intent” non-immigrant category like the A, G, H, L, K, S, T, U, and V. Some people (like me) would also include the TN. I am sorry if I missed any but I think you see the point. As promised in the beginning, what follows next are pages 2-6 of the September 5, 2014, AAO Appeal Dismissal of an I-924. I have added highlighting and comments are clearly delineated as separate discussion. Now, on with the show! Comments that break into the text of the decision will look like this.
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 4
DISCUSSION: The Chief, Immigrant Investor Program, denied the application for designation as a regional center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The applicant filed Form I-924, Application for Regional Center under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program seeking designation as a regional center as, [REDACTED] pursuant to section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828 (1992), as amended by section 116 of Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997); section 402 of Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 (2000); section 11037 of Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002); section 4 of Pub. L. No. 108- 156, 117 Stat. 1944 (2003); and section 1 of Pub. L. No. 112-176, 126 Stat. 1325 (2012) (1993 Appropriations Act). The applicant stated initially that the regional center "will be used to facilitate only the [Form] I-526 [Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur] for application of one high net worth foreign alien [the applicant's sole member]," who is unable to "apply on an individual basis" because his investment in a leased airport hangar during his stay as an E-2 nonimmigrant investor has created only indirect jobs.
The preceding and following are where I found the excerpt included in the introductory portion of this article. The “additional issue” identified by AAO (highlighted in blue, below) is a pet peeve of mine. I have been writing for years that it is simply impossible for a single EB-5 investor to “pool investment” funds. I have gone further than AAO on this topic by saying that a single EB-5 investor who combines their funds with non-EB-5 investors still won’t count for a Regional Center investment. This is because the “EB-5 Regional Center Program” is defined based on regional centers and the text of § 610(a) describes a regional center as being applied to multiple alien investors when it states that…. “[t]he establishment of a regional center may be based on general predictions, contained in the proposal, concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital from aliens,..” To my mind, the above statute demands that a Regional Center will concentrate pooled investments of multiple EB-5 alien investors into its projects in order to justify the counting of indirect jobs to satisfy the 10 full-time jobs per investor minimum employment creation requirement. I have heard folks suggest that a Regional Center can use business models where a single EB-5 investor would be set up in a business via a single franchise “store” (location) as an individual small business. That approach simply WILL NOT work even if the single location has ten full-time jobs all by itself. Why? You ask. Well, because if it meets the basic requirements for “EB-5 Direct Jobs” it does not need to be in a Regional Center. So, that leaves small franchises with part-time workforces or merely “less than 10” full-time positions such that in either case, it is like our applicant from the September 5, 2014, I-924 Dismissal, someone who can’t make it in terms of EB-5 direct jobs who is seeking to inappropriately count indirect jobs. The chief denied the application, determining that the proposal did not demonstrate in verifiable detail how jobs will be created indirectly and did not describe how it will promote economic growth. On appeal, the applicant has not overcome any of the chief's grounds for denial. As an additional issue, the applicant
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 5
has not demonstrated that its regional center proposal is consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment as required by statute.2 The appeal is dismissed.
I. THE LAW AND REGULATIONS Section 610(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 1993 (" 1993 Appropriations Act"), as amended, sets aside employment creation visas under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), for a program in which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) designates regional centers with jurisdiction over a limited geographic area to promote economic growth. The statute, as amended, explains that "a regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographic area, which shall be described in [a] proposal and consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones." Id. The same law provides that "[t]he establishment of a regional center may be based on general predictions, contained in the proposal, concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital from aliens, the jobs that will be created directly or indirectly as a result of such capital investments, and the other positive economic effects such capital investments will have." Id.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) defines a regional center as "any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i) provides, in pertinent part, that a regional center proposal must include "in verifiable detail how jobs will be created indirectly."
A Job Creation The applicant does not propose a future project. Instead, the proposal focuses on existing employment on property at the [REDACTED] that [REDACTED] currently subleases to another employer. Following adjustments in ownership of the relevant property due to a Base Closure and Realignment in 1992, in May 2001, [REDACTED] obtained an option to purchase a leasehold for the portion of the airport property containing a newly built hangar. [REDACTED] is currently subleasing the hangar to [REDACTED]. According to the initial business plan, [REDACTED] the entity from which obtained the leasehold, completed the hangar on the leasehold property in August 2001. The applicant claimed that "[t]he total new permanent jobs created has settled between 18-25 people that operate from this hangar alone," and that the jobs that were created were for pilots, flight attendants, maintenance personnel, and security. According to the applicant's business plan, [REDACTED] venture at the hangar created new indirect jobs rather than transferring jobs from another location. The applicant further explained that the positions have remained stable such that the regional center will be able to demonstrate at least 10 jobs at the hangar.
In response to the director's request for evidence, the applicant explained that many of the questions on the Form I-924 did not apply because "the jobs were already in place." The applicant further asserted that
2 I am quite interested in this point and will expound upon it later along in this article.
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 6
it would be inappropriate to request a study pertaining to future job creation for the same reason. The applicant also submitted an "Economic Benefit Analysis: FY2010 [REDACTED] that did not reflect an economic benefit analysis of the single [REDACTED] hangar subleases and [REDACTED] operates; rather it reflected an analysis of the [REDACTED] as a whole for fiscal year 2010. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the applicant's managing member claimed that "[c]reating more new jobs is not viable under the current scenario since this project would be considered to be at full capacity, and it would not be reasonable for me to assume, or assure you that any additional new employment would be created from this date forward."
In response to the director's email requesting clarification, the applicant submitted an email from [REDACTED] Business Analyst for [REDACTED], who stated that "in the summer of 2001 [an undisclosed number of] full time people began working in the hangar" and "[w]e have held an average of 29 full time jobs at the hangar for the past 12 years." The applicant also submitted an "Economic Impact Analysis: Fiscal Year 2013" that again reflected the economic impact of the [REDACTED] rather than the economic impact of the hangar that [REDACTED] subleases to [REDACTED]. Accordingly, the initial filing and responses to the NOID and USCIS email did not indicate the amount of jobs had created or the projected number of jobs that [REDACTED] would create. The chief denied the application determining that "the applicant's assertion that jobs created in 2001 can be credited to the regional center is unfounded." On appeal, the applicant claims that the chief did not cite any statutes or regulations to support his decision, and the chief incorrectly assumed that only jobs created going forward from this time are "new." By statute, a regional center is designated by USCIS "on the basis of a general proposal, for the promotion of economic growth." Section 610(a) of the 1993 Appropriations Act, as amended (emphasis added). Moreover the general proposal "may be based
upon general predictions ... concerning the kinds of commercial enterprises that will receive capital from aliens, the jobs that will be created directly or indirectly as a result of such capital investments, and other positive economic effects such capital investments will have." Id. (emphasis added). By regulation, a regional center is required to show prospective benefits, including job creation. The regulations provide that an applicant shall submit a proposal that clearly describes how the regional center "will" promote economic growth through job creation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i). An applicant shall also submit a proposal that provides verifiable details about how jobs "will" be created indirectly. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(ii). A proposal shall be submitted that details predictions on how a regional center "will" have a positive impact on the regional or national economy. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(iv). Once designated, a regional center must annually update USCIS with information demonstrating that it "continue[s] to promote economic growth, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment in the approved geographic area." 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(6). USCIS may terminate a designated regional center that no longer serves the purpose of promoting job creation. Id. Once a regional center is approved, an alien investor must show that such investment "will" create jobs indirectly from the new commercial enterprise. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(7). In addition, the instructions to the Form I-924, page 2, item 5, require a general prediction regarding the "prospective impact" of the proposed regional center projects. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)( 4)(A) (requiring evidence to support the filing of a Form I-526 by
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 7
an investor to demonstrate that at least 10 full-time positions have already been created following the establishment of a new commercial enterprise). The law governing the designation of Regional Centers is replete with forward looking statements. RCs need to make future contributions rather than lay claim solely to past accomplishments. A "Direct EB-5 Investor" may succeed with EB-5 "direct jobs" already created at time of filing his or her I-526 Visa Petition. The same, however, cannot be said for Regional Centers. It is this writer’s belief that it was, at least in part, Congress’ intent for the EB-5 Regional Centers to become lasting additions to our “Regional Economic Infrastructures” across the nation. Also, RCs were not intended to be used as "umbrellas" for either mom-n-pop operations or successful ventures in order to count EB-5 "indirect jobs" inappropriately.
The applicant did not project any additional direct or indirect jobs would be created beyond those jobs [REDACTED] created in 2001 or that there would be additional capital investment in the commercial enterprise. Therefore, upon approval, the regional center would not create any future jobs; it is exclusively relying on previously created indirect jobs. Although the applicant on appeal relies on the regulation at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.6(j)(4)(i)(A) for the assertion that a regional center need not project future investment or job creation, that regulation pertains to the Form I-526 that an investor may file once USCIS approves the regional center. The applicant did not establish how the regional center will promote economic growth through job creation and how jobs will be created indirectly pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i). On appeal, the applicant also relies on language from Operational Guidance for EB-5 Cases Involving Tenant-Occupancy, GM-602-0001 (Dec. 20, 2012) to support the proposition that a regional center proposal need not create any new jobs and can rely on existing jobs. Specifically, the applicant noted that the guidance memorandum provides that applicants and petitioners must "project the number of newly created jobs that would not have been created but for the economic activity of the EB-5 commercial enterprise." However, the applicant's reliance on a statement taken out of context ignores the regulatory requirements for regional centers, specifically the requirement to "promote economic growth through increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment" at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i). The idea that the applicant sought to twist out of shape is a concept I hold near and dear. Namely, that when a Regional Center Project “facilitates job creation” it is serving the purpose of the program. However, within the EB-5 Regional Center Program, that concept is to be applied prospectively. That is even true when EB-5 money is used to pay off bridge loans as long as such loans were always meant to be a short-term fix while other arrangements were being made. In that the EB-5 filing process is so complex it is highly unlikely that EB-5 money being used to pay off bridge financing is happened upon by sheer luck. Although “theoretically” such a possibility is not affirmatively ruled-out! It is just very highly improbable.
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 8
B. Promotion of Economic Growth within the Selected Geographic Area
Section 610(a) of the 1993 Appropriations Act, as amended, provides that a regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographical area for the promotion of economic growth, including increased
export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i) provides that a regional center shall submit a proposal that clearly describes how it will focus on a geographical region of the United States, and how it will promote economic growth through increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.
As previously discussed, the "Economic Benefit Analysis: FY2010 [REDACTED] “and "Economic Impact Analysis: Fiscal Year 2013" reflect only the economic impact of the [REDACTED]. They do not reflect how [REDACTED] would promote economic growth within the geographic area. In fact, neither analysis mentions [REDACTED]. On appeal, the applicant's managing member claims that the original economic impact study "was specific to employment and economic benefits related exclusively to our airport location," and that he personally compiled a table claiming that the revenue sources, earnings sources, and employment sources were related to [REDACTED] jobs. The applicant's revised table purportedly relates to economic benefits from [REDACTED] within the "Airport Service Area." On the Form I-924, however, the applicant does not define the geographic area of the proposed regional center other than to provide the location of the [REDACTED] hangar. As the applicant has not defined the geographic boundaries of the proposed regional center, the applicant has not established that the revised table is relevant. Moreover, the applicant has not provided any documentation in order to support his economic multipliers, one of which differs from the similar chart in the initial economic analysis. The applicant also does not explain the source of the visitor spending, wage, on- airport benefits, and visitor benefits' numbers, which drive his calculation of secondary economic benefits using multipliers. In fact, the applicant's managing member stated in his appellate statement that he "was only able to personally substantiate the building rental since [he did] not have detailed information on the additional spending required to keep the jets operational on a daily basis."
At the initial filing of the application, the applicant did not claim any intention to purchase additional hangars or to expand [REDACTED]. In response to the chief’s NOID, the applicant's managing member claimed that his "only option at this stage to help preserve these existing jobs is by making [REDACTED] an attractive term offer for lease extensions."1 The applicant claims no further plans to expand [REDACTED], offer any new projects, or create any further jobs; rather, the applicant claimed it would maintain the 2001 staffing levels. Accordingly, the applicant has not demonstrated that the regional center will promote economic growth pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i).
__________________________________ 1 At the time of the applicant's interview, the applicant's managing member claimed that he was thinking of purchasing additional hangars and was in negotiations with three other companies. On appeal, the applicant's managing member states that this "potential purchase ... would not have been an addition to the [REDACTED] regional center application for many reasons," and
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 9
was "not related to the [REDACTED] current application." Accordingly, the possibility that the applicant's managing member might purchase additional hangars is not probative to whether the applicant will promote economic growth.
Firstly, according to footnote 1, this applicant was “interviewed”. That seems out of the ordinary to say the least. I’m just pointing it out and will let it go. The next thing that clinches the correctness of the denial, for me is that the applicant affirmed that there was NO FUTURE for the “Regional Center”. It seems obvious to me but apparently it is NOT obvious to everyone out there (and I do mean “out there”), that something that exists as part of a “Program” was never intended to be used as a ONE-TIME ONLY WILDCARD. That would make no sense whatsoever!
C. Pooled Investment
Beyond the chief’s decision, the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment2 Section 610(a) of the 1993 Appropriations Act, as amended, provides that "[a] regional center shall have jurisdiction over a limited geographic area, which shall be described in the proposal and consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment in defined economic zones."
The Immigrant Investor Program was implemented with the goal of spurring greater economic growth in the geographic area in which the regional center is developed. EB-5 Adjudications Policy, PM-602- 0083, p. 14 (May 30, 2013). The employment creation requirements for an investor under the program are essentially the same as in the standard employment creation investor program, except investments made through regional centers can take advantage of a more expansive concept of job creation including both direct and indirect jobs. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6(e), 204.6(j)(4)(iii), and 204.6(m)(7)(ii). It is investments with the potential for greater regional economic growth from a pooled investment that allow an investor to rely on indirect job creation.
The applicant has maintained throughout this proceeding, including on appeal, that the applicant's managing member will be the only investor, and he has no intention of pooling funds from other investors. The applicant seeks approval for a regional center so that the managing member can then file Form I-526 based on his previous investment located within what would become a regional center and use the existing indirect jobs. As the applicant's managing member will be the sole investor, and the proposal does not include any plans for future investors or project the need for additional capital, the proposal is not "consistent with the purpose of concentrating pooled investment." Section 610(a) of the 1993 Appropriations Act, as amended. Therefore, the applicant's proposal does not meet the requirements for a regional center pursuant to the statute.
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In application proceedings, it is the applicant's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the applicant has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 10
2 We may dismiss an appeal on an application that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law even if the underlying decision does not identify all of the grounds for denial. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). Once again I find myself repeating and restating what I feel is quite obvious but which certain other do not seem to grasp. Forgive me if you are sick and tired of hearing this same diatribe, you can stop reading now. Here goes: The Regional Center solely exists within a “program”. The Program parameters are written with forward looking statements in the statute itself. The regulations were promulgated with that same prospective slant. For example: o 8 CFR § 204.6(m) was promulgated shortly after Congress passed the law creating the “Program” because Congress dumped that responsibility in the lap of the Executive Branch. o 8 CFR § 204.6(m)(4) initially allowed the first Regional Center Proposals to be filed on August 24, 1993. o 8 CFR § 204.6(m)(8) initially allowed the first I-526 Visa Petitions to be filed under the “Program” on October 1, 1993, which was both the first day of a new fiscal year and more than a month after the first Regional Center Proposals could be submitted. o 8 CFR § 204.6(m)(8) additionally stipulated that such affiliated I-526 Visa Petitions could be filed “…in accordance with the provisions of this section if the alien entrepreneur has invested or is actively in the process of investing within a regional center which has been approved..for participation in the … Program.” o 8 CFR § 204.6(m)(7)states: Requirements for alien entrepreneurs. An alien seeking an immigrant visa as an alien entrepreneur under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program must demonstrate that his or her qualifying investment is within a regional center approved pursuant to paragraph (m)(4) of this section and that such investment will create jobs indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the new commercial enterprise. o Although the dates are now meaningless by themselves, when viewed for context sake, they tell us quite a bit more. In order to be allowed to file as affiliated with a Regional Center, that Regional Center must have been approved already.
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 11
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I tell you what you NEED to hear, not what you WANT to hear!
Joseph P. Whalen Independent EB-5 Consultant, EB-5 Advocate, Mentor, Trainer and Advisor 238 Ontario Street | No. 6 | Buffalo, NY 14207 Phone: (716) 604-4233 (cell) or (716) 768-6506 (home, land-line) E-mail: email@example.com
web http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5 or http://eb5info.com/eb5-advisors/34-silver-surfer
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of the writer only. That is to say that they are opinions of a layperson, non-attorney, non-economist, non-accountant, non-FINRA or SEC registered broker or adviser. Any information or consultation that seems like “incidental investment advice” is intended merely as educational, coaching, and mentoring3. Opinions are based on work experience as an Adjudications Officer within INS and USCIS with particular involvement in the revitalization of USCIS’ EB-5 Program, especially that portion dealing with Regional Centers. This writer wrote the “Unofficial Instructions” on how to apply for Regional Center Designation which later formed the basis for the I-924 Form Instructions. The writer is an outspoken advocate for improved adjudications at USCIS. Lastly, this reviewer is published in various immigration law outlets with well over 100 scholarly articles and opinion pieces widely circulated as well as a published contributing author in three EB-5 Law Books; co-editor in the most recent.
NAICS Code: 611430 Professional and Management Development Training
2012 naics definition: 611430 professional and management development training This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in offering an array of short duration courses and seminars for management and professional development. Training for career development may be provided directly to individuals or through employers' training programs; and courses may be customized or modified to meet the special needs of customers. Instruction may be provided in diverse settings, such as the establishment's or client's training facilities, educational institutions, the workplace, or the home, and through diverse means, such as correspondence, television, the internet, or other electronic and distance-learning methods. The training provided by these establishments may include the use of simulators and simulation methods.
That’s My Two-Cents, For Now!
3 See: 15 U.S.C. §80b–2. (a)(11)
or go to: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:80b-2%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim- title15-section80b-2)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 12
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 13
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 14
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 15
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 16
Contact: email@example.com (716)604-4233 OR (716)768-6506 Page 17