Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Executive Summary and Clarifications from May 1, 2012 EB-5 Stakeholders Meeting with USCIS

By Kate Kalmykov on July 18, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On May 1, 2012, the USCIS held their quarterly stakeholders meeting at the California Service Center.  Yesterday, the USCIS issued anUSCIS EB-5 May Summaryof that meeting, in which they attempt to address questions that were asked during the meeting but which could not be commented on during that time.  The following is an overview of important clarifications:

  • Although the USCIS adheres to a first in, first our process for adjudicating cases some I-924 filings including regional center designation applications, amendments and requests for project pre-approval are given to adjudicating officers familiar with the regional center applicant if possible.  This presumably explains the inconsistency in processing times between certain I-924 applicants.  USCIS requests that applications for cases that are similar to previous adjudications be identified at the outset to assist them with the assignment of cases.

 

  • Questions related to economic analysis can be posed directly to the USCIS economists on staff through use of the dedicated EB-5 email box.

 

  • Target time for processing I-924 request for evidence (RFE) responses is 30 days.

 

  • USCIS confirms that the welcomed proposed changes contained in the November and January draft memorandum are not considered formal policy guidance at this time.  However, they advised that a third iteration of the draft memorandum will be posted for public comment in the next few weeks.  (The same promise was made back in May at the meeting).

 

  • USCIS confirmed that an immigrant investor who is not associated with a regional center may deploy capital into a portfolio of businesses, so long as all capital is deployed through a single commercial enterprise and all jobs are created within that commercial enterprise.

 

  • Tenant Occupancy- USCIS outlined the following scenarios to illustrate their new policy:

 

  • The tenant business is a new business which did not merely move from another location .  This is not acceptable. None of the EB-5 capital would be flowing to the jobs created by the tenant.

 

  • The tenant business received cash from the development for tenant improvements This is not acceptable. The tenants would still be responsible for creating the jobs. The EB-5 capital would simply be improving/outfitting/customizing the structure already owned by EB-5 capital.

 

  • The tenant business received a loan from the development .  This is acceptable with caveats. This effectively represents the co-mingling of capital. Similar to the quid pro quo expenditure agreement referenced above, however, this will render the agency vulnerable to fraud because the tenants could form an agreement beyond the adjudicative scope of USCIS to funnel the funds back to the developer. In addition, USCIS would need to define the constraints of the loan amounts and duration. Otherwise, the developer could loan $0.01 to a tenant to take credit for any jobs created. Finally, the tenant business must verify that the jobs are new jobs not transferred from elsewhere.

 

  • The tenant received free rent or rent reductions.  This is acceptable with caveats. Similar to (b) above, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as the free rent/rent reductions acts as a loan. The same caveats apply here as in (b) above. In addition, this will cause a significant decrease in rental income for the EB-5 NCE, which should be an investment at-risk, not at-loss. USCIS would still need to define the constraints of the rental discount required, which effectively serves as a loan. It is highly unlikely, however, that the free rent or rent reduction over a 2.5-year period would sum to a total amount that could be considered a substantial investment in the tenant business.

 

  • The tenant received an equity investment from the development.  This is acceptable with caveats. Again, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as in (b) above. The same caveats apply here.

 

  • USCIS confirmed that bridge financing is acceptable – in the form of either debt or equity.  If the project commences based on the bridge financing prior to the receipt of the EB-5 capital and subsequently replaces it with EB-5 capital, USCIS will give the new commercial enterprise credit for the job creation under the regulations.  This guidance will be formalized in a forthcoming USCIS policy memorandum.

 

 

Photo of Kate Kalmykov Kate Kalmykov

Kate Kalmykov is based in our New York and New Jersey offices and has over two decades of experience in business immigration matters. Kate currently Co-Chairs the Global Immigration & Compliance Practice at Greenberg Traurig. In this role, she works with employers of

…

Kate Kalmykov is based in our New York and New Jersey offices and has over two decades of experience in business immigration matters. Kate currently Co-Chairs the Global Immigration & Compliance Practice at Greenberg Traurig. In this role, she works with employers of all sizes across a variety of industries in understanding and complying with the immigration laws relating to the hiring and retention of foreign talent. Specifically, her practice focuses on supporting clients and advising them on temporary and permanent residency immigration options for multi-national executive, business, scientific, and information technology personnel. In addition, her practice provides support to companies in the global transfer of personnel. Known by her clients for her out-of-the-box thinking, responsiveness and hands-on approach, Kate is often called upon to assist in developing immigration options and strategies in the most unique circumstances and to respond to complex Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) or to appeal denied cases. Likewise, she has also been instrumental in developing employer compliance programs for DOL related filings including H-1Bs and PERMs, as well as for I-9 employment eligibility verification. To this end, she develops and conducts nationwide I-9 compliance trainings and policy manuals for human resources personnel, advises on best practices for E-Verify employers, provides guidance on avoiding immigration-related unfair employment practices claims and has defended and minimized penalties in immigration-related government audits. Kate regularly works with professionals from the firm’s labor, employment, tax and benefits groups, to provide strategic planning on immigration issues within a cross-border framework.

Kate also has deep experience working on all aspects of the EB-5 immigrant investor program. Kate has worked with real estate developers, private equity funds, and other organizations on applications to designate new EB-5 Regional Centers, applications for pre-approval of EB-5 projects; having projects adopted by existing EB-5 Regional Centers; structuring projects to be EB-5 compliant, the sale of existing EB-5 Regional Centers, preparing template I-526 petitions and advice on structuring direct EB-5 projects. Pursuant to the requirements introduced under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act, Kate works with EB-5 Regional Centers, EB-5 Projects, Overseas Migration Agents and Broker/ Dealers to develop internal programs for ongoing compliance and to prepare USCIS I-956, I-956F, I-956,G, I-956H, I-956K submissions. Kate has represented thousands of investors in obtaining their green cards through EB-5 regional center projects, as well as direct EB-5 investment opportunities. She also represented and structured the largest EB-5 offering in the Program’s history and has over the course of her career structured over $12 billion in EB-5 deals.

Within the field of immigration law, Kate is a well-known speaker and author. She is often called upon by various media outlets to comment on topics of business immigration law including the Real Deal, the Wall Street Journal, and Law360. Kate has appeared on numerous TV programs related to immigration law including CNN, the Stoler Report, Vietface TV, and China Business Network. Kate is also a prolific writer on the topic of immigration and has been published in immigration practice handbooks for the American Bar Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, ILW, and in news periodicals that include the New Jersey Lawyer, the New York Law Journal, the New Jersey Law Journal, USA Today, GlobeSt.com, and the Commercial Observer. At the request of the American Bar Association, Kate co-authored the book “What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Immigration Law,” a guide for non-lawyers on immigration law practice. She has sat on numerous bar association related committees including the American Immigration Lawyers Association EB-5 Practice Committee, the New Jersey Business Immigration Coalition and has chaired the American Bar Association’s, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Section of Administrative Law since 2011. Kate has been recognized in various legal surveys including Chambers Global, New York Super Lawyers, the New Jersey Law Journal who ranked as her as a “New Leader of the Bar,” (formerly 40 under 40) in 2012, NJBIZ “Best 50 Women in Business,” 2019, National Law Review, “Go-To Thought Leader: Immigration Law,” 2022, and Lawdragon 500, Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers, 2020-2022.

Kate is devoted to pro bono matters and has spent extensive time helping clients fleeing conflict and persecution with asylum applications, applying for and obtaining Temporary Protected Status and Humanitarian Parole.

Read more about Kate KalmykovEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Immigration
  • Blog:
    EB-5 Insights
  • Organization:
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo