Talk:EB-5 visa

Removing Clean Up Banner
Banner has been up since 2009. I think it's far from perfect, but enough improvements have been made to ditch the banner.JoelWhy (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Seattle Times/NY Times Citation
This citation has been removed twice by the same individual with no explanation as to why. I posted on the user's page but haven't yet heard a response. Anyone else care to speculate why it was removed? Otherwise, I'm going to add it back to the article.JoelWhy (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed this to a NY Times citation with better information. I heard back from the other user and am posting the discussion from his user page below:

Maven, you've deleted a citation a couple of times from the EB-5 page, but you haven't left any notes explaining the reason for the change. Can you please let me know why you want it removed?JoelWhy (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It leads to a piece that has commercial connections.


 * It's a New York Times article!JoelWhy (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is commercial and some might say has a bias; it has no place in Wikipedia.

Maven, I can only assume you aren't familiar with Wiki policies. The New York Times is a reliable source. The fact that it is "commercial" (by which, I'm assuming you mean, a for-profit media entity) is irrelevant. But, if you believe I'm wrong, please cite to a wiki policy which supports your assertion. In the meantime, sending a request for a third party opinion.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I agree with JoelWhy; I don't see any way in which a New York Times article is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  Perhaps Maven could elaborate on what they mean by "commercial"? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So, no response yet from Maven. I'm going to go ahead and add the citation back to the article. Obviously, if Maven comes back with an appropriate reason to remove the cite, we can revisit this issue.JoelWhy (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Important EB-5 Precedent Decisions issued in 1998 are available on the Department of Justice's website at:

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/nfvol22.html

Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206 (BIA 1998)

(1) Merely establishing and capitalizing a new commercial enterprise and signing a commercial lease are not sufficient to show that an immigrant-investor petitioner has placed his capital at risk. The petitioner must present, instead, evidence that he has actually undertaken meaningful concrete business activity.

(2) The petitioner must establish that he has placed his own capital at risk, that is to say, he must show that he was the legal owner of the invested capital. Bank statements and other financial documents do not meet this requirement if the documents show someone else as the legal owner of the capital.

(3) The petitioner must also establish that he acquired the legal ownership of the invested capital through lawful means. Mere assertions about the petitioner's financial situation or work history, without supporting documentary evidence, are not sufficient to meet this requirement.

(4) To establish that qualifying employment positions have been created, INS Forms I-9 presented by a petitioner must be accompanied by other evidence to show that these employees have commenced work activities and have been hired in permanent, full-time positions.

(5) In order to demonstrate that the new commercial enterprise will create not fewer than 10 full-time positions, the petitioner must either provide evidence that the new commercial enterprise has created such positions or furnish a comprehensive, detailed, and credible business plan demonstrating the need for the positions and the schedule for hiring the employees.

Matter of Hsiung, 22 I&N Dec. 201 (BIA 1998)

(1) A promissory note secured by assets owned by a petitioner can constitute capital under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) if: the assets are specifically identified as securing the note; the security interests in the note are perfected in the jurisdiction in which the assets are located; and the assets are fully amenable to seizure by a U.S. note holder.

(2) When determining the fair market value of a promissory note being used as capital under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), factors such as the fair market value of the assets securing the note, the extent to which the assets are amenable to seizure, and the present value of the note should be considered.

(3) Whether a petitioner uses a promissory note as capital under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) or as evidence of a commitment to invest cash, he must show that he has placed his assets at risk. In establishing that a sufficient amount of his assets are at risk, a petitioner must demonstrate, among other things, that the assets securing the note are his, that the security interests are perfected, that the assets are amenable to seizure, and that the assets have an adequate fair market value.

(4) A petitioner engaging in the reorganization or restructuring of a pre-existing business may not cause a net loss of employment.

Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 1998)

(1) Regardless of its location, a new commercial enterprise that is engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-creating businesses may only lend money to businesses located within targeted areas in order for a petitioner to be eligible for the reduced minimum capital requirement.

(2) Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, if a new commercial enterprise is engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-creating businesses, such job-creating businesses must all be located within the geographic limits of the regional center. The location of the new commercial enterprise is not controlling.

(3) A petitioner may not make material changes to his petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to Service requirements.

(4) If the new commercial enterprise is a holding company, the full requisite amount of capital must be made available to the business(es) most closely responsible for creating the employment on which the petition is based.

(5) An alien may not receive guaranteed payments from a new commercial enterprise while he owes money to the new commercial enterprise.

(6) An alien may not enter into a redemption agreement with the new commercial enterprise at any time prior to completing all of his cash payments under a promissory note. In no event may the alien enter into a redemption agreement prior to the end of the two-year period of conditional residence.

(7) A redemption agreement between an alien investor and the new commercial enterprise constitutes a debt arrangement and is prohibited under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).

(8) Reserve funds that are not made available for purposes of job creation cannot be considered capital placed at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital being placed at risk.

(9) The Service does not pre-adjudicate immigrant-investor petitions; each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits.

(10) Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), all capital must be valued at fair market value in United States dollars, including promissory notes used as capital. In determining the fair market value of a promissory note, it is necessary to consider, among other things, present value.

(11) Under certain circumstances, a promissory note that does not itself constitute capital may constitute evidence that the alien is "in the process of investing" other capital, such as cash. In such a case, the petitioner must substantially complete payments on the promissory note prior to the end of the two-year conditional period.

(12) Whether the promissory note constitutes capital or is simply evidence that the alien is in the process of investing other capital, nearly all of the money due under the promissory note must be payable within two years, without provisions for extensions.

(13) In order for a petitioner to be considered to have established an original business, he must have had a hand in its actual creation.

Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158 (BIA 1998)

(1) A petitioner under § 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot establish the requisite investment of capital if he lends the money to his new commercial enterprise.

(2) Loans obtained by a corporation, secured by assets of the corporation, do not constitute capital invested by a petitioner. Not only is such a loan prohibited by 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), but the petitioner and the corporation are not the same legal entity.

(3) A petitioner's personal guarantee on a business's debt does not transform the business's debt into the petitioner's personal debt.

(4) A petitioner must present clear documentary evidence of the source of the funds that he invests. He must show that the funds are his own and that they were obtained through lawful means.

(5) A petitioner who acquires a pre-existing business must show that the investment has created, or at least has a reasonable prospect of creating, 10 full-time positions, in addition to those existing before acquisition. The petitioner must, therefore, present evidence concerning the pre-acquisition level of employment. Simply maintaining the pre-acquisition level of employment is not sufficient, unless the petitioner shows that the pre-existing business qualifies as a "troubled business."

USCIS has non-precedent AAO Administrative Decisions posted at: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=09b29c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=09b29c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

The pertinent categories are: K1 - Request for Participation as Regional Center (contains four decisions 1 in 2008, 2 in 2009, and 1 in 2011) K2- Termination of Participation as Regional Center (nothing yet posted)

B7 - Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneurs (contains many decisions) B7- Petition to Remove Conditions by Entrepreneur (contains many decisions) (these two are mixed together) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.167.96 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the list of centers
I propose removing the list of centers per state, for the following reasons:
 * it's incomplete (covers only 26 out of 42 states that have RCs)
 * it's out of date
 * it's not going to be maintained
 * it's prone to promotional edits (see Connecticut)
 * it's a pain to reference
 * much better external sources exist (see the External Links section).
 * doesn't provide any additional information vs. external sources

-- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I don't think there's any reason to include the list on this page. Nice edits, btw.JoelWhy (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

EB-5 Regional Center projects....Las Vegas?
Why is this section so heavily focused on the work being done in Las Vegas? The EB-5 Visa program is funding projects across the United States. This makes it seem like the projects are some how localized to Las Vegas. Novitas315 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Errors in lead paragraph
I see that the page is being actively edited, so I won't make the changes myself (at least, not right now.) But, there is a factual error and some confusing information in the opening paragraph.

In the first paragraph, it states "...by investing from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in projects that create full-time jobs in USCIS approved Targeted Employment Areas or high unemployment areas (HUAs)" The investment does not need to be in a TEA. Rather, if it is in a TEA, the minimum investment is $500k. If it's not in a TEA, minimum investment amount is $1M. I haven't read the full, revised article, yet. But, just wanted to point that out since it's in the lead.

Also, while it's fine to include the regional center (RC) info in the first paragraph, as it is currently written, the information is confusing. It currently read: "Regional Centers...perform an integral and essential role in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program." Well, yes...but, only for EB5 investments in RCs. RCs really have zero impact on EB5 investments made into one's own business and/or non-RC projects. Joel Why? (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Joel, I've tried to integrate some of your suggestions. I have the sources but I am signing out for now. Can you make changes? That would be great.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No prob, happy to help.    Joel Why? (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks (talk). That's an improvement.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Under construction - updating article to May 2017
References being added Oceanflynn (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC):
 * Savills Studley study contains much data and info to be added that includes much-needed more pro-EB-5 content.


 * April 2017, Washington State and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) content to be updated in article


 * 2014 Washington City Paper











EB-5 Immigrant Investor Process
Official USCIS policies post on their web pages have changed over time. I am working on trying to clarify what is new. Any suggestions?Oceanflynn (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Initially, under the first EB-5 program, the foreign investor was required to create an entirely new commercial enterprise; however, under the Pilot Program investments can be made directly in a job-generating commercial enterprise (new, or existing - "Troubled Business" ), or into a "Regional Center" - a 3rd party-managed investment vehicle (private or public), which assumes the responsibility of creating the requisite jobs. Regional Centers may charge an administration fee for managing the investor's investment and a "percentage of what they raise from the developers" which amounts to millions on large projects. ""


 * "If the foreign national investor's petition is approved, the investor and their dependents will be granted conditional permanent residence valid for two years. Within the 90-day period before the conditional permanent residence expires, the investor must submit evidence documenting that the full required investment has been made and that 10 jobs have been maintained, or 10 jobs have been created or will be created within a reasonable time period."

EB-5 Investments gone BAD
Other than this possibility at NY Wheel, not read of others.

https://therealdeal.com/2017/07/21/new-york-wheel-delays-could-spell-disaster-for-projects-eb-5-investors/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=popular_widget&utm_campaign=posts_popular--Wikipietime (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but not really something we would normally include in the Wiki article. It's almost inevitable that some people are going to invest in projects that go south.    Joel Why? (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

WAAAAAY too much focus on Kushner
The controversy surrounding Kushner may or may not belong on this page. (i.e. Maybe this isn't a perfect analogy, but it's a bit like having a section on Bernie Madoff on the Security (finance) Wiki page because Madoff committed Securities fraud.) I can see why there could be a mention of Kusher here. But, it's absurd to have so much detail on a general page about EB5. Thoughts? Joel Why? (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EB-5 visa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141013235005/http://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/China%20Employment%20Fifth%20Preference.pdf to https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/China%20Employment%20Fifth%20Preference.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)