Longstanding EB-5 Visa Program Undergoes Significant Changes

11 November 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Roy J. Barquet

As of November 21, 2019, the United States EB-5 immigrant visa, employment-based fifth preference category, or EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program, will be revised for the first time since its 1990 enactment. The revisions, promoted as modernization, stem from no congressional or statutory revision of the 1990 law but instead from the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to revise regulations that “ensure the overall economic security of the United States.”

For nearly three decades, the EB-5 program has raised billions of dollars in capital for U.S. companies that create U.S. jobs in high unemployment or rural areas of the U.S. In exchange for a multiyear, risk-prone path to becoming lawful permanent residents, foreign nationals invest at least $500,000, or $900,000 after November 21, 2019, to capitalize U.S. businesses that will employ at least 10 new U.S. full-time workers. Most such investments are made in businesses located within targeted employment areas with high unemployment, otherwise known as “TEAs,” or rural areas. Such targeted investments lower the investment threshold to $500,000 (or $900,000 after November 21, 2019). Outside of rural areas or TEAs, the foreign national must invest at least $1 million – a number that will rise to $1.8 million after November 21, 2019.

Below is a summary of the significant changes that will affect the EB-5 program as of November 21, 2019:

1.            Higher Investment Amounts: The Secretary of Homeland Security’s rule changes increase TEA or rural area investments from $500,000 to $900,000, and non-targeted EB-5 investment amounts correspondingly increase from $1 million to $1.8 million. The final rule also anticipates that future inflationary increases in investment mandates will occur every five years.

2.            Priority Date Retention:  Because of the adverse consequences that befall many EB-5 investors who are defrauded by EB-5 regional centers, or whose EB-5 investments fail to create the requisite jobs, USCIS will allow an investor’s second qualifying investment, as reflected in a second EB-5 application, to benefit from the priority date (filing date) of the first EB-5 petition. Such priority date retention will expedite processing of the subsequently filed EB-5 petition and preserve EB-5 benefits for children of investors who would otherwise attain 21 years of age, the maximum age an investor’s children may attain and still derivatively benefit from the EB-5 investment.  

3.            TEA Designations: To address persistent complaints that the designation of what constitutes a TEA is too malleable and not genuinely related to an area’s high unemployment, the new TEA definitions mandate that only USCIS, not state or local governments, will determine what constitutes a TEA. In designating a geographic area as a TEA, USCIS will rely on a combination of census tracts that include the tract or contiguous tracts in which the investment’s job-creating enterprise is principally doing business, including any or all directly adjacent census tracts. If a city or town not contained within a metropolitan statistical area has a population of 20,000 or more and has experienced an average unemployment rate of at least 150% of the national average unemployment rate, such cities or towns will automatically qualify as TEAs.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT