While some EB-5 stakeholders think the new regulations are
potentially ambiguous, EB-5 expert Suzanne Lazicki sees the new TEA policy as
having a lot of carry-over from before and offering more clarity. One question
she sees as being unclear: When it comes to high-unemployment TEAs, does the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accept census tracts touching only at a
point as being “directly adjacent”?
Business writer and EB-5 expert Suzanne Lazicki has spent a
considerable amount of time reviewing the current TEA policy. She notes the
many consistent elements between the new regulations and the old policy, the
differences, and offers some good practical advice for petitioners.
The new TEA rules apply to all petitioners who filed on or after November 21, 2019. There are no exceptions even if a project had prior investors or exemplar approval before the date of the new regulations. If an EB5 Green Card investor is attempting to retain a priority date prior to November 21, 2019, but filing on or after that date, the new TEA policy still applies.
Conversely, the new rules do not apply to any investor who filed his or her I-526 before that date, even if the full amount of the funds were not invested in the NCE or deployed to the JCE before that date.
Despite the fact that many experts believe more than half of the
EB5 projects that qualified for TEA
designation before the new regulations will no longer qualify, Lazicki points
out that much of the previous policy will remain in effect, like the definition
of rural areas and the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) TEA standards.
Additionally, the job-creating entity must still do its main business and
create jobs in the TEA area. She also states that the allowable methodology
data will be the same.
Lazicki also observes that the factor of timing remains the same
with the new regulations: TEA qualification must be in effect at the time an
I-526 petition is filed or at the time the investor’s capital is invested,
whichever is earlier.
What TEA policy is different now
Qualifications for a job-creating entity in a high-unemployment TEA have two new revisions: The first is the inclusion as an option of a city or town outside being outside an MSA and having a population of at least 20,000. The second revision is that the census tract where the job-creating entity primarily does its business can only include directly adjacent tracts. This later revision was driven by the political mandate to stop the gerrymandering that allowed for affluent EB5 investments in urban areas to qualify for TEA designation.
The other main point of difference now is who makes the TEA
determination. Previously, that authority rested with individual states, but
now it resides on the federal level with the Department of Homeland Secuity
Different but almost the same
Lazicki brings up that during the period of the previous TEA
policy, stakeholders felt a comfortable level of assurance with state TEA-designation
letters. But she maintains, “that TEA letter comfort was useful for marketing,
but somewhat of an illusion.” This is because TEA qualification was based not
on the date of that letter but determined separately for every investor based
on the date of investment or petition filing, whichever was earlier. Those
state letters, she says, were never given automatic deference because USCIS always
had case-by-case discretion to challenge anything; thus, in the past, there was
always a degree of uncertainty.
In going over the new regulations that allows for the same
methodologies as before, Lazicki opines, “we are not standing on new ground,
regarding data…. TEA requirements are, if anything, clearer now than they used
to be.” This statement stands out as other EB-5 stakeholders have recently
commented on the need for clarity of TEA policy.
What are the current
While Lazicki welcomes the newfound clarity she sees in the new
regulations, she doesn’t agree with everything written in them. For example,
she cites an example that the new rule suggests the TEA designation process can
be “easily navigated by any petitioner — whether associated with a regional
center or not — for little or no cost.” She begs to differ. She notes that
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and American Community Survey (ACS) data is
difficult for a typical EB5
investor to navigate,
interpret and even print out. To this end, she believes the process is challenging
enough that most investors will hire an experienced consultant to help with the
TEA data they cite in their petition.
Another issue she brings up relates to an EB5 regional center getting exemplar approval. DHS says that approval will receive deference in petitioner filings associated with that exemplar. But Lazicki says this allowance is “100 % useless and void” because of the time it takes to process a regional center’s I-924 application: 62 to 115 months. She points out the error in math here: “No investor can claim TEA status at the time of investment or I-526 filing based on a TEA determination calculated five to 10 years previously.”
Improving your odds: TEA
While letters from state agencies will no longer have the at
least perceived power of making TEA designations, Lazicki still feels those
interested in EB 5
immigration can benefit from using them to present data to USCIS. It is
still acceptable for state agencies to supply employment data. She is not
certain if such agencies will still be open to requests from EB-5 investors for
particular unemployment reports but she feels it “doesn’t hurt to ask.” She
believes that as these agencies work under nationally mandated standards, their
presentation of data will be accepted as reliable.
As Lazicki believes that EB-5 economists are still necessary to help petitioners present unemployment analysis, she advises that there be three particular criteria that such professionals must meet in their work:
She firmly believes that if a petitioner in the immigrant investor program can find the data and see
that the calculations follow policy and statistical guidance, “odds are the
USCIS adjudicator will likewise find it reliable and verifiable.” She also
suggests that a report from a consultant should have more footnotes than a
Read Lazicki’s blog on the new TEA rules
- OR -
Regulations, rules, and policies
Targeted employment areas
0 Best Answers
1 Best Answers
Before moving these private placements into the data room, you must complete this
Investor Questionnaire. It asks about your education, business
experience and financial condition.
GreenCardByInvestment.com is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we'll only use your personal information to administer your account and to provide the products and services you requested from us. By registering with us, you agree that from time to time, we may contact you about our products and services, as well as other content that may be of interest to you.
Wait, I have an account
You account password has been reset. Please login to continue.
We have sent you a reset password link on firstname.lastname@example.org. Please use that link to set a new password.
Congratulations! Your request for due diligence has been forwarded to EB5 Diligence.
They will contact you shortly.
Please Login or Register