# EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2017-00447 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** January 13, 2017 - **Citation:** 82 FR 4738 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 204 and 216 [CIS No. 2555-14; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006] RIN 1615-AC07 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations governing the employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant investor classification and associated regional centers to reflect statutory changes and modernize the EB-5 program. In general, under the EB-5 program, individuals are eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence in the United States if they make the necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and create or, in certain circumstances, preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers. This proposed rule would change the EB-5 program regulations to reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies. It would also change certain aspects of the EB-5 program in need of reform. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006, by any one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by mail by sending correspondence to Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006 in your correspondence. This mailing address may be used for paper or CD-ROM submissions. • Hand Delivery/Courier: You may submit comments directly to USCIS through hand delivery to Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529; Telephone 202-272-8377. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006 in your correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori MacKenzie, Division Chief, Operations Policy and Performance, Immigrant Investor Program Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 131 M Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529; Telephone 202-357-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Public Participation II. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of Major Provisions (1) Priority Date Retention (2) Increases to the Investment Amounts (3) TEA Designations (4) Removal of Conditions (5) Miscellaneous Changes C. Legal Authority D. Costs and Benefits III. Background A. The EB-5 Program B. The Regional Center Program C. EB-5 Immigrant Visa Process IV. The Proposed Rule A. Priority Date Retention B. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount C. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount for High Employment Areas D. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount for TEAs E. TEA Designation Process F. Technical Changes (1) Separate Filings for Derivatives (2) Interviews (3) Process for Issuing Permanent Resident Cards (4) Miscellaneous Other Changes V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (1) Summary (2) Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule (3) Baseline Program Forecasts (4) Economic Impacts of the Major Rule Provisions D. Executive Order 13132 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act F. Executive Order 12988 G. National Environmental Policy Act H. Paperwork Reduction Act Proposed Regulatory Amendments List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPI Consumer Price Index CPI-U Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers DHS Department of Homeland Security DOL Department of Labor DOS Department of State EB-5 Employment-Based Fifth Preference GDP Gross Domestic Product HSA Homeland Security Act IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee Account INA Immigration and Nationality Act INS Immigration and Naturalization Service IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis JCE Job-Creating Entity MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NCE New Commercial Enterprise NOID—Notice of Intent to Deny NOIT—Notice of Intent to Terminate PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act RFE—Request for Evidence TEA—Targeted Employment Area U.S.C.—United States Code USCIS—United States Citizenship and Immigration Services UR—Unemployment Rates VPC—Volume Projections Committee I. Public Participation DHS invites comments, data, and information from all interested parties, including regional centers, investors, advocacy groups, nongovernmental organizations, community-based organizations, and legal representatives who specialize in immigration law on any and all aspects of the proposed amendments. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to DHS will reference a specific portion of the proposed amendments; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. In addition to its general call for comments, DHS is specifically seeking comments on the following proposals: A. Priority date retention for EB-5 petitioners; B. Increases to the minimum investment amount for targeted employment areas (TEAs) and non-TEAs; C. Revisions to the TEA designation process, including the elimination of state designation of high unemployment areas as a method of TEA designation; D. Revisions to the filing and interview process for removal of conditions on lawful permanent residence. DHS also invites comments on the economic analysis supporting this rule and the proposed form revisions. Instructions: All submissions must include the DHS Docket No. USCIS-2016-0006 for this rulemaking. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. II. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action DHS proposes to update its regulations governing EB-5 immigrant investors and regional centers to reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies. DHS also proposes changes to areas of the EB-5 program in need of reform. B. Summary of Major Provisions DHS proposes the following major revisions to the EB-5 program regulations. (1) Priority Date Retention DHS proposes to authorize certain EB-5 petitioners to retain the priority date 1 of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for use in connection with any subsequent EB-5 immigrant petition. 2 Petitioners with approved immigrant petitions might need to file new petitions due to circumstances beyond their control (for instance, DHS might have terminated a regional center associated with the original petition), or might choose to do so for other reasons (for instance, a petitioner may seek to materially change aspects of his or her qualifying investment). DHS is proposing to generally allow EB-5 petitioners to retain the priority dates of previously approved petitions so as to avoid further delays on immigrant visa processing associated with the loss of priority dates. DHS believes that priority date retention may become increasingly important due to the strong possibility that the EB-5 visa category will remain oversubscribed for the foreseeable future. 1 An EB-5 immigrant petition's priority date is normally the date on which the petition was properly filed. In general, when demand exceeds supply for a particular visa category, an earlier priority date is more advantageous than a later one. 2 The priority date retention proposal, like other proposals described in this Executive Summary, is subject to important conditions and limitations described in more detail elsewhere in this proposed rule. (2) Increases to the Investment Amounts DHS is proposing to increase the minimum investment amounts for all new EB-5 petitioners. The increase would ensure that program requirements reflect the present-day dollar value of the investment amounts established by Congress in 1990. Specifically, DHS proposes to initially increase the standard minimum investment amount, which also applies to high employment areas, from $1 million to $1.8 million. This change would represent an adjustment for inflation from 1990 to 2015 as measured by the unadjusted Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), 3 an economic indicator that tracks the prices of goods and services in the United States. For those investors seeking to invest in a new commercial enterprise that will be principally doing business in a targeted employment area (TEA), DHS proposes to increase the minimum investment amount from $500,000 to $1.35 million, which is 75 percent of the proposed standard minimum investment amount. In addition, DHS is proposing to make regular CPI-U-based adjustments in the standard minimum investment amount, and conforming adjustments to the TEA minimum investment amount, every 5 years, beginning 5 years from the effective date of these regulations. 3 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. (3) TEA Designations DHS proposes to reform the TEA designation process to ensure consistency in TEA adjudications and ensure that designations more closely adhere to Congressional intent. First, DHS proposes to allow any city or town with high unemployment 4 and a population of 20,000 or more to qualify as a TEA. Currently, TEA designations are not available at the city or town level, unless a state designates the city or town as a TEA and provides evidence of such designation to a prospective EB-5 investor for submission with the Form I-526. See 8 CFR 204.6(i). Second, DHS proposes to eliminate the ability of a state to designate certain geographic and political subdivisions as high-unemployment areas; instead, DHS would make such designations directly, using standards described in more detail elsewhere in this proposed rule. DHS believes these changes would help address inconsistencies between and within states in designating high unemployment areas, and better ensure that the reduced investment threshold is reserved for areas experiencing significantly high levels of unemployment. 4 An area has “high unemployment” if it has an average unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. (4) Removal of Conditions DHS proposes to revise the regulations to clarify that derivative family members must file their own petitions to remove conditions on their permanent residence when they are not included in a petition to remove conditions filed by the principal investor. In addition, DHS is proposing to improve the adjudication process for removing conditions by providing flexibility in interview locations and to update the regulation to conform to the current process for issuing permanent resident cards. (5) Miscellaneous Changes Lastly, DHS proposes to update the regulations to reflect miscellaneous statutory changes made since the regulation was first published in 1991, as well as to clarify definitions of key terms for the program. By aligning DHS regulations with statutory changes and defining key terms, this proposed rule will provide greater certainty regarding the eligibility criteria for investors and their family members. C. Legal Authority The Secretary of Homeland Security's authority for the proposed regulatory amendments is found in various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., as well as the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828; the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758; and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. General authority for issuing the proposed rule is found in section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, including establishing such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out his authority; section 101(b)(1)(F) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), which establishes that a primary mission of DHS is to ensure that the economic security of the United States is not diminished by the Department's efforts, activities, and programs; and section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which vests all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations. The aforementioned authorities for the proposed regulatory amendments include: • Section 203(b)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), which makes visas available to immigrants investing in new commercial enterprises in the United States that will benefit the U.S. economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. • Section 204(a)(1)(H) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(H), which requires individuals to file petitions with DHS when seeking classification under section 203(b)(5); • Section 216A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1186b, which places conditions on permanent residence obtained under section 203(b)(5) and authorizes the Secretary to remove such conditions for immigrant investors who have met the applicable investment requirements, sustained such investment, and otherwise conformed to the requirements of sections 203(b)(5) and 216A. • Section 610 of Public Law 102-395, 8 U.S.C. 1153 note, as amended, which created the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (the “Regional Center Program”), authorizing the designation of regional centers for the promotion of economic growth, and which authorizes the Secretary to set aside visas authorized under section 203(b)(5) of the INA for individuals who invest in regional centers. D. Costs and Benefits This rule proposes changes to certain aspects of the EB-5 program that are in need of reform, and would also update the regulations to reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies. There are three major provisions proposed with several minor provisions and some miscellaneous technical changes. DHS has analyzed these provisions carefully and has determined that due to data limitations and the complexity of EB-5 investment structures, which typically involve multiple layers of investment, finance, development, and legal business entities, it is difficult to quantify and monetize the costs and benefits of the proposed provisions, with the exception of total estimated costs of approximately $91,000 5 annually for dependents who would file the Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status (Form I-829) separately from principal investors, and familiarization costs to review the rule, estimated at $501,154 annually. 5 The cost estimate is rounded from $90,762. However, DHS does provide qualitative discussions on the potential costs and benefits of these proposed provisions. One of the main proposed provisions increases the standard minimum investment amount to $1.8 million and the minimum investment amount for TEAs to $1.35 million in order to account for inflation since the inception of the program. DHS has no way to assess the potential reduction in investments either in terms of past activity or forecasted activity, and cannot therefore estimate any impacts concerning job creation, losses or other downstream economic impacts driven by the proposed investment amount increases. DHS provides a full qualitative analysis and discussion on the increase in investment amounts in the executive orders 12866 and 13563 section of this proposed rule. DHS believes these provisions would increase the integrity, effectiveness, and economic impact of the program positively, stimulating investment in areas where it is needed most and generating jobs. The costs and benefits summary of the proposed provisions is provided in Table 1, below. In addition, DHS has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to discuss any potential impacts to small entities. As discussed further in the IRFA, DHS cannot estimate the exact impact to small entities. DHS, however, does expect some impact to regional centers and non-regional center projects, although it does not anticipate that this impact will be substantial or significant. Table 1—Summary of Changes and Impact of the Proposed Provisions Current policy Proposed change Impact Current DHS regulations do not permit investors to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for a subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition DHS proposes to allow an EB-5 immigrant petitioner to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for a subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition for which the petitioner qualifies Benefits: • Makes visa allocation more predictable for investors with less possibility for large fluctuations in visa availability dates due to regional center termination. • Provides greater certainty and stability regarding the timing of eligibility for investors pursuing permanent residence in the U.S. and thus lessens the burden of unexpected changes in the underlying investment. • Provides more flexibility to investors to contribute into more viable investments, potentially reducing fraud and improving potential for job creation. Costs: • Not identified. The standard minimum investment amount has been $1 million since 1990 and has not kept pace with inflation Further, the statute authorizes a reduction in the minimum investment amount when such investment is made in a TEA by up to 50 percent of the standard minimum investment amount. Since 1991, DHS regulations have set the TEA investment threshold at 50 percent of the minimum investment amount. Similarly, DHS has not proposed to increase the minimum investment amount for investments made in a high employment area beyond the standard amount. DHS proposes to account for inflation in the investment amount since the inception of the program. DHS proposes to raise the minimum investment amount to $1.8 million. DHS also proposes to include a mechanism to automatically adjust the minimum investment amount based on the unadjusted CPI-U every 5 years DHS proposes to decrease the reduction for TEA investment thresholds, and set the TEA minimum investment at 75 percent of the standard amount. Assuming the standard investment amount is $1.8 million, investment in a TEA would initially increase to $1.35 million. DHS is not proposing to change the equivalency between the standard minimum investment amount and those made in high employment areas. As such, DHS proposes that the minimum investment amounts in high employment areas would be $1.8 million, and follow the same mechanism for future inflationary adjustments. Benefits: • Increases in investment amounts are necessary to keep pace with inflation and real value of investments; • Raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by each investor and potentially increases the total amount invested under this program. • For regional centers, the higher investment amounts per investor would mean that fewer investors would have to be recruited to pool the requisite amount of capital for the project, so that searching and matching of investors to projects could be less costly. Costs: • Some investors may be unable or unwilling to invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. • There may be fewer jobs created if fewer investors invest at the proposed higher investment amounts. • For regional centers, the higher amounts could reduce the number of investors in the global pool and result in fewer investors and thus make search and matching of investors to projects more costly. • Potential reduced numbers of EB-5 investors could prevent projects from moving forward due to lack of requisite capital. • An increase in the investment amount could make foreign investor visa programs offered by other countries more attractive. A TEA is defined by statute as a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate). Currently, investors demonstrate that their investments are in a high unemployment area in two ways: (1) Providing evidence that the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the specific county within the MSA, or the county in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business, has experienced an average unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate or (2) Submitting a letter from an authorized body of the government of the state in which the new commercial enterprise is located, which certifies that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area. DHS proposes to eliminate state designation of high unemployment areas. DHS also proposes to amend the manner in which investors can demonstrate that their investments are in a high unemployment area (1) In addition to MSAs, specific counties within MSAs, and counties in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, DHS proposes to add cities and towns with a population of 20,000 or more to the types of areas that can be designated as a high unemployment area. (2) DHS is proposing that a TEA may consist of a census tract or contiguous census tracts in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business if the weighted average of the unemployment rate for the tract or tracts is at least 150 percent of the national average. (3) DHS is also proposing that a TEA may consist of an area comprised of the census tract(s) in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business, including any and all adjacent tracts, if the weighted average of the unemployment rate for all included tracts is at least 150 percent of the national average. Benefits: • Rules out TEA configurations that rely on a large number of census tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by numerous degrees of separation. • Potential to better stimulate job growth in areas where unemployment rates are the highest. Costs: • The proposed TEA provision could cause some projects and investments to not qualify. DHS presents the potential number of projects and investments that could be affected in Table 5. Current technical issues: • The current regulation does not clearly define the process by which derivatives may file a Form I-829 petition when they are not included on the principal's petition. • Interviews for Form I-829 petitions are generally scheduled at the location of the new commercial enterprise. • The current regulations require an immigrant investor and his or her derivatives to report to a district office for processing of their permanent resident cards. DHS is proposing the following technical changes: • Clarify the filing process for derivatives who are filing a Form I-829 petition separately from the immigrant investor. • Provide flexibility in determining the interview location related to the Form I-829 petition. • Amend the regulation by which the immigrant investor obtains the new permanent resident card after the approval of his or her Form I-829 petition because DHS captures biometric data at the time the immigrant investor and derivatives appear at an ASC for fingerprinting. Conditions of Filing: Benefits: • Adds clarity and eliminates confusion for the process of derivatives who file separately from the principal immigrant investor. Costs: • Total cost to applicants filing separately would be $90,762 annually. Conditions of Interview: Benefits: • Interviews may be scheduled at the USCIS office having jurisdiction over either the immigrant investor's commercial enterprise, the immigrant investor's residence, or the location where the Form I-829 petition is being adjudicated, thus making the interview program more effective and reducing burdens on the immigrant investor. • Some applicants may have cost savings from lower travel costs. Costs: • Not estimated. Investors obtaining a permanent resident card: Benefits: • Cost and time savings for applicants for biometrics data. Costs: • Not estimated. Current miscellaneous items: • 8 CFR 204.6(j)(2)(iii) refers to the former U.S. Customs Service. • Public Law 107-273 eliminated the requirement that alien entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise from both INA § 203(b)(5) and INA § 216A. • 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) and 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii) reference “management”; • Current regulation at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) has the phrase “as opposed to maintain a purely passive role in regard to the investment”; • Public Law 107-273 allows limited partnerships to serve as new commercial enterprises; • Current regulation references the former Associate Commissioner for Examinations. • 8 CFR 204.6(k) requires USCIS to specify in its Form I-526 decision whether the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business in a targeted employment area. • Sections 204.6 and 216.6 use the term “entrepreneur” and “deportation.” These sections also refer to Forms I-526 and I-829. DHS is proposing the following miscellaneous changes: • DHS is updating references at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(2)(iii) from U.S. Customs Service to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. • Removing references to requirements that alien entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise in 8 CFR 204.6 and 216.6. • Removing references to “management” at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) and 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii); • Removing the phrase “as opposed to maintain a purely passive role in regard to the investment” from 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5); • Clarifies that any type of entity can serve as a new commercial enterprise; • Replacing the reference to the former Associate Commission for Examinations with a reference to the USCIS AAO. • Amending 8 CFR 204.6(k) to specify how USCIS will issue a decision. • Revising sections 204.6 and 216.6 to use the term “investor” instead of “entrepreneur” and to use the term “removal” instead of “deportation.” These provisions are technical changes and will have no impact on investors or the government. Therefore, the benefits and costs for these changes were not estimated. Miscellaneous Cost: • Familiarization cost of the rule. Applicants would need to read and review the rule to become familiar with the proposed provisions Familiarization costs to read and review the rule are estimated at $501,154 annually. III. Background A. The EB-5 Program As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, Congress established the EB-5 immigrant visa classification to incentivize employment creation in the United States. Under the EB-5 program, lawful permanent resident (LPR) status is available to foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million in a new commercial enterprise (NCE) that will create at least 10 full-time jobs in the United States. See INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5). A foreign national may also invest $1 million if the investment is in a high employment area or $500,000 if the investment is in a TEA, defined to include certain rural areas and areas of high unemployment. Id.; 8 CFR 204.6(f). The INA allots 9,940 immigrant visas each fiscal year for foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States under the EB-5 classification. 6 See INA section 201(d), 8 U.S.C. 1151(d); INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5). Not less than 3,000 of these visas must be reserved for foreign nationals investing in TEAs. See INA section 203(b)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B). 6 An immigrant investor, his or her spouse, and children (if any) will each use a separate visa number. B. The Regional Center Program Enacted in 1992, section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, established a pilot program that requires the allocation of a limited number of EB-5 immigrant visas to individuals who invest through DHS-designated regional centers. 7 The Regional Center Program was initially designed as a pilot program set to expire after 5 years, but Congress has continued to extend the program to the present day. 8 The Regional Center Program was last extended in December 2016. 9 7 Current law requires that DHS annually set aside 3,000 EB-5 immigrant visas for regional center investors. Section 116 of Public Law 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (Nov. 26, 1997). If this full annual allocation is not used, remaining visas may be allocated to foreign nationals who do not invest in regional centers. 8 See Section 116 of Public Law 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2467 (Nov. 26, 1997); Section 1 of Public Law 112-176, 126 Stat. 1325, 1325 (Sept. 28, 2012); Section 575 of Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242, 2526 (Dec. 18, 2015). 9 See Public Law 114-254 (Dec. 10, 2016). Under the Regional Center Program, foreign nationals base their EB-5 petitions on investments in new commercial enterprises located within “regional centers.” DHS regulations define a regional center as an economic unit, public or private, that promotes economic growth, regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. See 8 CFR 204.6(e). While all EB-5 petitioners go through the same petition process, those petitioners participating in the Regional Center Program may meet statutory job creation requirements based on economic projections of either direct or indirect job creation, rather than only on jobs directly created by the new commercial enterprise. See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(3). In addition, Congress authorized the Secretary to give priority to EB-5 petitions filed through the Regional Center Program. See section 601(d) of Public Law 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, as amended by Public Law 112-176, Sec. 1, 126 Stat. 1326 (Sept. 28, 2012). Requests for regional center designation must be filed with USCIS on the Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program (Form I-924). See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(3)-(4). Once designated, regional centers must provide USCIS with updated information to demonstrate continued eligibility for the designation by submitting an Annual Certification of Regional Center (Form I-924A) on an annual basis or as otherwise requested by USCIS. See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6)(i)(B). USCIS may seek to terminate a regional center's participation in the program if the regional center no longer qualifies for the designation, the regional center fails to submit the required information or pay the associated fee, or USCIS determines that the regional center is no longer promoting economic growth. See 8 CFR 204.6(m)(6)(i). As of November 1, 2016, there were 864 designated regional centers. 10 10 USCIS, Immigrant Investor Regional Centers, https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/immigrant-investor-regional-centers. C. EB-5 Immigrant Visa Process A foreign national seeking LPR status under the EB-5 immigrant visa classification must go through a multi-step process. The individual must first file an Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (Form I-526, or “EB-5 petition”) with USCIS. The petition must be supported by evidence that the foreign national's lawfully obtained investment capital is invested ( i.e., placed at risk), or is actively in the process of being invested, in a new commercial enterprise in the United States that will create full-time positions for not fewer than 10 qualifying employees. See 8 CFR 204.6(j). If USCIS approves the EB-5 petition, the petitioner must take additional steps to obtain LPR status. In general, the petitioner may either apply for an immigrant visa through a Department of State consular post abroad 11 or, if the petitioner is already in the United States and is otherwise eligible to adjust status, the petitioner may seek adjustment of status by filing an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485) with USCIS. 12 Congress has imposed limits on the availability of such immigrant visas, including by capping the annual number of visas available in the EB-5 category and by separately limiting the percentage of immigrant visas that may be issued on an annual basis to individuals born in any one country. 13 11 See INA sections 203, 221 and 222; 8 U.S.C. 1153, 1201, and 1202. 12 See INA section 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255. 13 See INA sections 201, 202 and 203; 8 U.S.C. 1151, 1152 and 1153. To request an immigrant visa while abroad, an EB-5 petitioner must apply at a U.S. consular post. See INA sections 203(e) and (g), 221 and 222, 8 U.S.C. 1153(e) and (g), 1201 and 1202; see also 22 CFR part 42, subparts F and G. The petitioner must generally wait to receive a visa application packet from the DOS National Visa Center to commence the visa application process. After receiving this packet, the petitioner must collect required information and file the immigrant visa application with DOS. As noted above, the wait for a visa depends on the demand for immigrant visas in the EB-5 category and the petitioner's country of birth. 14 Generally, DOS authorizes the issuance of a visa and schedules the petitioner for an immigrant visa interview for the month in which the priority date will be current. If the petitioner's immigrant visa application is ultimately approved, he or she is issued an immigrant visa and, on the date of admission to the United States, obtains LPR status on a conditional basis. See INA sections 211, 216A and 221; 8 U.S.C. 1181, 1186b and 1201. 14 When demand for a visa exceeds the number of visas available for that category and country, the demand for that particular preference category and country of birth is deemed oversubscribed. The Department of State (DOS) publishes a Visa Bulletin that determines when a visa may be authorized for issuance. See U.S. Dep't of State, Bureau of Consular Aff., Visa Bulletin, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin.html. Specifically, an individual cannot be issued an immigrant visa unless the individual's “priority date,” i.e., the date USCIS received the properly filed Form I-526, is earlier than the “final action date” indicated in the “date for filing application” chart in the current Visa Bulletin for the relevant category and country of birth. See 8 CFR 204.6(d) (defining the “priority date” for EB-5 petitioners). Alternatively, an EB-5 petitioner who is in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status generally may seek LPR status by filing with USCIS an Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485, or “application for adjustment of status”). See INA section 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 CFR part 245. Before filing such an application, however, the EB-5 petitioner must wait until an immigrant visa is “immediately available.” See INA section 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a); 8 CFR 245.2(a)(2)(i)(A). Generally, an immigrant visa is considered “immediately available” if the petitioner's priority date under the EB-5 category is earlier than the relevant date indicated in the monthly DOS Visa Bulletin. 15 See 8 CFR 245.1(g)(1). 15 More specifically, an individual generally may file an application for adjustment of status with USCIS only if his or her priority date is earlier than the cut-off date for the relevant category and country of birth in the “final action dates” chart in the relevant Visa Bulletin. However, when USCIS determines that there are more immigrant visas available for the fiscal year than there are known applicants for such visas, USCIS will state on its Web site that, during that month, applicants may instead use the “dates for filing visa applications” chart in the Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining whether they may file applications for adjustment of status with USCIS. DOS, moreover, may not issue a visa and USCIS may not grant adjustment of status unless the individual's priority date is earlier than the corresponding cut-off date in the “final action date” chart listed in the Visa Bulletin. Whether obtained pursuant to issuance of an immigrant visa or adjustment of status, LPR status based on an EB-5 petition is granted on a conditional basis. See INA section 216A(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(a)(1). Within the 90-day period preceding the second anniversary of the date the immigrant investor obtains conditional permanent resident status, the immigrant investor is required to file with USCIS a Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status (Form I-829). See INA section 216A(c) and (d), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(c) and (d); 8 CFR 216.6(a)(1). Failure to timely file Form I-829 results in automatic termination of the immigrant investor's conditional permanent resident status and the initiation of removal proceedings. See INA section 216A(c), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(c); 8 CFR 216.6(a)(5). In support of the petition to remove conditions, the investor must show, among other things, that he or she established the commercial enterprise, that he or she invested or was actively involved in the process of investing the requisite capital, that he or she sustained those actions for the period of residence in the United States, and that job creation requirements were met or will be met within a reasonable time. See 8 CFR 216.6(a)(4). If approved, the conditions on the investor's permanent residence are removed as of the second anniversary of the date the investor obtained conditional permanent resident status. See 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1). IV. The Proposed Rule DHS has not comprehensively revised the EB-5 program regulations since they were published in 1993, see 58 FR 44606 (1993), but has issued policy guidance to conform agency practice to intervening changes in the governing statutes. In addition to proposing changes to portions of the EB-5 program that are in need of reform, this proposed rule would codify and clarify certain policies. For example, the current regulation requires that the interview for the petition to remove conditions take place at the USCIS office located in the same location as the new commercial enterprise, although there is no requirement that the EB-5 immigrant petitioner reside in that vicinity. See 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2). In some instances, DHS has been allowing the interview to take place at a variety of different locations, including the USCIS office closest to the immigrant petitioner's residence, as DHS recognizes the burden of conducting an interview in a location that is a considerable distance from an immigrant petitioner's residence. DHS is proposing conforming revisions to the regulations in order to reflect this practice. See proposed 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2). A. Priority Date Retention DHS proposes to allow an EB-5 immigrant petitioner to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for any subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition for which the petitioner qualifies. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(d). This provision would not apply where DHS revoked the original petition's approval based on fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or a determination that DHS approved the petition based on a material error. Id. Similarly, priority date retention would not be available once the investor uses the priority date to obtain conditional LPR status based upon the approved petition ( e.g., when such an investor fails to remove the conditional basis of that status and thus loses his or her LPR status). Should DHS seek to revoke the approval of an immigrant petition, DHS would provide notice of the revocation detailing the reasons for revocation. 16 If the revocation is not based on fraud, a willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or material DHS error, the investor would be able to utilize the priority date of that petition should he or she seek to file another immigrant petition under the EB-5 program. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(d). An investor seeking to use a retained priority date should provide a copy of the original immigrant petition's approval notice indicating the earlier priority date when filing the new EB-5 immigrant petition. Under this proposal, denied petitions would not establish a priority date, and a priority date would not be transferable to another investor. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(d). 16 See 8 CFR 205.2. The current regulation does not permit investors to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for a subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition. See 8 CFR 204.6(d). DHS has generally allowed beneficiaries in the employment-based first, second, and third preference categories to retain the priority date of their previously approved immigrant petitions unless DHS revokes petition approval. See 8 CFR 204.5(e). DHS recently issued a final rule that will expand the ability of beneficiaries in these preference categories to retain their priority dates even when their petitions have been revoked, so long as the approval was not revoked based on fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, material error, or the revocation or invalidation of the labor certification associated with the petition. 17 See 8 CFR 204.5(e)(2). DHS's proposal in this regulation to allow priority date retention for those in the EB-5 category would bring the EB-5 priority date retention policy into harmony with those other employment-based preference categories. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(d). 17 See Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 81 FR 82398, 82485 (Nov. 18, 2016). DHS is proposing to allow priority date retention in order to: (1) Address situations in which petitioners may become ineligible through circumstances beyond their control ( e.g., the termination of a regional center) as they wait for their EB-5 visa priority date to become current; and (2) provide investors with greater flexibility to deal with changes to business conditions. For example, investors involved with an underperforming or failing investment project would be able to move their investment funds to a new, more promising investment project without losing their place in the visa queue. Providing EB-5 investors with the opportunity to retain their priority dates is increasingly important as the demand for EB-5 visas outpaces the statutorily limited supply of such visas, which lengthens wait times for visa numbers. Since the severe economic recession between 2007 and 2009, 18 the EB-5 program has experienced a dramatic increase in participation. Prior to 2008, the EB-5 program received an average of fewer than 600 EB-5 immigrant petitions per year. In the following years, the EB-5 program has received an average of over 5,500 petitions per year. And between FY 2014 and FY 2015 alone, the program received over 25,000 petitions. 19 As a result, demand for EB-5 visas by investors has now outpaced the annual supply, resulting in visa backlogs for certain petitioners and their family members. Individuals affected by those backlogs frequently wait for one year or more before they can obtain conditional permanent residence. 18 The Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions, available at http://www.nber.org/cycles.html. 19 Statistics provided by USCIS Immigrant Investor Program Office. The EB-5 program began to experience oversubscription ( i.e., demand that outpaced the supply in visa numbers) for the first time during FY 2014. At that time, DOS announced that EB-5 visas were no longer available for the remainder of the fiscal year for individuals born in China. 20 Since then, the program has continued to experience annual demand from individuals born in China that has outpaced the supply in visas, resulting in increasingly long backlogs every year for those individuals. 21 This trend is anticipated to continue and likely worsen for the foreseeable future, especially considering that individuals born in China currently file about 80 percent of the EB-5 immigrant visas granted on an annual basis. 22 Indeed, given the 20,000 EB-5 petitions currently pending with USCIS, DHS estimates that there are currently 16,000 EB-5 petitions pending for individuals born in China. 23 20 DOS issued a statement in August 2014 indicating the EB-5 preference category was unavailable for Chinese nationals through the end of FY2014. See Nataliya Rymer, U.S. Department of State Announces EB-5 Visas for China Unavailable Until October 1, 2014, Nat'l L. Rev., Aug. 23, 2014, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-department-state-announces-eb-5-visas-china-unavailable-until-october-1-2014. 21 While the demand has exceeded supply for investors from China, the demand has not exceeded supply for investors from any other countries as of December 2016. 22 Dep't of State, Visa Statistics, Report of the Visa Office, available at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/statistics.html. 23 USCIS, Number of I-526 Immigrant Petitions by Alien Entrepreneurs by Fiscal Year, Quarter, and Case Status 2008-2016, (May 25, 2016) available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Employment-based/I526_performancedata_fy2016_qtr2.pdf. Although Congress sets visa numbers, DHS recognizes that having to wait for a visa can create difficulties for individuals seeking to invest in the United States. There are also consequences for investors who invest through a regional center that is subsequently terminated through no fault of the investor. When a regional center is terminated, EB-5 immigrant petitions filed through that regional center are generally also denied or revoked depending on the procedural status of the petition. The filers of such petitions may have met all requirements to participate in the EB-5 program, but absent priority date retention they will lose their place in the immigrant visa queue. Currently, an investor in this situation who wants to continue with the EB-5 immigrant visa process must start the process all over again by investing in a new commercial enterprise and going to the end of the EB-5 visa queue. Allowing priority date retention would allow such an investor to retain his or her place in the queue, thereby alleviating the harsh consequences of regional center terminations and other material changes that occur unexpectedly and through no fault of the investor. Finally, priority date retention would also benefit other investors with approved EB-5 immigrant petitions who, while waiting for their priority dates to become current, learn that they have invested in severely delayed projects that are likely not to succeed. Under current regulations, such investors cannot reinvest their investment funds without losing their place in the immigrant visa queue. Under the proposed rule, such investors would be able to reinvest in new projects while retaining their previously established priority dates. By allowing priority date retention, DHS is thus eliminating an external incentive that currently distorts market forces and increases financial risk for investors. DHS welcomes public comment on the proposal to allow investors in certain circumstances to retain their priority dates. DHS also welcomes comment on the proposed standards that may be considered when determining whether or not to allow for priority date retention, including alternative suggestions to those standards. B. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount In 1990, Congress set the minimum investment amount for the program at $1 million and authorized the Attorney General (now the Secretary of Homeland Security) to increase the minimum investment amount, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Labor. INA section 203(b)(5)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(C)(i). Neither the former INS nor DHS has exercised its authority to increase the minimum investment amount. As a result, over the past 25 years inflation has eroded the present-day value of the minimum investment required to participate in the EB-5 program. 24 After consulting with the Departments of State and Labor, DHS proposes to account for inflation by increasing the minimum investment amount consistent with increases in the CPI-U during the intervening period, for a new minimum investment amount of $1.8 million. 25 As discussed below, DHS also proposes to include a mechanism for future adjustments every 5 years, based on the CPI-U. 24 DHS also notes that prior to the passage of IMMACT, the former INS provided a written response to Senator Simon regarding the “creation of a subcategory for immigrant investors” and stated that the “minimum investment amount would be set in terms of the value of the dollar at the time of enactment and would be adjusted periodically based on some criteria such as the Consumer Price Index.” A Bill to Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to Effect Changes in the Numerical Limitation and Preference System for the Admission of Immigrants: Hearing on S. 1611 Before the S. Subcomm. on Immigr. & Refugee Aff. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong. 90 (1987) (statement of Mark W. Everson, Deputy Comm'r of the Immigr. and Naturalization Serv.). 25 DHS may conduct further consultations following receipt of public comment and prior to issuing a final rule. The $1.8 million figure is rounded down to the nearest hundred thousand from approximately $1,813,443, based on an inflation factor of 1.813443 between 1990 and 2015. The actual increase in prices is obtained as ((CPI-U 2015 /CPI-U 1990 )-1). Using a base period of 1982-84, the CPI-U increased from 130.7 in 1990 to 237.017 in 2015, for an actual increase in price of approximately 81.34 percent. DHS rounded the figure down for ease of agency administration and the convenience of all stakeholders. The CPI-U data is publicly available at http://www.bls.gov/data/#prices. DHS believes that it is appropriate to adjust the minimum investment amount upward based on inflation, without regard for the amount of capital that would likely be required to fulfill the statutory requirement to create 10 jobs. As a preliminary matter, DHS notes that Congress did not provide for adjustments in the investment threshold to be related in any way to the EB-5 job creation requirements. Indeed, based on the controlling statutory authorities, Congress itself does not appear to have tied the statutory investment thresholds to the job creation requirement. For example, when Congress first created the EB-5 category, Congress established a single job creation standard ( i.e., the direct creation of at least 10 jobs) but authorized three different levels of qualifying investments: (1) The standard minimum investment amount of $1 million; (2) The reduced minimum investment amount of no less than 50 percent of the standard for investments in targeted employment areas; and (3) A higher minimum investment amount of up to three times the standard amount for investments in high employment areas. As noted, Congress originally provided for up to three different qualifying investment amounts but did not vary the job creation requirements to correspond to the level of investment. Congress also did not tie investment levels to job creation criteria when it established the regional center program. For regional center investments, Congress used the same three investment levels as the original program but varied the job creation requirement by including both direct and indirect job creation. Based on the plain language of INA section 203(b)(5)(C)(i) and the regional center legislation, Congress does not appear to have intended to tie the minimum investment amounts to the number of jobs to be created. DHS considered a number of different measures upon which to base the proposed adjustment and future adjustments. Among these, DHS is proposing to rely on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which “is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.” 26 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor (DOL), the CPI is— 26 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: Addendum to Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiadd.htm#2_1. the most widely used measure of inflation . . . . It provides information about price changes in the Nation's economy to government, business, labor, and private citizens and is used by them as a guide to making economic decisions. . . . The CPI and its components are used to adjust other economic series for price changes and to translate these series into inflation-free dollars. 27 27 Id. The specific CPI index that DHS proposes to rely on is the unadjusted All Items CPI-U. The CPI-U is the “broadest and most comprehensive CPI,” and using unadjusted data is more appropriate for this purpose, because seasonally adjusted CPI data is subject to revision for up to five years after their original release, making such data difficult to use for escalation purposes. 28 28 See id. DHS also considered other indices used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure different aspects of inflation. 29 One of these is the Producer Price Indexes, which “measure changes in the selling prices received by domestic producers of goods and services.” 30 Although the Producer Price Indexes could also provide an appropriate measure for adjusting the standard minimum investment amount, DHS believes the CPI-U is a better measure because it is more widely relied upon. 31 The BLS also produces a number of other business cost statistics that measure labor costs or the costs of goods and services, 32 but DHS chose not to propose these as measures as they are more narrowly focused on different and discrete aspects of economic activity. 29 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Overview of BLS Statistics on Inflation and Prices, available at http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm. 30 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Indexes: Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ppifaq.htm. 31 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: Addendum to Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiadd.htm. For additional comparison of CPI and PPI, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, Comparing the Producer Price Index for Personal Consumption with the U.S. All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers, available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiadd.htm. 32 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Overview of BLS Statistics on Business Costs, available at http://www.bls.gov/bls/business.htm. Because the EB-5 program is focused on investment, DHS also considered adjusting the standard minimum investment amount based on changes in the overall value of a specific stock index, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the Standard and Poor's 500 Stock Index. But these indexes are based on trades in the secondary market that are tied to the value of existing companies strictly for investment purposes. By comparison, investment in the EB-5 program is related to job creation, which in turn results from an adequately capitalized enterprise (as determined by the costs of goods or services required to do business). DHS believes the CPI-U is a more appropriate indicator of the costs of goods and services necessary for an EB-5 enterprise to be adequately capitalized for the purpose of job creation. DHS believes that increasing the standard minimum investment amount to account for inflation since creation of the EB-5 program would both modernize the program and ensure a level of capital investment in the United States that more closely adheres to congressional intent. DHS also believes that this change will benefit the U.S. economy by increasing the amount of foreign investment in the United States. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the EB-5 program has recently suffered from oversubscription at current investment levels; that investors' economic resources have likely increased since the program's creation by at least the rate of inflation; and that even with the proposed increases, the EB-5 program would remain extremely competitive with other countries' investor visa programs, which typically require higher investment thresholds. 33 33 The United Kingdom's Tier 1 Investor visa requires a minimum investment of £2,000,000 (approximately $2.5 million USD), and offers permanent residence to those who have invested at least £5 million (approximately $6.3 million USD). Tier 1 (Investor) Visa, Gov.UK, https://www.gov.uk/tier-1-investor/overview. Australia's Significant and Premium Investment Visa Programs require AU $5 million (approximately $3.7 million USD) and AU $15 million (approximately $11.2 million USD), respectively; its “investor stream” visa program requires an AU $1.5 million (approximately $1.1 million USD) investment and a host of other requirements. Business Innovation and Investment Visa, Australian Government, http://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/188-. Canada's Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Pilot Program requires a minimum investment of CDN $2 million (approximately $1.5 million USD) and a net worth of CDN $10 million (approximately $7.6 million USD) or more. Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Pilot Program, Government of Canada, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/iivc/eligibility.asp. New Zealand's Investor 1 Resident Visa requires a NZ $10 million (approximately $7.2 million USD) investment, and its Investor 2 Resident Visa requires a NZ $2.5 million (approximately $1.8 million USD) investment. Investor Visas, New Zealand Now, https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/move-to-nz/new-zealand-visa/visas-to-invest/investor-visa. Currency exchange calculations are as of December 2016. In addition to raising the standard minimum investment amount effective as of the date specified in the final rule, DHS proposes that the minimum investment amount be adjusted every 5 years based on the CPI-U. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(f)(1). DHS proposes that each such future adjustment will be in effect for a 5-year period beginning on October 1 of the year of the adjustment. Id. DHS believes it is important to include a periodic inflation-adjustment mechanism in the regulations to avoid a recurrence of the current situation, where the minimum investment amount remains unchanged for a lengthy period and is eroded by inflation. DHS also proposes to adjust the investment threshold every 5 years, rather than on an annual basis, as a way of balancing the need to counteract inflation with the need to provide predictability and reliability to stakeholders. Such predictability is especially helpful for investors and project developers who need to prepare for the infusion of pooled EB-5 capital into new commercial enterprises. DHS estimates that more than 96 percent of all EB-5 immigrant petitions filed are based on pooled investments involving more than one EB-5 investor in the same new commercial enterprise. In addition, a 5-year adjustment period would be straightforward for the agency to administer in adjudicating multiple petitions based on investments in the same new commercial enterprise and business plan, filed over a period of several years. Finally, DHS proposes that each investor will be required to contribute the minimum investment amount that is designated at the time the initial petition is filed. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(f)(1). EB-5 investors may qualify for the program based either on having made their investment prior to petition filing or by being in the process of investing at the time of filing. However, all EB-5 investors must demonstrate a present commitment of the full minimum amount of required investment at the time the petition is filed. DHS believes that tying the required minimum investment amount to the amount designated at the time of filing provides clarity for stakeholders and simplifies the adjudication process for the agency. DHS seeks public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the proposed increase of the standard minimum investment amount to $1.8 million, the proposed 5-year inflation-adjustment periods, the proposed use of the CPI-U as the basis for the initial increase and the periodic adjustments, the proposal to round future adjustments down to the nearest 100,000, and the proposed requirement that the minimum investment amount be set at the time of filing the EB-5 immigrant petition. DHS recognizes that under this proposal, the required minimum investment amount would increase significantly, in relative and absolute terms, to account for a quarter century of inflation. DHS is seeking comment on whether it should increase the standard minimum investment amount as proposed under this rule, or whether a different methodology or different investment amount would be more appropriate. DHS also seeks comment on whether it should implement any such increase incrementally or by another method that reduces impacts on stakeholders. DHS notes, however, that incremental increases may result in a lack of clarity for stakeholders and may pose operational burdens on adjudicators. C. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount for High Employment Areas Congress also provided DHS with the authority to set the qualifying investment amount for high employment areas to an amount greater than—but not three times greater than—the standard minimum investment amount. See INA section 203(b)(5)(C)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(C)(iii). At the outset of the program, the former INS did not wish to increase the investment for these areas beyond $1 million. See 56 FR 60897, 60903. Because the standard minimum investment amount has applied to such areas since the program's inception, DHS has not tracked which projects have been set in high employment areas. DHS thus does not have sufficient information at this time to determine whether to increase the investment threshold for such areas. DHS recently adjusted its forms to capture this information, which, once collected and analyzed, may help the Department determine whether to adjust the minimum investment amount for high employment areas. For now, however, DHS is not proposing an increase beyond the standard minimum investment amount, and therefore proposes applying the standard investment threshold in high employment areas. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(f)(3). DHS also proposes that the minimum investment amount for high employment areas be adjusted consistent with adjustments to the standard investment threshold— i.e., every five years based on increases in the CPI-U and rounded down to the nearest 100,000. DHS seeks public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the continuing application of the standard investment threshold to high employment areas, which would increase the threshold to $1.8 million, the proposed 5-year inflation-adjustment periods, the proposed use of the CPI-U as the basis for the periodic adjustments, and the proposal to round future adjustments down to the nearest 100,000. D. Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount for TEAs In 1990, Congress set the minimum investment amount for the program at $1 million and authorized DHS to set a different amount for investments made in TEAs ( i.e., rural areas and areas of high unemployment). See INA section 203(b)(5)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii). Specifically, Congress authorized DHS to reduce the minimum investment amount in a TEA by up to 50 percent of the standard minimum investment amount. Id. The former INS subsequently issued regulations in 1991 setting the TEA investment threshold at 50 percent of the minimum investment amount, or $500,000. 34 See 8 CFR 204.6(f)(2). 34 In the final rule published in 1991, the former INS noted that 82 commenters called for the maximum percentage reduction because they believed that “lowering the investment capital requirement would promote the purpose of the Act to stimulate investment in rural and high unemployment areas.” 56 FR 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991). “They further felt that viable businesses could be maintained with the lower investment amount.” Id. In establishing two tiers of investment, and setting aside 3,000 visas for those investing in rural areas and areas subject to high unemployment, Congress sought to incentivize investment in such areas. 35 But although some in Congress expected that most investors would invest at the higher amount, 36 experience shows that such investments have become relatively rare. An agency analysis of petitions filed in 2015 indicates that approximately 97 percent of all investments by EB-5 petitioners are made in TEAs and thus at the reduced amount of $500,000. In other words, while Congress expressed concern about investments in TEAs and thus set aside approximately 30 percent of visas at a reduced investment amount for such purpose, investments in TEAs have effectively become the settled norm. As investments in TEAs have dominated the program in recent years, the de facto standard threshold has become $500,000, thus undermining congressional aims to also encourage investments at the standard minimum investment amount of $1 million. 35 See 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 13, 1989) (statement of Sen. Boschwitz) (stating that the amendment's purpose was to “attract significant investments to rural America.”); 136 Cong. Rec. S17106-01 (Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Sen. Simon) (“We are mindful of the need to target investments to rural America and areas with particularly high unemployment—areas that can use the job creation the most . . . America's urban core and rural areas have special job creation needs.”). 36 See 136 Cong. Rec. S17106-01 (Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Sen. Simon) (“The general rule-and the vast majority of the investor immigrants will fit in this category-is that the investor must invest $1 million and create 10 U.S. jobs.”). Accordingly, DHS has determined that the large differential between the standard and reduced investment amounts has failed to strike the balance that Congress appears to have intended by creating a multi-leveled investment framework in the EB-5 program. Moreover, based on its 25-year history implementing the program, DHS believes that the differential—and the sizable monetary incentive it presents—has the potential of distorting general market forces and the business decisions that follow from such forces to an unintended degree. To strike a better balance between investments at the standard and reduced thresholds, and to reduce the degree to which the differential between the thresholds affects investment decisions, DHS is proposing to reduce the difference between the two investment thresholds. Specifically, DHS is proposing to set the minimum amount for investments in TEAs at 75 percent of the standard amount ( i.e., change the percentage reduction for investments in TEAs from 50 percent of the standard amount to 25 percent of the standard amount). See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(f)(2). Because DHS has proposed to set the standard investment amount at $1.8 million, the effect of this change is to set the TEA investment amount at $1.35 million ( i.e., 75% of $1.8 million). DHS considered changing the percentage reduction for TEA investments to various degrees but settled on a 25 percent reduction for several reasons. First, DHS believes that reducing the TEA investment discount by half will significantly reduce the potential for unintended distortions in investment decisions. Second, DHS notes that a 25 percent reduction represents a midway point between the two extremes allowed by Congress—applying the maximum 50 percent reduction and applying no reduction at all. Because DHS is seeking to reduce the investment imbalance caused by the 50 percent differential on the one hand, while continuing to effectuate the congressional intent of incentivizing investments in rural and high unemployment areas on the other, DHS believes that proposing the midway point between the two possible extremes for public comment is appropriate. Third, DHS determined that due to other proposed changes to the standard minimum investment amount in this rulemaking, the impact of a 25 percent reduction for TEA investments would initially be softened by the fact that the difference between the standard amount and the TEA investment amount, in terms of dollars, would remain roughly the same (changing from $500,000 to $450,000). Thus, at least for the first 5 years after the change proposed in this section, investors who choose to invest in TEAs will be able to invest at approximately the same savings in terms of real dollars as they do under the current regulations. Finally, in addition to proposing to raise the minimum investment amount for TEAs, DHS proposes to adjust this amount every five years consistent with other parts of this proposed rule. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(f)(2). Specifically, DHS proposes to keep the investment threshold for TEAs at 75 percent of the standard investment threshold. Id. As with the standard investment threshold, adjustments to the TEA investment threshold would be in effect for a 5-year period beginning on October 1 of the year of the adjustment. Id. DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including the proposed minimum investment amount for TEAs as well as the proposal for adjusting the amount every five years. DHS also welcomes comment on the specific percentage reduction for TEA investments relative to the standard investment threshold, including alternative suggestions on the percentage to be considered. E. TEA Designation Process As discussed in the previous section, Congress created the two-tier investment system in order to incentivize investments in targeted employment areas, defined in the statute as “a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).” 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii). In subsequent regulations published in 1991, the former INS allowed investors to demonstrate that their investment was in a high unemployment area in one of two ways: (1) By providing evidence that the metropolitan statistical area, the specific county within a metropolitan statistical area, or the county in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business has experienced an average unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate; or (2) by submitting a letter from an authorized body of the government of the state in which the new commercial enterprise is located which certifies that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area. 8 CFR 204.6(j)(6)(ii). When the INS promulgated this provision, it permitted states to designate smaller TEAs—areas within an MSA or within a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more—because the agency believed that due to the nature of the data involved, states should have an opportunity to participate in TEA determinations. 37 37 56 FR 60897 (Oct. 26, 1990) (“With respect to geographic and political subdivisions of this size, however, the Service believes that the enterprise of assembling and evaluating the data necessary to select targeted areas, and particularly the enterprise of defining the boundaries of such areas, should not be conducted exclusively at the Federal level without providing some opportunity for participation from state or local government.”). Reliance on states' TEA designations has resulted in the application of inconsistent rules by different states. Some of these rules understandably may be motivated primarily by the desire to promote economic development in the relevant state, rather than by the desire to fulfill congressional intent with respect to the EB-5 program. 38 As mentioned previously, at least 97 percent of all EB-5 petitions filed in 2015 involved investments at the lower investment threshold for projects in TEAs. In addition, the deference to state determinations provided by current regulations has resulted in the acceptance of some TEAs that consist of areas of relative economic prosperity linked to areas with lower employment, and some TEAs that have been criticized as “gerrymandered.” 39 38 Is the Investor Visa Program an Underperforming Asset?: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 62 (2016) (statement of Matt Gordon, Chief Exec. Officer, E3 Inv. Group) ((“Generally, States quickly learned to be as permissive as possible in an attempt to attract ever greater amounts of EB-5 capital.”); see also The Distortion of EB-5 Targeted Employment Areas: Time to End the Abuse: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 12 (2016) (statement of Gary Friedland, Scholar-in-Residence, N.Y. Univ., Stern School of Bus.) (“USCIS' continued delegation to the states of the TEA authority without guidelines results in the application of inconsistent rules by the various states. More important, each state has the obvious self-interest to promote economic development within its own borders. Delegation presents an opportunity for the states to establish lenient rules to enable project locations to qualify as a TEA. Compounding the problem, often the state agency that is charged with making the TEA determination is the same agency that promotes local economic development. As a consequence, virtually every EB-5 project location qualifies as a TEA.”). 39 See, e.g., Eliot Brown, Swanky New York Condo Project Exploits Aid Program, Wall St. Journal, Oct. 13, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/posh-tower-proposed-for-struggling-new-york-neighborhood-central-park-south-1444728781. For these reasons, DHS proposes to eliminate state designation of high unemployment areas. This change would help ensure consistency across TEA designations. DHS would itself determine which areas qualify as TEAs, by applying standards proposed in this rule to the evidence presented by investors and regional centers. DHS alternatively considered continuing to allow states to make TEA designations while providing a clearer basis for DHS to scrutinize and overturn such designations. DHS, however, currently prefers to avoid such an approach because of the administrative burden it presents. DHS believes it would be more difficult to evaluate the individualized determinations of the various states than to implement and administer a nationwide standard on its own. The proposed new standards for designating TEAs are as follows. First, the term “targeted employment area” would be defined, consistent with statutory authority, to mean an area which, at the time of investment, is a rural area or is designated as an area which has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(e). DHS is also proposing to amend the definition of a “rural area” to mean any area other than an area within a metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)) or within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more based on the most recent decennial census of the United States. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(e). This definition clarifies, consistent with statute, that qualification as a rural area is based on data from the most recent decennial census of the United States. DHS is also proposing new guidelines for the designation of a TEA. As in the current system, investors may continue to provide evidence that the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business in (1) an MSA, (2) a specific county within an MSA, or (3) a county with a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more, that has experienced an average unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(j)(6)(ii)(A). To this list, DHS proposes to add cities and towns with a population of 20,000 or more. Id. Because cities and towns fall between counties and MSAs on the one hand, and geographic or political subdivisions within counties and MSAs on the other, DHS believes it is appropriate to include them as an area that could independently qualify as a TEA if the average unemployment rate for the city or town is at least 150 percent of the national average. In addition to including cities and towns, DHS proposes new rules for determining when a geographic or political subdivision could qualify as a TEA—determinations that states currently make on a case-by-case basis. DHS proposes that a TEA may consist of a census tract or contiguous census tracts in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business 40 (the “project tract(s)”) if the weighted average of the unemployment rate 41 for the tract or tracts is at least 150 percent above the national average. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(i). Moreover, if the project tract(s) do not independently qualify under this analysis, a TEA may also be designated if the project tract(s) and any or all additional tracts that are directly adjacent to the project tract(s) comprise an area in which the weighted average of the unemployment rate for all of the included tracts is at least 150 percent of the national average. Id. DHS proposes that petitioners submit a description of the boundaries of the geographic or political subdivision and the unemployment statistics in the area for which designation is sought as set forth in proposed 8 CFR 204.6(i), and the method or methods by which the unemployment statistics were obtained. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(j)(6)(ii)(B). 40 According to USCIS policy in effect at the time of issuance of this proposed rulemaking: A new commercial enterprise is principally doing business in the location where it regularly, systematically, and continuously provides goods or services that support job creation. If the new commercial enterprise provides such goods or services in more than one location, it will be principally doing business in the location most significantly related to the job creation. Factors considered in determining where a new commercial enterprise is principally doing business include, but are not limited to, the location of: • Any jobs directly created by the new commercial enterprise; • Any expenditure of capital related to the creation of jobs; • The new commercial enterprise's day-to-day operation; and • The new commercial enterprise's assets used in the creation of jobs. USCIS Policy Manual, 6 USCIS-PM G (Nov. 30, 2016). 41 In order to determine if a project qualifies for TEA designation USCIS would first determine the weighted unemployment rate for each census tract in the TEA area. To determine the weighted unemployment rate of a census tract, USCIS would divide the labor force (civilians ages 16 and older who are employed or employed, plus active duty military) of each census tract by the labor force of the entire TEA area. USCIS would then multiply this figure by the unemployment rate of that specific census tract. The resulting figure is the weighted unemployment rate for each individual census tract. The total weighted unemployment rate is the sum of the weighted unemployment rates for each census tract in the TEA area. If the total weighted unemployment rate is 150% above the national unemployment rate then the project would qualify for TEA designation. The figure below illustrates how to apply the proposed limitations. 42 The areas on the map outlined with a thin solid line represent census tracts. The tract outlined in a solid bold line near the center, just south of the waterway, represents the project tract in which the new commercial enterprise (represented by the pointer) is principally doing business. The broader area outlined in a dashed bold line contains all of the tracts that are adjacent to the project tract. Under the proposed limits, the tract outlined in a solid bold line may independently qualify as a TEA. If it does not, an area consisting of that tract and any or all of the additional tracts outlined in the dashed bold line could qualify as a TEA. Qualification is determined by looking to the weighted average unemployment rate of the entire area proposed. 42 For ease of reference, a color-coded version of this figure is available in the docket for this rulemaking. EP13JA17.002 The proposed new TEA designation rules would rely on the census tract as the building block for the geographic or political subdivision for multiple reasons. First, census tracts offer uniformity. Although census tracts vary in size, they are generally drawn to define a residential population of between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people per census tract according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 43 No census tract can extend beyond county lines, meaning the largest census tract would, at most, cover a single county. 44 Second, data at the census tract level is more readily publicly available, and is updated annually based on data collected through the Census Bureau's “American Community Survey” (ACS). 45 Third, census tract numbering is generally stable and would only change at the time of the next available census (generally every 10 years). Fourth, as local planning agencies can request changes to census tract configurations, the use of census tracts still provides localities with some input into the overall process. However, DHS believes this input is sufficiently limited to avoid concerns regarding political influence on TEA designations, because census tracts typically only change when populations change to the point that a tract is split or two tracts are merged. 46 DHS also surveyed agencies in several locations to obtain information regarding how they have approached the TEA designation process, namely: the states of Illinois, New York, and California, and the city of Dallas, Texas. Every state or local agency consulted by DHS relied on census tract level unemployment data in the TEA designation process. 47 43 U.S. Census Bureau, Census Tracts, available at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/webatlas/tracts.html. 44 U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Terms and Concepts—Census Tract, available at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_ct.html (Note: Tribal census tracts are unique and can cross state and county boundaries). 45 U.S. Census Bureau, Am. Cmty. Survey, available at http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/programs.xhtml?program=acs. 46 U.S. Census Bureau, Geography: Census Tracts, available at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/webatlas/tracts.html. 47 We note that only one state, California, set parameters on the use of census tracts, limiting the tracts to 12 contiguous tracts encompassing the investment project location. In addition to utilizing the census tract as the most appropriate and reliable building block for EB-5 program purposes, DHS believes it is appropriate for a TEA to consist of both the project tract(s) and the census tracts adjacent to the project tracts as such an area—including the tracts immediately surrounding the project tract(s)—is likely to experience the employment-creation impact of the investment. DHS considered extending the cluster to census tracts beyond those directly adjacent to the project tract(s), but determined that doing so in some cases would include areas that are too far from the site of the proposed project. 48 48 See Stuart S. Rosenthal and William C. Strange, Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglomeration Economies, Aug. 24, 2003, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLED/Resources/339650-1105473440091/WillAndStuart.pdf (“More recently still, Rosenthal and Strange (2003) provide a micro-level analysis of the geographic scope of agglomeration economies. The environment of an establishment is measured by constructing rings around the centroid of the establishment's zip code. Rings of 1 mile, 5 miles, 10 miles, and 15 miles are included. For each of the six industries studied . . . new arrivals are more likely to be attracted to zip codes as employment in the own industry within one mile increases. Employment in the own industry just five miles away, however, has a much smaller effect, as does employment further out in the ten and fifteen mile rings.”); see also John C. Ham, Charles Swenson, Ayşe İmrohoroğlu, and Heonjae Song, Government Programs Can Improve Local Labor Markets: Evidence from State Enterprise Zones, Federal Empowerment Zones and Federal Enterprise Communities, 95 J. Pub. Econ. 779, 779-97 (2011) (“Federal and state governments spend well over a billion dollars a year on programs that encourage employment development in disadvantaged labor markets through the use of subsidies and tax credits . . . . We find that all three programs have positive, statistically significant, impacts on local labor markets in terms of the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the fraction with wage and salary income, and employment.”). DHS considered other options presented by stakeholders 49 and during congressional hearings 50 to determine the parameters for a TEA. One option DHS considered was limiting the geographic or political subdivision to the project tract(s). This option would be easy to put in practice for both stakeholders and the agency, but was considered too restrictive in that it would exclude immediately adjacent areas that would be impacted by the investment. Another option DHS considered was limiting the geographic or political subdivision to an area containing up to, but no more than, 12 contiguous census tracts, an option currently used by the state of California in its TEA designation process. 51 However, DHS is not confident that this option is necessarily appropriate for nationwide application, as the limitation to 12 census tracts may be justifiable for reasons specific to California but may not be apt on a national scale. 49 On April 25, 2016, DHS held an EB-5 Listening Session, in which it solicited and received feedback from stakeholders on several issues, including the TEA process. Stakeholders expressed concerns about a lack of consistency in state TEA designations (“I think we all know that every single state in this union has a different way of doing targeted employment areas”), the inefficiency of state TEA designation (“I think that the current process is very inefficient . . . the states are reviewing . . . federal data and the states don't provide any benefit.”), and the natural incentive for states to approve TEAs (“The other thing is that . . . there's an incentive to lower the hurdle for their state.”). DHS further solicited feedback on the same issues through its Idea Community Web site, an online portal available to the general public. See USCIS Idea Community, https://www.uscis.gov/outreach/uscis-idea-community; Remarks, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Stakeholder Engagement (July 28, 2016), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED_EB5NatStakeholderEng072816_MackenzieRemarks.pdf. DHS received various suggestions for changing the TEA process, including the consideration of commuting patterns and greater scrutiny of the state designation process by DHS. 50 See The Distortion of EB-5 Targeted Employment Areas: Time to End the Abuse: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2016) (statement of Gary Friedland, Scholar-in-Residence, N.Y. Univ., Stern School of Bus.). 51 See Cal. Governor's Office of Bus. and Econ. Dev., EB-5 Investor Visa Program, available at http://business.ca.gov/International/EB5Program.aspx. DHS also considered options based on a “commuter pattern” analysis, which focuses on defining a TEA as encompassing the area in which workers may live and be commuting from, rather than just where the investment is made and where the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business. The “commuter pattern” proposal was deemed too operationally burdensome to implement as it posed challenges in establishing standards to determine the relevant commuting area that would fairly account for variances across the country. 52 In addition, DHS could not identify a commuting-pattern standard that would appropriately limit the geographic scope of a TEA designation consistent with the statute and the policy goals of this proposed regulation. 52 DHS reviewed a proposed commuter pattern analysis incorporating the data table, Federal Highway Administration, CTPP 2006-2010 Census Tract Flows, available at ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/2006-2010_tract_flows/ ) (last updated Mar. 25, 2014). DHS found the required steps to properly manipulate the Census Transportation Planning Product (CTPP) database might prove overly burdensome for petitioners with insufficient economic and statistical analysis backgrounds. Further, upon contacting the agency responsible to manage the CTPP data table, DHS was informed that the 2006-2010 CTPP data is unlikely to be updated prior to FY2018 to incorporate proposed changes to the data table. U.S. Census is currently reviewing the CTPP proposed changes. As an alternate methodology for TEA commuter pattern analysis, DHS reviewed data from the U.S. Census tool, On the Map, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, which is tied to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Although the interface appeared to be more user-friendly overall, using this data would be operationally burdensome, potentially requiring hours of review to obtain the appropriate unemployment rates for the commuting area. DHS believes the proposed guidelines limiting TEAs to MSAs, counties, cities, or project tracts (including any and all adjacent tracts) would remove the possibility of gerrymandering and better ensure that the reduced investment threshold is reserved for areas experiencing significantly higher levels of unemployment. DHS seeks public comment on all aspects of this proposal, including on the feasibility and appropriateness of each of the potential alternatives to the census tract model discussed above, as well as any other alternatives that commenters wish to propose. With respect to all such alternatives, DHS would particularly benefit from comments that set forth a clear and easily administrable methodology. F. Technical Changes DHS is also proposing a number of other technical changes. These changes would variously: (1) Clarify the filing process for derivatives who are filing the Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status (Form I-829) separately from the immigrant investor; (2) enhance flexibility in determining the interview location related to the Form I-829 adjudication; and (3) update the regulation to conform to the current process for issuing permanent resident cards after the removal of conditions on status. DHS is also proposing miscellaneous other changes. The proposed changes are described in more detail below. (1) Separate Filings for Derivatives The proposed rule would clarify the process by which an immigrant investor's spouse and children file separate Form I-829 petitions when they are not included in the Form I-829 filed by the immigrant investor. Generally, an immigrant investor's derivatives should be included in the principal immigrant investor's Form I-829 petition. See 8 CFR 216.6(a)(1). However, there are situations in which derivatives may not be included on the principal immigrant investor's Form I-829 petition, such as when the immigrant investor dies during the conditional residence period, or when the immigrant investor decides not to continue his or her conditional permanent resident status. In such circumstances, if the immigrant investor would have otherwise been eligible to have his or her conditions on status removed, then the derivatives would remain eligible to remove the conditions on their status even if the immigrant investor cannot or will not file a Form I-829 petition. 53 53 See INA section 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l) (providing that upon the death of the principal beneficiary, surviving relative petitions and “related applications” must be adjudicated notwithstanding the death of the principal beneficiary). The current regulation does not clearly define the process by which derivatives may file a Form I-829 petition when they are not included on the principal's petition, including whether each derivative in such cases should file his or her own separate Form I-829 petition or whether the derivatives should jointly file on the same petition. The proposed regulations specify that where the dependent family members cannot be included in the Form I-829 petition filed by the principal investor because that principal is deceased, all dependents of the deceased investor may be included on a single Form I-829 petition. See proposed 8 CFR 216.6(a)(1)(ii). DHS also clarifies, however, that consistent with current practice, each derivative must file a separate Form I-829 petition in all other situations in which the investor's spouse and children are not included in the investor's Form I-829 petition. See id. (2) Interviews Section 216A(c)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)(1)(B), generally requires Form I-829 petitioners to be interviewed prior to final adjudication of the petition, although DHS may waive the interview requirement in its discretion, see INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). The statute also provides that the interview may be held at a location that “is convenient to the parties involved.” See INA section 216A(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(d)(3). Under current regulations, however, interviews are generally scheduled in the location of the new commercial enterprise, even though there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the immigrant investor reside in the same location as the new commercial enterprise. Specifically, the current regulation requires the interview to be conducted by an immigration examiner or other officer so designated by the director of the USCIS District Office “that has jurisdiction over the location of the alien entrepreneur's commercial enterprise.” 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2). Under this rule, DHS is proposing to give stakeholders greater flexibility in the interview location by clarifying the agency's discretion under the INA to determine the appropriate location for Form I-829 petition interviews. Specifically, the proposed amendment would allow USCIS to schedule an interview at the USCIS office holding jurisdiction over either the immigrant investor's commercial enterprise, the immigrant investor's residence in the United States, or the location where the Form I-829 petition is adjudicated. See proposed 8 CFR 216.6(b)(2). DHS believes this change will both benefit the agency by making the interview process more effective and benefit immigrant investors by reducing the need to travel long distances to participate in Form I-829 petition interviews. (3) Process for Issuing Permanent Resident Cards DHS also proposes to amend regulations governing the process by which immigrant investors obtain their new permanent resident cards after the approval of their Form I-829 petitions. After an immigrant investor's Form I-829 petition is approved, the immigrant investor and each included derivative is entitled to a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551). The provision of this card documents that the conditions on the immigrant investor's LPR status have been removed. Current regulations include an outdated description of the process for obtaining such permanent resident cards. Specifically, the current regulation requires the immigrant investor and his or her derivatives to report to a district office for processing of their permanent resident cards after approval of the Form I-829 petition. 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1). This process is no longer necessary in light of intervening improvements in DHS's biometric data collection program. 54 DHS now captures the required biometric data during the pendency of the Form I-829 petition, at the time the immigrant investor and his or her derivatives appear at an Application Support Center for fingerprinting, as required for the Form I-829 background and security checks. DHS then mails the permanent resident card directly to the immigrant investor by U.S. Postal Service registered mail after the Form I-829 petition is approved. There is therefore no need for each immigrant investor or any derivatives to report to a district office for processing of their permanent resident cards after petition approval. 54 DHS already has authority to collect this information under 8 CFR part 103. DHS is thus proposing to remove the mandatory reporting requirement from the regulatory text, and to replace that requirement with the discretionary authority to require an immigrant investor to report to a district office to provide biometric data when needed to complete card production. See proposed 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1). This discretionary authority is intended to address circumstances in which an in-person meeting is necessary, such as when the biometrics captured during the Form I-829 background process may not be suitable for issuing a permanent resident card. (4) Miscellaneous Other Changes DHS is also proposing a number of other technical changes to the EB-5 regulations. First, DHS is proposing to update a reference to the former United States Customs Service, so that it will now refer to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(j)(2)(iii). On March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 created U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is now responsible for activities previously handled by the U.S. Customs Service, including the issuance of commercial entry documents. See 6 U.S.C. 211. Second, DHS is proposing to conform DHS regulations to the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, which eliminated the requirement that immigrant entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise from both section 203(b)(5) and section 216A of the INA. Accordingly, USCIS proposes to remove references to this requirement in 8 CFR 204.6 and 216.6. Third, DHS is proposing to further conform DHS regulations to Public Law 107-273 by removing the references to “management” at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) and 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii). Section 203(b)(5)(A) of the INA requires that EB-5 petitioners be seeking “to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise.” INA section 203(b)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(A). To give effect to this provision, existing regulations require investors to be “engaged in the management of the new commercial enterprise,” which can be accomplished in one of two ways: “through the exercise of day-to-day managerial control” or “through policy formulation.” 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5). DHS has determined that the reference to “management” should be removed, as actual management of the new commercial enterprise is not strictly required by section 203(b)(5)(A) of the INA. The statutory text does not use the term, and strictly requiring the exercise of managerial control may be inconsistent with Public Law 107-273, which amended section 203(b)(5) to expressly permit new commercial enterprises to take the form of limited partnerships (as had been previously permitted by existing regulation). Removal of the reference to “management” from 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) would have no practical effect, as the provision already allows and would continue to allow investors to demonstrate eligibility either through management or through policy formulation. The reference to “management” would also be removed from 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii) because that provision pertains to evidence that is largely unrelated to management. Fourth, DHS is proposing to remove the phrase “as opposed to maintaining a purely passive role in regard to the investment” from 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5). DHS deems this phrase unnecessary as both the existing regulations at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii) and the proposed version of that subsection specify the circumstances in which investments may be essentially passive in nature. Fifth, DHS is proposing to allow investors in any type of entity to demonstrate that they are sufficiently engaged in a new commercial enterprise through policymaking activities by virtue of being an equity holder in the new commercial enterprise with rights, powers and duties normally granted to such equity holders. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii). DHS recognizes that the amendment made by Public Law 107-273 to allow limited partnerships to serve as new commercial enterprises was intended to require flexibility in the administration of the EB-5 program with respect to the use of different entity types. Accordingly, to provide clarity and flexibility for all currently existing entity types, including limited liability companies, as well as to accommodate future entity types without creating an unnecessary distortion in the choice of entities used within the EB-5 program, DHS is proposing to revise the regulations to cover all types of entities and to consider equity holders in any type of entity to be considered sufficiently engaged if they are provided with the rights, duties, and powers normally provided to those types of equity holders. See id. Sixth, DHS is proposing to amend 8 CFR 204.6(k) to remove the requirement on USCIS to specify in the decision on the EB-5 immigrant petition whether the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business in a TEA. See proposed 8 CFR 204.6(k). This requirement provides no operational benefit to USCIS, as the agency relies on other means to track which approved petitions were based on investments in TEAs. The requirement also provides no benefit to investors; an approved petition based on an investment in a TEA necessarily means that the petitioner has met the burden of satisfying that eligibility requirement, and if a petition is denied due to failure to satisfy the requirement, the decision and analysis will be explicitly stated in the denial. This revision would also replace a reference to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations with a reference to the Administrative Appeals Office, which is now the appropriate appellate authority in denied cases. See id. Finally, DHS is proposing revisions to otherwise unaffected portions of section 204.6 and 216.6 to replace the term “entrepreneur” with the term “investor.” This will provide clarity and consistency in the program's terminology, including by mirroring terminology in USCIS policy. DHS also proposes to remove the “Form I-526” and “Form I-829” references in 8 CFR 204.6(a), and 8 CFR 216.6(a) and (b), respectively. Throughout the proposed regulations, DHS has removed references to specific form names and numbers to ensure the regulations remain relevant and informative, regardless of potential future form name or number changes. Additionally, the proposed revision to 8 CFR 216.6(a)(5) would replace the word “deportation” with “removal” proceedings to conform to terminology used in the INA. V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is $155 million. This proposed rule does not include any unfunded Federal mandates. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under the Act. B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, as some small businesses may be impacted under this regulation, DHS has prepared an IRFA under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB. (1) Summary This rule proposes changes to certain aspects of the EB-5 program that are in need of reform, and would also update the regulations to reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies. This proposed rule would make three major changes along with other technical and miscellaneous changes to the current regulations. First, DHS proposes to allow EB-5 immigrant petitioners, with limited exception, to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for any subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition for which the petitioner qualifies. Second, DHS proposes to increase the standard minimum investment amount to $1.8 million to account for inflation since the program's inception, and builds in a mechanism to adjust the investment amount based on the unadjusted CPI-U every 5 years. Similarly, DHS proposes to increase the TEA minimum investment amount to $1.35 million, or 75 percent of the standard amount, and to periodically adjust the TEA minimum investment amount so that it remains 75 percent of the standard amount. Third, DHS proposes to eliminate state designation of high unemployment areas and proposes new standards for the designation of TEAs. DHS is also proposing several technical changes. These changes include clarifying the filing process for derivatives who are filing Form I-829 petitions separately from the principal immigrant investor, providing flexibility in determining the location of interviews for Form I-829 petitions, and updating outdated regulations on how an immigrant investor obtains a new permanent resident card after approval of the Form I-829 petition. Additionally, this proposed rule would make miscellaneous changes including updating references to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, removing references to requirements that foreign entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise (NCE) in 8 CFR 204.6 and 216.6, removing references to “management” at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) and 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii), removing the phrase “as opposed to maintain a purely passive role in regard to the investment” from 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5), allowing any type of entity to serve as a new commercial enterprise, amending 8 CFR 204.6(k) to specify how USCIS will issue decisions, and revising 8 CFR 204.6 and 216.6 to use the term “investor” instead of “entrepreneur” and “removal” instead of “deportation.” Several of the provisions are expected to generate costs and benefits, although DHS does not have the necessary data to monetize these costs and benefits, with the exception of total costs of approximately $91,000 55 expected for dependents who would file Form I-829 petitions separately from principal investors. The proposed rule would likely result in long term expected benefits in the form of job stimulation due to increased EB-5 investment overall. The Table below is the same as Table 1 found in the “Costs and Benefits” portion of the Executive Summary above and provides a synopsis of each of the provisions in this proposed rule and its estimated impacts. In addition to the impacts outlined in the table, DHS believes that there would be some familiarization costs associated with reading and assessing the proposed rule. Based on several assumptions, DHS estimates these costs to be about $501,154 annually. 55 The cost estimate is rounded from $90,762. Table 2—Summary of Changes and Impact of the Proposed Provisions Current policy Proposed change Impact Current DHS regulations do not permit investors to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for a subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition DHS proposes to allow an EB-5 immigrant petitioner to use the priority date of an approved EB-5 immigrant petition for a subsequently filed EB-5 immigrant petition for which the petitioner qualifies Benefits: • Makes visa allocation more predictable for investors with less possibility for large fluctuations in visa availability dates due to regional center termination. • Provides greater certainty and stability regarding the timing of eligibility for investors pursuing permanent residence in the U.S. and thus lessens the burden of unexpected changes in the underlying investment. • Provides more flexibility to investors to contribute into more viable investments, potentially reducing fraud and improving potential for job creation. Costs: • Not estimated. The standard minimum investment amount has been $1 million since 1990 and has not kept pace with inflation Further, the statute authorizes a reduction in the minimum investment amount when such investment is made in a TEA by up to 50 percent of the standard minimum investment amount. Since 1991, DHS regulations have set the TEA investment threshold at 50 percent the minimum investment amount Similarly, DHS has not proposed to increase the minimum investment amount for investments made in a high employment area beyond the standard amount DHS proposes to account for inflation in the investment amount since the inception of the program. DHS proposes to raise the minimum investment amount to $1.8 million. DHS also proposes to include a mechanism to automatically adjust the minimum investment amount based on the unadjusted CPI-U every 5 years DHS proposes to decrease the reduction for TEA investment thresholds, and set the TEA minimum investment at 75 percent of the standard amount. Assuming the standard investment amount is $1.8 million, investment in a TEA would initially increase to $1.35 million DHS is not proposing to change the equivalency between the standard minimum investment amount and those made in high employment areas. As such, DHS proposes that the minimum investment amounts in high employment areas would be $1.8 million, and follow the same mechanism for future inflationary adjustments Benefits: • Increases in investment amounts are necessary to keep pace with inflation and real value of investments; • Raising the investment amounts increases the amount invested by each investor and potentially increases the total amount invested under this program. • For regional centers, the higher investment amounts per investor would mean that fewer investors would have to be recruited to pool the requisite amount of capital for the project, so that searching and matching of investors to projects could be less costly. Costs: • Some investors may be unable or unwilling to invest at the higher proposed levels of investment. • There may be fewer jobs created if fewer investors invest at the proposed higher investment amounts. • For regional centers, the higher amounts could reduce the number of investors in the global pool and result in fewer investors and thus make search and matching of investors to projects more costly. • Potential reduced numbers of EB-5 investors could prevent projects from moving forward due to lack of requisite capital. • An increase in the investment amount could make foreign investor visa programs offered by other countries more attractive. A TEA is defined by statute as a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate). Currently, investors demonstrate that their investments are in a high unemployment area in two ways: (1) providing evidence that the MSA, the specific county within the MSA, or the county in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business, has experienced an average unemployment rate of at least 150 percent of the national average rate or (2) submitting a letter from an authorized body of the government of the state in which the new commercial enterprise is located, which certifies that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area DHS proposes to eliminate state designation of high unemployment areas. DHS also proposes to amend the manner in which investors can demonstrate that their investments are in a high unemployment area. (1) In addition to MSAs, specific counties within MSAs, and counties in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, DHS proposes to add cities and towns with a population of 20,000 or more to the types of areas that can be designated as a high unemployment area (2) DHS is proposing that a TEA may consist of a census tract or contiguous census tracts in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business if the weighted average of the unemployment rate for the tract or tracts is at least 150 percent of the national average (3) DHS is also proposing that a TEA may consist of an area comprised of the census tract(s) in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business, including any and all adjacent tracts, if the weighted average of the unemployment rate for all included tracts is at least 150 percent of the national average Benefits: • Rules out TEA configurations that rely on a large number of census tracts indirectly linked to the actual project tract by numerous degrees of separation. • Potential to better stimulate job growth in areas where unemployment rates are the highest. Costs: • The proposed TEA provision could cause some projects and investments to not qualify. DHS presents the potential number of projects and investments that could be affected in Table 5. Current technical issues: • The current regulation does not clearly define the process by which derivatives may file a Form I-829 petition when they are not included on the principal's petition • Interviews for Form I-829 petitions are generally scheduled at the location of the new commercial enterprise • The current regulations require an immigrant investor and his or her derivatives to report to a district office for processing of their permanent resident cards DHS is proposing the following technical changes: • Clarify the filing process for derivatives who are filing a Form I-829 petition separately from the immigrant investor • Provide flexibility in determining the interview location related to the Form I-829 petition • Amend the regulation by which the immigrant investor obtains the new permanent resident card after the approval of his or her Form I-829 petition because DHS captures biometric data at the time the immigrant investor and derivatives appear at an ASC for fingerprinting Conditions of Filing: Benefits: • Adds clarity and eliminates confusion for the process of derivatives who file separately from the principal immigrant investor. Costs: • Total cost to applicants filing separately would be $90,762 annually. Conditions of Interview: Benefits: • Interviews may be scheduled at the USCIS office having jurisdiction over either the immigrant investor's commercial enterprise, the immigrant investor's residence, or the location where the Form I-829 petition is being adjudicated, thus making the interview program more effective and reducing burdens on the immigrant investor; • Some applicants may have cost savings from lower travel costs. Costs: • Not estimated. Investors obtaining a permanent resident card: Benefits: • Cost and time savings for applicants for biometrics data. Costs: • Not estimated. Current miscellaneous items: • 8 CFR 204.6(j)(2)(iii) refers to the former U.S. Customs Service • Public Law 107-273 eliminated the requirement that alien entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise from both INA § 203(b)(5) and INA § 216A • 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) and 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5)(iii) reference “management”; DHS is proposing the following miscellaneous changes: • DHS is updating references at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(2)(iii) from U.S. Customs Service to U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Removing references to requirements that alien entrepreneurs establish a new commercial enterprise in 8 CFR 204.6 and 216.6 These provisions are technical changes and will have no impact on investors or the government. Therefore, the benefits and costs for these changes were not estimated. • Current regulation at 8 CFR 204.6(j)(5) has the phrase “as opposed to maintain a purely passive role in regard to the investment”; • Public Law 107-273 allows limited partnerships to serve as new commercial enterprises; • Current regulation references the former Associate Commissioner for Examinations • 8 CFR 204.6(k) requires USCIS to specify in its Form I-526 decision whether the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business in a targeted employment area • Sections 204.6 and 216.6 use the term “entrepreneur” and “deportation.” These sections also refer to Forms I-526 and I-829 • [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2017-00447. Public record. Not legal advice.