Caspiano

Coming_Integrity_Act_-_What_Diligence_is_Due_RCBJ_2016_Q1.original.1475515756.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Marketing homework help >Caspiano

BY MICHAEL G. HOMEIER, ESQ. FOUNDING SHAREHOLDER, HOMEIER & LAW, P.C.

S enate Bill 2415, the “EB-5 In- tegrity Act of

2015” (the “Act”), was introduced on December 17, 2015 to revise the EB-5 Regional Center Program (the “Program”), followed two months later by introduction in the House of Representa- tives of the very similar companion bill H.R. 4530. The Act remains a work in progress, pending passage by both houses of Congress and eventual signing by the President. With the anticipated circus of the upcoming elec- toral season, only the most optimistic ob- servers believe passage might occur before a new Congress, and new President, take up a re-introduced Act in early 2017 (after the Program is again extended beyond Sept. 30, 2016).

Nevertheless, the Act as currently intro- duced remains highly significant to EB-5 participants. Improvements and corrections proposed by industry stakeholders and suc- cessfully negotiated into the prior legisla- tion before it was shelved in mid-December 2015 remain in the Act. The Act addresses primarily the securities and corporate as- pects of that prior legislation. Stakeholders can look to the Act to see what additional requirements Congress seems bent on add- ing to the Program. Depending upon how successful are presently-ongoing efforts to improve the Act, clarify its terms and ap- plication, and avoid unintended adverse consequences that could cripple or kill the EB-5 Program, it seems safe to assume the process will end up with Program changes more or less along the lines proposed in the Act presently.

The crosshairs of the Act’s focus are squarely set on regional centers (“RCs”). This no doubt reflects the popular miscon- ception of the Program as uniquely fraught with fraud, criminal activity, and terrorist drug-running investors laundering millions

of ill-gotten dollars through EB-5 invest- ment, with the thinking evidently being that if only RCs could be enlisted (or compelled) to become more actively involved in po- licing the EB-5 process, all those ill effects could be eliminated. So it is entirely unsur- prising that among the primary changes contained in the current Act is the imposi- tion of a certification requirement on RCs, that they attest that they, the projects they sponsor, and the people with whom they work are all in compliance with the secu- rities laws (federal and state). This is not a one-time certification requirement, instead it is imposed on every RC at numerous stag- es of the EB-5 process, including as part of the application for regional center designa- tion, the application for project pre-approv- al, and the filing of regional center annual statements as to bona fides of involved per- sons, as to securities law compliance, as to third-party promoters, and as to “associated new commercial enterprises” (as defined in the Act).

The securities laws impose compliance obligations on “issuers,” the companies that actually “issue” (sell) the investment oppor- tunities that are acknowledged to be securi- ties. Usually in the EB-5 industry, the issu- er is an entity legally separate and distinct from the RC entity, even if they may share common ownership or control. The deter- mining factor is not what an entity calls it- self, instead it is what the entity does. If an RC sells its own ownership interests, it is an issuer in addition to being an RC, and bears the issuer compliance obligations; but if the RC does not sell its own interests, the issuer obligations are not imposed by the securi- ties laws.

This is where the Act breaks new ground: to involve RCs more actively in oversight of the EB-5 industry, the Act adds its compli- ance certification requirement to impose “issuer-like” obligations on what are techni- cally non-issuers—the RC that is not a se- curities seller. This is a “sea-change” in the risks attaching to participation in the Pro- gram: where previously only actual issuers bore securities-level risk, for engaging in

the sale of their securities, now non-issuers (RCs) will carry such risk, even though not actually engaged in selling securities—and not under the securities laws, but under the Act. Although the RCs’ risk may still be less than that borne by an actual issuer, it is far more than the current minimal risk of per- forming only the RC function. To avoid this, many RCs may simply get out of the indus- try altogether.

Returning to the new certification obliga- tions themselves, they require that the certi- fier speaking on behalf of a regional center is to make his certification “to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, after a due diligence investigation.” To understand what this certification requirement means, it must be broken into its constituent parts.

“Certify” is a term of art in the legal pro- fession. It is commonly defined to mean “to authenticate or vouch for a thing in writing; to attest as being true or as represented.” Similarly, “certification” is defined as “the formal assertion in writing of some fact; the act of certifying or state of being certified.” To maximize its authoritative nature, many times the assertion is required to be given under oath: “I declare under penalty of per- jury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing [statements are] true and correct,” as but one example. The Act itself is silent as to whether its certifications must be given under oath sometimes, always, or nev- er. (Note that the administrative agencies in- volved (including U.S. Citizenship and Im- migration Services and the Department of Homeland Security) have broad rulemaking authority, and could add an oath even if the Act itself as finally adopted was to remain silent on the point.)

The term “certifier” is defined in the Act. As to all Act provisions imposing the certi- fication requirement on RCs, the certifier is someone speaking for (on behalf of ) the RC.

As to the concept of “best knowledge,” that concept is nowhere explained in the Act. So again, to understand what might reasonably be meant by an undefined term, we look elsewhere for guidance by implica-

THE COMING INTEGRITY ACT: WHAT DILIGENCE IS DUE?

Invest In the USAIIUSA ®

FEATURED ARTICLE WWW.IIUSA.ORG

ously complicated, involves many moving pieces, and is definitely expensive to con- duct properly. Many issuers involved in the Program conduct limited diligence, because of time and cost, while others completely ignore the requirement altogether. They do so at their peril: ignoring the due diligence obligation carries a significant liability risk, one that is imposed on the principals own- ing and managing the issuer personally, rather than on the entity itself.

In adding “issuer-like” securities compli- ance obligations on RCs, the Act seeks to impose an additional due diligence obliga- tion on RCs, separate and apart from that al- ready existing under the securities laws im- posed on issuers. This revives the question of, how much diligence will be due from an RC under the Act? Which in turn raises a prior question: about what, exactly, is the RC to certify?

As stated above, the various certifications to be required of RCs under the Act apply either to certifying compliance with secu- rities laws broadly, or compliance with re- quirements under the Act specifically (such as the bona fides promoters, and agent re- quirements).

As to the former, it seems logical to guess that the due diligence standard applicable to offerings would also be applicable to RC certifications confirming broad securities law compliance. In turn, this raises the next question: must the RC conduct its own in- dependent full-blown securities law-level due diligence investigation, or may it instead satisfy its due diligence obligation by reli- ance on the due diligence conducted by the issuer, at least in part? Practically, the RC may lack the capacity or be too far removed to conduct as thorough an investigation of a complex offering as required of the issuer, and may lack the resources or knowledge to do so effectively. Thus, it would seem sen- sible to allow RCs to be able to reasonably rely to a significant degree on due diligence conducted by the issuer, so long as the issu- er’s diligence was itself reasonable. Howev- er, if RCs are permitted to do so, it is likely that such reliance can be neither absolute nor passive, there must still be some active review of both the offering itself and the is- suer’s own due diligence efforts conducted by the RC to qualify reliance as reasonable.

Similarly, as to certifying the narrower is- sues of compliance with other requirements

of the Act, such as bona fides (no “bad ac- tors” involved), promoters (brokers and other non-issuer sellers), and agents (prohi- bition of foreign government involvement), if the RC’s inquiry is reasonably crafted and conducted to investigate the issue thor- oughly, that should suffice. There will likely still be interviews or written Q&A, inspec- tions of contracts and records, background checks, and licensing confirmations, but more narrowly drawn to the specific point targeted. Given the more limited scope, cost and capability should be much less prob- lematic.

Presently, alas, all of these potential res- olutions, no matter how sensible, remain mere conjecture. As negotiations continue over the provisions of the Act, stakeholders (especially those hailing from the securities and corporate law areas) should pursue clar- ification of exactly what is Congress’ intent as to the due diligence requirements, and the addition of language requiring that rea- sonable diligence will be all, and everything, that is due under the Act to help confirm the credibility, safeguard the benefits, and en- sure the integrity of the Program.

YOUR ALL-ACCESS PASS TO EVERYTHING EB-5. Enjoy over 75+ Hours of exclusive EB-5 content including webinars and panel presentation recordings by purchasing the All Access Pass (AAP) for 2016. Exclusive to IIUSA Members, AAP holders receive additional insights from EB-5 reports and raw data on EB-5 statistics and trends.

Regional Center “data tracker” reports featuring aggregated reporting on all Regional Centers’ annual I-924A filings and designations/amendments

I-829 request for evidence (RFE)/denial raw data and report (2011-2013)

Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOITs) and final termination notices for terminated Regional Centers

Notices/reports of Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions against Regional Centers

FEATURE YOUR BUSINESS IN THE

IIUSA’S QUARTERLY PUBLICATION >>>>

REGIONAL CENTER BUSINESS JOURNAL

Issue #1, May 2013 iiusa.org | 98 | iiusa.org Issue #1, May 2013

By Robert C. Divine IIUSA Vice President Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.

O n February 14, 2013, USCIS dis- seminated publicly a draft policy memo concerning the employ-

ment-based fifth preference (EB-5). This article (1) notes the relatively few note- worthy changes to the prior dissemi- nated draft from November 2011 and (2) identifies some critical topics not ad- dressed by the memo.

The new draft clarifies a disappointingly small number of issues and continues to many important issues of significant uncertainty. Nevertheless, every effort at clarification should be appreciated so I list them here:

1 Adds to intro language to set a bal-anced program tone, including refer- ence to “ensuring program integrity”;

2 Makes many small technical legal and stylistic changes; 3 Opposes a guaranteed right of in-vestor’s eventual ownership in a particular asset (to be subtracted from capital at risk) [note: USCIS has said this orally in stakeholder meetings and in some adjudications, but never in public writing];

4 Clarifies that payment to investor of return on investment (i.e., profit, vs. redemption of capital) during or after conditional residency is acceptable;

5 Recognizes risk spreading by the singel investment enterprise among multiple projects (100% subsidiaries for non-RC sponsored) [ but note USCIS has tended to state that the projects must be identified in the I-526 of each investor relying on them];

6 Offers positive examples of restruc-turing/reorganization for NCEs es- tablished before Nov. 29, 1990 (convert- ing restaurant into nightclub, or adding substantial crop production to an exist- ing livestock farm);

7 Suggests that requested RC areas often are best justified by showing significant contribution to the supply chain and labor pool of proposed pro- jects;

8 Recognizes that investors in trou-bled businesses may combine pre- served and newly created jobs;

9 Recognizes, consistent with Direc-tor Mayorkas’ letter to Senator Le- ahy a few years ago, that investors may count indirect jobs located outside the RC boundaries [but providing no crite- ria about any limitations on this option, if any];

10 Hedges from prior discussion, suggesting a need for causation between injection of EB-5 capital and creation of created jobs claimed, while still recognizing that the NCE or JCE cre- ates the jobs;

11 Sets presumptions for I-829 ad-judication of “reasonable time”: one year generally OK, but beyond that only if “extreme circumstances” such as force majeure;

12 Articulates of deference policy to cover prior same-project adjudi- cations not only I-924 but also prior I- 526s, though no deference if “material change” meaning having a natural ten- dency to influence or predictable ability to affect the decision, and deference to I-526 approval when adjudicating I-829 on same plan;

13 Maintains that material change after filing I-526 up through ad- mission as a conditional resident require new I-526 (and any approved I-526 will be revoked), and cites as “material” (a) cure of a deficiency and (b) change of industry group claimed [note: it is not

clear whether “another industry group” refers to real change of business plan vs. simple change of NAICS codes claimed to meet USCIS ever-changing perspec- tives on this];

14 Recognizes that changes after admission as CPR can be signifi- cant without preventing I-829 approval as long as capital remained at risk (in- cluding being “expeditiously” shifted from one plan to another) in a job cre- ating enterprise within scope of industry approval of the same RC, and as long as there was not a preconceived intent to make the switch;

15 Repeats some policies already articulated in other memos, such as the requirement that jobs last at least two years to be sufficiently “permanent” to be counted (12-11-2009 memo), the requirement at I-526 to show that jobs will be created within 2.5 years of I-526 creation (12-11-2009 memo), that differ- ent investors/projects cannot count the same jobs (most recent TO memo).

The February 2013 draft fails to provide desperately needed guidance and clari- fication on many topics, which I list here from a first reading in hope that readers will share with IIUSA or AILA any other topics they believe need coverage, so that the most effective comments can be provided to USCIS. Such omissions include the following:

1 Whether the new commercial en-terprise (NCE) can have the option to buy back an investor’s interest after the end of the investor’s conditional resi- dence.

2 Whether sale or refinance of the job creating enterprise (JCE), ostensibly because of its success, may occur be- fore the end of conditional residence and generate return of capital to the NCE, even if the NCE does not distribute the capital to investors until after the end of conditional residence.

New Draft EB-5 Policy Memo from USCIS:

what’s really new, and what’s left undone

3 Whether and under what conditions a NCE may identify a business plan to generate jobs in and remove capital from an initial job creating enterprise and move the capital into subsequent enter- prises during the investors’ conditional residence (particularly, must all future such JCEs be fully documented in I-526, must they be principally doing business in RC or TEA, and must they create any new jobs if the original JCE maintains the jobs).

4 Whether a NCE may condition re-lease of funds from escrow until a certain number of investors’ I-526 peti- tions are approved (as opposed to only the approval of the respective investor’s I-526).

5 Whether direct jobs created outside the RC area or TEA may be counted even when most jobs are created within the area (“principally doing business, and creates jobs in”), and whether in- direct jobs arising from such direct jobs can be counted.

6 Whether investment across a port-folio of businesses must provide in I-526 a Matter of Ho compliant business plan for all of the businesses in the port- folio.

7 What constitutes the location of a job for purposes of such determina- tions as whether the enterprise is prin- cipally doing business in a RC or TEA. (Note questions of where the employee is physically and how often, where facili- ties are located, whether the employee reports to a remote location, etc.)

8 Whether a TEA investment may span multiple TEAs in multiple states. 9 Whether an area other than a county or MSA may be considered a TEA even without state designation, such as a single census tract, if publicly available data demonstrates the area has 150% of the national average unemployment.

10 Whether an NCE making loans to nonprofit entities may qualify. 11 Whether the investor may take credit for job creation arising from other funds not only invested in the NCE (the subject of the pre-RC regulation about “multiple investors”) but also from other funds invested in or loaned to the JCE [Note: this seems generally accept- ed in practice, but the memo mentions

only the language of the regulation that preceded RCs].

12. Whether investors in entities other than limited partnerships hav- ing very limited control similar to limited partners may be considered to be suffi- ciently “engaged in management” [Note: current USCIS’ training manuals have clarified this, but the draft memo omits reference].

13. Whether “verifiable detail” and “detailed statement” is consist- ent with the amended law concerning regional centers that requires only “gen- eral proposal” and “general predictions.”

14. Whether regional centers must be involved in developing, promoting/ marketing, managing specific projects to foreign investors, as opposed to merely promoting the economy of the region in- cluding seeking, monitoring, and report- ing to USCIS about qualifying projects whose developers can market and man- age the projects themselves [generally accepted, but the memo omits].

15 Whether a RC amendment MUST (vs. MAY, per I-924 instructions) be filed and approved in order for I-526s to be filed by investors in projects us- ing different job prediction methodology [stated in the negative twice in stake- holder meetings but nothing written down], or under sponsorship of RC that has undergone administrative change (ownership or management) [USCIS has stated in stakeholder meetings and I-924 instructions that only email noti- fication is necessary, but some emails from the Immigrant Investor Program suggest otherwise].

16 Exactly which types of expenses of a project may or may not be paid with EB-5 capital (interest on loan of EB-5 capital, broker dealer fees, pro- ject development fees, etc.)

17 Whether a worker authorized to work in the U.S. under TPS, de- ferred action, pending application for suspension of deportation or cancella- tion of removal, may be considered a qualified employee [Note: what is “an al- ien remaining in the U.S. under suspen- sion of deportation”?]

18 What is the legal basis for USCIS application of a policy requiring that RC-sponsored jobs be created be- fore the end of conditional residence.

19 A host of questions USCIS ad-dressed orally in recent stake- holder meetings but has not written down anywhere, such as to what extent part-time jobs and jobs employed by the JCE outside the U.S. are factored in.

20 Under what circumstances can the jobs of a tenant of the JCE, or jobs arising from visitor spending, be counted. [Note: USCIS has written only indecipherable memos on tenant occu- pancy, and no known decisions in con- tested cases].

21 When direct vs. indirect construc-tion jobs can be counted, as a practical matter, how “hard” and “soft” costs must be analyzed separately.

22. What USCIS means when in re-quests for evidence it requires “verifiable detail” about various items.

23 How NAICS codes are required, and on what legal basis. 24 When capital is considered “in-vested” for purposes of TEA designation, troubled business assess- ments, etc.

25 Whether the point to which an investor must maintain invest- ment and show jobs is the filing of I-829, the expiration of conditional residence (shown on card), or the adjudication of I-829.

26 Whether and under what circum-stances EB-5 capital may be used to repay bridge financing (debt or equity).

27 Whether jobs count if they were created on an indefinite basis dur- ing conditional residence but were lost before I-829 filed.

USCIS simply is not keeping up with the number of questions that reasonably arise for well intentioned developers and investors-- questions that need predict- able answers for prospective planning of major enterprises and projects. The government is not making EB-5 Pro- gram attractive to developers and inves- tors when they can only find out what the rules might be until after they spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in project development and marketing and the investors file their I-526 petitions. ■

A d

v o

c a c

y A

d v o

c a c

Ad Space

Issue #1, M ay 2013

iiusa.org | 7

6 | iiusa.or g

Issue #1, M ay 2013

Dear IIUS A Membe

rs:

O n March 4

th at the I IUSA Lead

ership Me eting in W

ashington,

DC the B oard of D

irectors fo r-

mally adop ted a reso

lution to u ndertake

the missio n of break

ing the una cceptable

backlog of I-526 petit

ion proces sing. This

decision ca me after su

bstantial in put from

IIUSA Reg ional Cen

ter memb ers who

have seen processin

g time for I-526 peti-

tions grind to an una

cceptable length of

processing .

In order t o remedy

the situati on, IIUSA

intends to articulate

the delays in terms

of the eco nomic imp

act that is being un-

necessarily halted due

to these d elays. In

other word s, we are g

oing to use the data

we collect to describe

the delays in terms

of lost cap ital formati

on and res ulting U.S.

job creatio n - all at no

cost to the taxpayer.

WE NEED YO UR HELP!

IIUSA is c ollecting r

eceipt num bers (or

WAC#’s, a s most of

us know them in

shorthand) for I-526’s

that are o utside of

normal pr ocessing

times. E mail info@

iiusa.org to submit yo

ur receipt numbers,

which will be kept in

confidence by IIUSA.

The image below is

a screens hot from

USCIS’ C ase Statu

s web a pplication

showing th e current p

rocessing times that

they are re porting. II

USA mem bers have

indicated t hat the tim

es below a re not re-

flective of the real am

ount of tim e that it

is taking fo r I-526 pe

titions to b e adjudi-

cated. He lp us show

USCIS an d other

interested federal age

ncies just how slow

processing has gotten

Thank you in advanc

e for your prompt re-

sponse to the above

request. ■

Let’s Brea k the I-52

6 Backlog !

Send IIUS A Your W

AC#s for Petition

Outside of Norm

al Proce ssing Tim

It’s Wors e Than w

e Though t...

Governm ent

Affairs Re view

Email you r backlog

ged WAC #s to info

@iiusa.org to make

your voic e heard!

A d

v o

c a c

A d

v o

c a c

20 12

20 13

“IIUSA, as the trade associa

tion and repre sentative of th

EB-5 Regiona l Center Prog

ram industry, fully support

the Plaintiff’s motion to mo

dify the asset freeze order

and

return investo rs’ funds dire

ctly to them. This action w

ill

demonstrate that the Unite

d States is go verned by the

rule

of law, efficie ntly and prud

ently enforce d to protect in

vestor

interests – re storing invest

or confidence in the Progra

as a result. Th e difficult eco

nomic times of today exac

er-

bate the need for vigilant en

forcement of United States

securities law s that sends

a message to investors tha

t our

country is op en for investm

ent and those who do inves

are protected by our laws.

”

“Competing immigrant in

vestor progra ms around th

world operat e without inv

estment or im migration ris

k. In

the EB-5 Pro gram, investo

rs understan d that investm

ent

risk is require d. The immig

ration benefi ts associated

with

the at-risk in vestment mu

st be transpa rent and pred

ict-

able – or risk undermining

confidence a nd integrity o

the Program. We believe t

his can be fix ed with cons

istent

processing ti mes, a transp

arent policy d evelopment p

ro-

cess, and su bstantive com

munication w ith the indust

ry.”

“In just the la st month, IIU

SA has collec ted well over

500

receipt numb ers for I-526

petitions fro m Regional C

ent-

ers all over th e country. Th

e processing times range

from 5 to 20 + months. T

his small sam ple of the tot

backlog of I- 526 petitions

represents o ver $250 mil

lion

in pure EB-5 capital form

ation. The co mplete back

log of

pending I-52 6 petitions, b

ased on an a nalysis of US

CIS

FY2012 filing statistics, is

nearly 4,000 – representi

potentially $2 .B in capital

formation tha t will result in

the

creation of o ver 40,000 A

merican jobs – all at no c

ost to

the U.S. taxp ayer.”

04/10 IIUSA submits le

tter to USC IS Director

on pro-

cessing ba cklog, stifli

ng job crea tion.

04/05 IIUSA Files Amicu

s Brief in S EC v A Ch

icago Con -

vention Ce nter Case

supporting SEC’s Mo

tion to

return froz en assets

directly to EB-5 inves

tors.

04/01 IIUSA submits co

mments on USCIS dra

ft EB-5

adjudicatio ns guidanc

e memora ndum

03/11 Execu tive Directo

r Peter D. Joseph Te

stifies in

front of Tex as State Le

gislature C ommittee o

Internation al Trade an

d Intergove rnmental A

ffairs

03/05 IIUSA Hosted Ec

onomic De velopment

Breakfast in

Washingto n DC with

Keynote S peakers fro

m Sen-

ate Judicia ry Commit

tee Staff

03/05 USCIS Ombudsm

an Stakeho lder Meetin

g, where

Executive Director Pe

ter D. Jose ph is a fea

tured

speaker

03/04 IIUSA meets with

members of the Nort

h American

Securities Administra

tors Assoc iation (NAS

AA) in

Washingto n, DC

02/25-28 IIUSA meets with

Shanghai, Beijing, an

d Guang-

dong Exit/ Entry Asso

ciations in China

02/12 EB-5 success hi

ghlighted b y members

of the Sen -

ate Judicia ry Commit

tee during hearing.

02/11 IIUSA Supports I

nteragency collaborat

ion to pro-

tect the int egrity of th

e EB-5 Pro gram in the

wake

of the Chic ago Conve

ntion Cent er Case

01/06-07 IIUSA meets wit

h American Chamber

of Com-

merce - So uth China

President, Harley Sey

edin,

and Senior s Foreign C

ommercial Service O

fficers

in Guangzh ou, China

11/12 IIUSA sends lette

r to USCIS in Follow U

p to

10/16/201 2 EB-5 En

gagement regarding u

nimple-

mented po licies and s

low proces sing times.

■

O n Wedne

sday 4/1 0/2013,

IIUSA sent a letter to

USCIS

Director A lejandro M

ayor-

kas conce rning the p

rocessing back-

log and its detriment

al impact on the

success o f the EB-5

Program. IIUSA

notified M ayorkas of

its pool o f over

500 WAC #s for ba

cklogged I-526

petitions c ollected fro

m our Reg ional

Center me mbers all o

ver the co untry,

representin g over $25

0 million in pure

EB-5 capi tal formati

on. In this small

sample, pr ocessing t

imes range from

five to over twenty plu

s months. Fur-

ther rese arch usin

g USCIS

Case Sta tus data

brought

us to the exact and

stagger-

ing numb er of pend

ing I-526

petitions to be 5,8

87 (as of

January 2 -13). It

now be-

ing late-A pril, the n

umber is

likely clos er to 7,000

pending

(or $3.5+B illion and

70,000+

U.S. jobs) . This kind

of inefficien -

cy and un predictabil

ity in proc essing

times wou ld lead to s

eriously ne gative

consequen ces in the E

B-5 Progra m at

a time whe n it is peak

ing in econ omic

growth and regional d

evelopmen t na-

tionwide. ■

Ad SpaceAd Space

June 2014

REGIONALCENTERBUSINESSJOURNAL

Creating Jobs Through Investments

Insert Headline here

And HereAnd here...and more! Fugitibu sdaepe licim et occae prendio

doles niaspel eatur alitibe ratquis

doluptis sequiae vendis re volup

tasi to dolluptat perferf eribust ma

expliquam et quunt hil ium

explaborpos aut qui consequo

berspiendem nus que pores moluptatur

aceria init, omnis iment, simaxim

aximusa planda il ipsam dolum volor

aliquate comnisqui cus dolupta ssimet

facesenes ratiis maio ipsuntiuntem

idi recto volorum nis es atecuptam

nonsequas am harciduciet doluptius

aut is experia ectur, ut odit magnaturio.

Sequam fugiatiis idelique que doluptae

volupta con porisitat estruptiate

In this issue:

1 2

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SECURITIES & EXCHANGECOMMISSION

ECONOMIC GROWTH(GDP)

U.S. JOBS

TAX REVENUE

PUBLIC SERVICES

CONDITIONAL GREEN CARD

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OR CONSULAR PROCESSING

GREEN CARD

INVESTORS

REGIONAL CENTER

ESCROW BANK

BANK

NCE

DEVELOPEREQUITY JCE

STATE GOVERNMENT

TEA

I-829

I-526

COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CIVIL SOCIETY

EB 5 Compliance:A Blueprint for Economic Development

Immigration

Financial

March 2015

REGIONALCENTERBUSINESSJOURNAL

EB-5 Program Integrity: Separating Fact

from Fiction Association Building Committee Pushes

Support Through Public Letter to Congress

NASAA Simplifies Blue Sky Form D Filing

Process Rule 2040 and the Lawful Payment of

Foreign Broker FeesRegional Center Terminations

Form I-924A as a National Security and

Fraud Detection ToolSelf-Regulation and IIUSA’s Enforcement

Procedure $826 Million Foreign Direct Investments:

Another Record-Breaking Quarter Regional Center Designation: Refining the

Basic ApprovalSelectUSA Summit Showcases Diversity of

U.S. Investment Opportunities for Foreign

Investors

In this issue:

The above does not represent any standard flow of funds for an EB-5 transaction. It is an example to

demonstrate the layers of compliance needed to make sure #EB5isWorking.

July 2015

REGIONAL CENTER BUSINESS JOURNAL

2015 EB-5 Regio nal Economic De

velopment

Advocacy Confe rence Recap

The Path to Rea uthorization of t

he EB-5

Regional Center Program: A Tim

e for Industry

Confidence, Uni ty & Vigilance

What would the U.S. be like with

out EB-5?

Association Bui lding Committe

e Pushes Full

Speed Ahead to Reauthorization

Effects of the Pr oposed Leahy-G

rassley Bill

Double Jeopard y: The Risks of E

arly EB-5

Repayment

Five Approaches to Successful E

B-5 Banking

EB-5 Program G enerates over $

980 Million

in Foreign Direct Investment in t

he Second

Quarter of FY20 15

Summary of US CIS EB-5 Interac

tive Series

Call: Expenses t hat are Includab

le (or

Excludable) for J ob Creation

Economic Multip liers in the EB-5

Arena

TEAs: Data Chan ges for Census T

racts and the

Increasing Unce rtainties of Eligi

bility

SEC Censures U nregistered EB-5

Broker

Activity

Emerging EB-5 M arkets Spotlight

: India

In this issue:

EB-5:

July 2015 and the Re al Stories of

Regional Developme nt

The Hard Science of

its Economic Impact

SOU TH

AFR ICA

UNI TED

ARA B

EMI RAT

RUS SIA

IND IA

CHI NA

VIET NAM

SOU TH

KOR EA

UNI TED

KIN GDO

COL OMB

TAIW AN

NIG ERIA

MEX ICO

CAN ADA

VEN EZU

ELA

BRA ZIL

Octob er 20

REGIO NAL

CENT ER

BUSIN ESS

JOUR NAL

With Sho

rt Te rm E

xten sion,

Con gres

Reco gnize

s Imp ortan

t Rol e of E

B-5 R egion

Cent ers in

Econ omic

Deve lopm

ent w ith E

Towa rd Re

form

“EB- 5 is W

orkin g” Le

tter o f Sup

port Sent

Cong ress

with Ove

r 875 Sign

atori es

2015 Q3 M

edia Revie

w (Ju ly-Se

ptem ber)

Look ing B

eyon d Ch

ina: E B-5 E

merg ing

Mark ets

EB-5 Proj

ect T rend

s: Wh at Is

Hot and W

hat

Is No t?

Less ons L

earn ed Fr

om S ecur

ities Litig

ation

in EB -5

Anti- Mon

ey La unde

ring Rule

s and IIUS

Mem bers

Eligib ility f

or Fe dera

l Trad ema

rk Re gistr

ation

New USC

IS Da ta Sh

ows Rem

arka ble G

rowt h

for E B-5 P

rogra m as

Sou rce o

f U.S . Job

Crea ting

Fore ign D

irect Inve

stme nt

Visa Bulle

tin 2 .0 an

d its Imp

licat ions,

Inclu ding

For E B-5 I

nves tors

IIUSA ’s 20

15 EB -5 In

vesto r Ma

rkets Rep

ort

Eme rging

EB-5 Mar

kets Spot

light on In

dia,

Russ ia an

d Vie tnam

In th is iss

ue:

A Loo k at t

he Tr ends

& Or igins

Ame rica's

New Job C

reato rs

EB-5 INVE

STOR MAR

KETS :