# International Entrepreneur Rule > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2017-00481 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 17, 2017 - **Citation:** 82 FR 5238 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 103, 212, and 274a [CIS No. 2572-15; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0006] RIN 1615-AC04 International Entrepreneur Rule AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to implement the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretionary parole authority in order to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. The final rule adds new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case-by-case basis with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up entities who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. If granted, parole would provide a temporary initial stay of up to 30 months (which may be extended by up to an additional 30 months) to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States. DATES: This final rule is effective July 17, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Viger, Adjudications Officer, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2140; Telephone (202) 272-1470. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Legal Authority C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions D. Summary of Changes From the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking E. Summary of Costs and Benefits F. Effective Date II. Background A. Current Framework B. Final Rule III. Public Comments on Proposed Rule A. Summary of Public Comments B. Legal Authority C. Significant Public Benefit D. Definitions E. Application Requirements F. Parole Criteria and Conditions G. Employment Authorization H. Comments on Parole Process I. Appeals and Motions To Reopen J. Termination of Parole K. Opposition to the Overall Rule L. Miscellaneous Comments on the Rule M. Public Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements IV. 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. Purpose of the Rule 3. Volume Estimate 4. Costs 5. Benefits 6. Alternatives Considered D. Regulatory Flexibility Act E. Executive Order 13132 F. Executive Order 12988 G. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), confers upon the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretionary authority to parole individuals into the United States temporarily, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. DHS is amending its regulations implementing this authority to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. As described in more detail below, the final rule would establish general criteria for the use of parole with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up entities who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. In all cases, whether to parole a particular individual under this rule is a discretionary determination that would be made on a case-by-case basis. Given the complexities involved in adjudicating applications in this context, DHS has decided to establish by regulation the criteria for the case-by-case evaluation of parole applications filed by entrepreneurs of start-up entities. By including such criteria in regulation, as well as establishing application requirements that are specifically tailored to capture the necessary information for processing parole requests on this basis, DHS expects to facilitate the use of parole in this area. Under this final rule, an applicant would need to demonstrate that his or her parole would provide a significant public benefit because he or she is the entrepreneur of a new start-up entity in the United States that has significant potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS believes that such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of (1) significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments or (2) significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State, or local government entities. The final rule also includes alternative criteria for applicants who partially meet the thresholds for capital investment or government awards or grants and can provide additional reliable and compelling evidence of their entities' significant potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant must also show that he or she has a substantial ownership interest in such an entity, has an active and central role in the entity's operations, and would substantially further the entity's ability to engage in research and development or otherwise conduct and grow its business in the United States. The grant of parole is intended to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow the start-up entity. DHS believes that this final rule will encourage foreign entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities with high growth potential in the United States, which are expected to facilitate research and development in the country, create jobs for U.S. workers, and otherwise benefit the U.S. economy through increased business activity, innovation, and dynamism. Particularly in light of the complex considerations involved in entrepreneur-based parole requests, DHS also believes that this final rule will provide a transparent framework by which DHS will exercise its discretion to adjudicate such requests on a case-by-case basis under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). B. Legal Authority The Secretary of Homeland Security's authority for the proposed regulatory amendments can be found in various provisions of the immigration laws. Sections 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), provides the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. Section 402(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 202(4), expressly authorizes the Secretary to establish rules and regulations governing parole. Section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), vests in the Secretary the discretionary authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit to applicants for admission temporarily on a case-by-case basis. 1 Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the Secretary's general authority to extend employment authorization to noncitizens in the United States. And section 101(b)(1)(F) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), establishes as a primary mission of DHS the duty to “ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.” 1 In sections 402 and 451 of the HSA, Congress transferred from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security the general authority to enforce and administer the immigration laws, including those pertaining to parole. In accordance with section 1517 of title XV of the HSA, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the INA describing functions transferred from the Department of Justice to DHS “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557 (codifying the HSA, tit. XV, section 1517). Authorities and functions of DHS to administer and enforce the immigration laws are appropriately delegated to DHS employees and others in accordance with section 102(b)(1) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112(b)(1); section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a); and 8 CFR 2.1. C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions This final rule adds a new section 8 CFR 212.19 to provide guidance with respect to the use of parole for entrepreneurs of start-up entities based upon significant public benefit. An individual seeking to operate and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States would generally need to demonstrate the following to be considered for a discretionary grant of parole under this final rule: 1. Formation of New Start-Up Entity. The applicant has recently formed a new entity in the United States that has lawfully done business since its creation and has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the initial parole application. See 8 CFR 219.12(a)(2), 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7). 2. Applicant is an Entrepreneur. The applicant is an entrepreneur of the start-up entity who is well-positioned to advance the entity's business. An applicant may meet this standard by providing evidence that he or she: (1) Possesses a significant (at least 10 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole; and (2) has an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and growing its business in the United States. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Such an applicant cannot be a mere investor. 3. Significant U.S. Capital Investment or Government Funding. The applicant can further validate, through reliable supporting evidence, the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant may be able to satisfy this criterion in one of several ways: a. Investments from established U.S. investors. The applicant may show that the entity has received significant investment of capital from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments. An applicant would generally be able to meet this standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received investments of capital totaling $250,000 or more from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities. b. Government grants. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has received significant awards or grants from Federal, State or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. An applicant would generally be able to meet this standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received monetary awards or grants totaling $100,000 or more from government entities that typically provide such funding to U.S. businesses for economic, research and development, or job creation purposes. c. Alternative criteria. The final rule provides alternative criteria under which an applicant who partially meets one or more of the above criteria related to capital investment or government funding may be considered for parole under this rule if he or she provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such evidence must serve as a compelling validation of the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. This final rule states that an applicant who meets the above criteria (and his or her spouse and minor, unmarried children, 2 if any) generally may be considered under this rule for a discretionary grant of parole lasting up to 30 months (2.5 years) based on the significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant's (or family's) parole into the United States. An applicant will be required to file a new application specifically tailored for entrepreneurs to demonstrate eligibility for parole based upon significant public benefit under this rule, along with applicable fees. Applicants will also be required to appear for collection of biometric information. No more than three entrepreneurs may receive parole with respect to any one qualifying start-up entity. 2 The terms “child” and “children” in this proposed rule have the same meaning as they do under section 101(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1) (defining a child as one who is unmarried and under twenty-one years of age). USCIS adjudicators will consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence obtained by USCIS through background checks and other means, to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the above criteria, whether the specific applicant's parole would provide a significant public benefit, and whether negative factors exist that warrant denial of parole as a matter of discretion. To grant parole, adjudicators will be required to conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, that both: (1) The applicant's parole would provide a significant public benefit, and (2) the applicant merits a grant of parole as a matter of discretion. If parole is granted, the entrepreneur will be authorized for employment incident to the grant of parole, but only with respect to the entrepreneur's start-up entity. The entrepreneur's spouse and children, if any, will not be authorized for employment incident to the grant of parole, but the entrepreneur's spouse, if paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 CFR 212.19, will be permitted to apply for employment authorization consistent with new 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34). DHS retains the authority to revoke any such grant of parole at any time as a matter of discretion or if DHS determines that parole no longer provides a significant public benefit, such as when the entity has ceased operations in the United States or DHS has reason to believe that the approved application involves fraud or misrepresentation. See new 8 CFR 212.19(k). As noted, the purpose of this parole process is to provide qualified entrepreneurs of high-potential start-up entities in the United States with the improved ability to conduct research and development and expand the entities' operations in the United States so that our nation's economy may benefit from such development and expansion, including through increased capital expenditures, innovation, and job creation. The final rule allows individuals granted parole under this rule to be considered for re-parole for an additional period of up to 30 months (2.5 years) if, and only if, they can demonstrate that their entities have shown signs of significant growth since the initial grant of parole and such entities continue to have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant under this rule will generally need to demonstrate the following to be considered for a discretionary grant of an additional period of parole: 1. Continuation of Start-Up Entity. The entity continues to be a start-up entity as defined by the proposed rule. For purposes of seeking re-parole, an applicant may be able to meet this standard by showing that the entity: (a) Has been lawfully operating in the United States during the period of parole; and (b) continues to have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. 2. Applicant Continues to Be an Entrepreneur. The applicant continues to be an entrepreneur of the start-up entity who is well-positioned to advance the entity's business. An applicant may meet this standard by providing evidence that he or she: (a) Continues to possess a significant (at least 5 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the grant of re-parole; and (b) continues to have an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and continuing to grow its business in the United States. This reduced ownership amount takes into account the need of some successful start-up entities to raise additional venture capital investment by selling ownership interest during their initial years of operation. 3. Significant U.S. Investment/Revenue/Job Creation. The applicant further validates, through reliable supporting evidence, the start-up entity's continued potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant may be able to satisfy this criterion in one of several ways: a. Additional Investments or Grants. The applicant may show that during the initial period of parole the start-up entity received additional substantial investments of capital, including through qualified investments from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments; significant awards or grants from U.S. government entities that regularly provide such funding to start-up entities; or a combination of both. An applicant would generally be expected to demonstrate that the entity received at least $500,000 in additional qualifying funding during the initial parole period. As noted previously, any private investment that the applicant is relying upon as evidence that the investment criterion has been met must be made by qualified U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities. Government awards or grants must be from U.S. federal, state or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. b. Revenue generation. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has generated substantial and rapidly increasing revenue in the United States during the initial parole period. To satisfy this criterion, an applicant will need to demonstrate that the entity reached at least $500,000 in annual revenue, with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent, during the initial parole period. c. Job creation. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has demonstrated substantial job creation in the United States during the initial parole period. To satisfy this criterion, an applicant will need to demonstrate that the entity created at least 5 full-time jobs for U.S. workers during the initial parole period. d. Alternative criteria. As with initial parole, the final rule includes alternative criteria under which an applicant who partially meets one or more of the above criteria related to capital investment, revenue generation, or job creation may be considered for re-parole under this rule if he or she provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that his or her parole will continue to provide a significant public benefit. As discussed above, such evidence must serve as a compelling validation of the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. As indicated above, an applicant who generally meets the above criteria and merits a favorable exercise of discretion may be granted an additional 30-month period of re-parole, for a total maximum period of 5 years of parole under 8 CFR 212.19, to work with the same start-up entity based on the significant public benefit that would be served by his or her continued parole in the United States. No more than three entrepreneurs (and their spouses and children) may receive such additional periods of parole with respect to any one qualifying entity. As with initial parole applications, USCIS adjudicators will consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence obtained by USCIS through verification methods, to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the above criteria and whether his or her continued parole would provide a significant public benefit. To be re-paroled, adjudicators will be required to conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, both: (1) That the applicant's continued parole would provide a significant public benefit, and (2) that the applicant continues to merit parole as a matter of discretion. If the applicant is re-paroled, DHS retains the authority to revoke parole at any time as a matter of discretion or if DHS determines that parole no longer provides a significant public benefit, such as when the entity has ceased operations in the United States or DHS believes that the application involved fraud or made material misrepresentations. The entrepreneur and any dependents granted parole under this program will be required to depart the United States when their parole periods have expired or have otherwise been terminated, unless such individuals are otherwise eligible to lawfully remain in the United States. At any time prior to reaching the 5-year limit for parole under this final rule, such individuals may apply for any immigrant or nonimmigrant classification for which they may be eligible (such as classification as an O-1 nonimmigrant or as a lawful permanent resident pursuant to an EB-2 National Interest Waiver). Because parole is not considered an admission to the United States, parolees are ineligible to adjust or change their status in the United States under many immigrant or nonimmigrant visa classifications. For example, if such individuals are approved for a nonimmigrant or employment-based immigrant visa classification, they would generally need to depart the United States and apply for a visa with the Department of State (DOS) for admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant or lawful permanent resident. Finally, DHS is making conforming changes to the employment authorization regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(b) and (c), the employment eligibility verification regulations at 8 CFR 274a.2(b), and fee regulations at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i). The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.12(b) by: (1) Adding entrepreneur parolees to the classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to their immigration status or parole, and (2) providing temporary employment authorization for those applying for re-parole. The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.12(c) by extending eligibility for employment authorization to the spouse of an entrepreneur paroled into the United States under 8 CFR 212.19. The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.2(b) by designating the entrepreneur's foreign passport and Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) indicating entrepreneur parole as acceptable evidence for employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) purposes. 3 The final rule also amends 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i) by including the fee for the new Application for Entrepreneur Parole form. 3 Additionally, DHS is making a technical change to this section by adding the Department of State (DOS) Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) to the regulatory text and to the “List C” listing of acceptable documents for Form I-9 verification purposes. This rule departs from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by not adding “or successor form” after Form FS-240. DHS determined that inclusion of the phrase is unnecessary and may cause confusion in the future. D. Summary of Changes From the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Following careful consideration of public comments received, including relevant data provided by stakeholders, DHS has made several modifications to the regulatory text proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2016. See 81 FR 60129. Those changes include the following: • Minimum Investment Amount. In the final rule, DHS is responding to public comment by revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B)( 1 ), a provision that identifies the qualifying investment amount required from one or more qualified investors. In the NPRM, DHS proposed a minimum investment amount of $345,000. Based on data provided by the public, DHS is revising this figure to $250,000. Thus, under the final rule, an applicant would generally be able to meet the investment standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received investments of capital totaling $250,000 or more from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities. In addition, DHS has increased the timeframe during which the qualifying investments must be received from 365 days to 18 months immediately preceding the filing of an application for initial parole. • Definition of Entrepreneur: Ownership Criteria. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1), a provision that defines the term “entrepreneur,” and establishes a minimum ownership percentage necessary to meet the definition. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that the entrepreneur must have an ownership interest of at least 15 percent for initial parole, and 10 percent for re-parole. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this requirement to allow individuals who have an ownership interest of at least 10 percent in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole, and at least a 5 percent ownership interest at the time of adjudication of a subsequent period of re-parole, to qualify under this definition. • Qualified Investment Definition. DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(4), which establishes the definition of a qualified investment. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that the term “qualified investment” means an investment made in good faith, and that is not an attempt to circumvent any limitations imposed on investments under this section, of lawfully derived capital in a start-up entity that is a purchase from such entity of equity or convertible debt issued by such entity. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this definition to include other securities that are convertible into equity issued by such an entity and that are commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry. • Qualified Investor Definition. DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5), which establishes the definition of a qualified investor. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an individual or organization may be considered a qualified investor if, during the preceding 5 years: (i) The individual or organization made investments in start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt in at least 3 separate calendar years comprising a total within such 5-year period of no less than $1,000,000; and (ii) subsequent to such investment by such individual or organization, at least 2 such entities each created at least 5 qualified jobs or generated at least $500,000 in revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent. In this final rule, the minimum investment amount has been decreased from the originally proposed $1,000,000 to $600,000. The requirement that investments be made in at least 3 separate calendar years has also been removed from this final rule. DHS is also making revisions to the form of investment made by the individual or organization consistent with the change to the qualified investment definition by adding “or other security convertible into equity commonly used in financing transactions within their respective industries.” • Start-up Entity Definition. In the final rule, DHS is revising the definition of a start-up entity as proposed in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2). In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 3 years preceding the date of filing of the initial parole request. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this provision so that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the initial parole request. Additionally, for purposes of paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section, which pertain to the definitional requirements to be a qualified investor or qualified government award or grant, respectively, DHS made corresponding changes in this final rule such that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the receipt of the relevant grant(s), award(s), or investment(s). • Job Creation Requirement. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)( 2 ), a provision that identifies the minimum job creation requirement under the general re-parole criteria. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an entrepreneur may be eligible for an additional period of parole by establishing that his or her start-up entity has created at least 10 qualified jobs during the initial parole period. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this provision so that an entrepreneur may qualify for re-parole if the start-up entity created at least 5 qualified jobs with the start-up entity during the initial parole period. • Revenue Generation. In the final rule, DHS is clarifying proposed 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)( 3 ), a provision that identifies the minimum annual revenue requirement under the general re-parole criteria. DHS has clarified that for the revenue to be considered for purposes of re-parole, it must be generated in the United States. • Parole Validity Periods. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) and (3), which are provisions that identify the length of the initial and re-parole periods. In the NPRM, DHS proposed (1) a potential initial period of parole of up to 2 years beginning on the date the request is approved by USCIS and (2) a potential period of re-parole of up to 3 years beginning on the date of the expiration of the initial parole period. First, DHS revised 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) to correct that the initial parole period would begin running on the date the individual is initially paroled into the United States. Second, in response to public comment, DHS revised 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) and (3) to provide 2 potential parole periods of up to 30 months each, rather than an initial 2-year period followed by a potential 3-year period of re-parole. Specifically, 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) now provides that an applicant who meets the eligibility criteria (and his or her spouse and minor, unmarried children, if any) may be considered under this rule for a discretionary grant of an initial parole period of up to 30 months (2.5 years) based on the significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant's (or family's) parole into the United States. DHS also revised in this final rule the period of re-parole in 8 CFR 212.19(d)(3) to reduce the period of re-parole from 3 years to 30 months in order to extend the initial parole period, while still maintaining the overall 5-year period of parole limitation. • Material Changes. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(10), a provision that defines material changes. The final rule adds the following to the definition of material changes: “a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity.” This reflects a change from the originally proposed language of any significant change to the entrepreneur's role in or ownership and control in the start-up entity or any other significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity. Additionally, the final rule at 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) adds language that permits the entrepreneur during the initial parole period to reduce his or her ownership interest, as long as at least 5 percent ownership is maintained. This provision was revised in response to a number of public comments that requested that DHS reconsider how and when material changes should be reported. • Reporting of Material Changes. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(j), a provision that describes reporting of material changes. DHS is revising 8 CFR 212.19(j) to allow DHS to provide additional flexibility in the future with respect to the manner in which material changes are reported to DHS. The final rule also makes conforming changes based on changes to the definition of entrepreneur. • Termination of Parole. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(k)(2), a provision that describes automatic termination of parole. The final rule makes conforming revisions to this provision based on changes to the definition of entrepreneur and to the material change provisions. E. Summary of Costs and Benefits DHS does not anticipate that this rule will generate significant costs and burdens to private or public entities. Costs of the rule stem from filing fees and opportunity costs associated with applying for parole, and the requirement that the entrepreneur notify DHS of any material changes. DHS estimates that 2,940 entrepreneurs will be eligible for parole annually and can apply using the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941). Each applicant for parole will face a total filing cost—including the application form fee, biometric filing fee, travel costs, and associated opportunity costs—of $1,591, resulting in a total cost of $4,678,336 (undiscounted) for the first full year the rule will take effect and any subsequent year. Additionally, dependent family members (spouses and children) seeking parole with the principal applicant will be required to file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) and submit biographical information and biometrics. DHS estimates approximately 3,234 dependent spouses and children could seek parole based on the estimate of 2,940 principal applicants. Each spouse and child 14 years of age and older seeking parole will face a total cost of $765 per applicant, 4 for a total aggregate cost of $2,474,914. 5 Additionally, spouses who apply for work authorization via an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) will incur a total additional cost of $446 each. Based on the same number of entrepreneurs, the estimated 2,940 spouses 6 will incur total costs of $1,311,830 (undiscounted). The total cost of the rule to include direct filing costs and monetized non-filing costs is estimated to be $8,136,571 annually. 4 On October 24, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a final rule establishing a new fee schedule for immigration benefits and services (81 FR 73292). The new filing fees for Form I-131 and Form I-765, $575 and $410, respectively, will be effective on December 23, 2016. This final rule uses those new filing fees in estimating costs to potential applicants under this rule. 5 For parole requests for children under the age of 14, only the filing fee will be required, as such children do not appear for biometric collection. Applicants under the age of 14 and over the age of 79 are not required to be fingerprinted. However, they may still be required to attend a biometrics appointment in order to have their photographs and signatures captured. 6 DHS used a simple one-to-one mapping of entrepreneurs to spouses to obtain 2,940 spouses, the same number as entrepreneur parolees. DHS anticipates that establishing a parole process for those entrepreneurs who stand to provide a significant public benefit will advance the U.S. economy by enhancing innovation, generating capital investments, and creating jobs. DHS does not expect significant negative consequences or labor market impacts from this rule; indeed, DHS believes this rule will encourage entrepreneurs to pursue business opportunities in the United States rather than abroad, which can be expected to generate significant scientific, research and development, and technological impacts that could create new products and produce positive spillover effects to other businesses and sectors. The impacts stand to benefit the economy by supporting and strengthening high-growth, job-creating businesses in the United States. F. Effective Date This final rule will be effective on July 17, 2017, 180 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register . DHS has determined that this 180-day period is necessary to provide USCIS with a reasonable period to ensure resources are in place to process and adjudicate Applications for Entrepreneur Parole filed by eligible entrepreneurs and related applications filed by eligible dependents under this rule without sacrificing the quality of customer service for all USCIS stakeholders. USCIS believes it will thus be able to implement this rule in a manner that will avoid delays of processing these and other applications. II. Background A. Discretionary Parole Authority The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretionary authority to parole into the United States temporarily “under conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any individual applying for admission to the United States,” regardless of whether the alien is inadmissible. INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). 7 The Secretary's parole authority is expansive. Congress did not define the phrase “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” entrusting interpretation and application of those standards to the Secretary. Aside from requiring case-by-case determinations, Congress limited the parole authority by restricting its use with respect to two classes of applicants for admissions: (1) Aliens who are refugees (unless the Secretary determines that “compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled . . . rather than be admitted as a refugee” under INA section 207, 8 U.S.C. 1157), see INA section 212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B); and (2) certain alien crewmen during a labor dispute in specified circumstances (unless the Secretary “determines that the parole of such alien is necessary to protect the national security of the United States”), INA section 214(f)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(f)(2)(A). 7 Although section 212(d)(5) continues to refer to the Attorney General, the parole authority now resides exclusively with the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Matter of Arrabally, 25 I. & N. Dec. 771, 777 n.5 (BIA 2012). Parole decisions are discretionary determinations and must be made on a case-by-case basis consistent with the INA. To exercise its parole authority, DHS must determine that an individual's parole into the United States is justified by urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Even when one of those standards would be met, DHS may nevertheless deny parole as a matter of discretion based on other factors. 8 In making such discretionary determinations, USCIS considers all relevant information, including any criminal history or other serious adverse factors that would weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion. 8 The denial of parole is not subject to judicial review. See INA section 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Bolante v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 2007). Parole is not an admission to the United States. See INA sections 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A); see also 8 CFR 1.2 (“An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.”). Parole may also be terminated at any time in DHS's discretion, consistent with existing regulations; in those cases, the individual is “restored to the status that he or she had at the time of parole.” 8 CFR 212.5(e); see also INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). 9 9 The grounds for termination set forth in 212.19(k) are in addition to the general grounds for termination of parole described at 8 CFR 212.5(e). DHS regulations at 8 CFR 212.5 generally describe DHS's discretionary parole authority, including the authority to set the terms and conditions of parole. Some conditions are described in the regulations, including requiring reasonable assurances that the parolee will appear at all hearings and will depart from the United States when required to do so. See 8 CFR 212.5(d). Each of the DHS immigration components—USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—has been delegated the authority to parole applicants for admission in accordance with section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). See 8 CFR 212.5(a). The parole authority is often utilized to permit an individual who is outside the United States to travel to and come into the United States without a visa. USCIS, however, also accepts requests for “advance parole” by individuals who seek authorization to depart the United States and return to the country pursuant to parole in the future. See 8 CFR 212.5(f); Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). Aliens who seek parole as entrepreneurs under this rule may need to apply for advance parole if at the time of application they are present in the United States after admission in, for example, a nonimmigrant classification, as USCIS is unable to grant parole to aliens who are not “applicants for admission.” See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also INA section 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (describing “applicants for admission”). Advance authorization of parole by USCIS does not guarantee that the individual will be paroled by CBP upon his or her appearance at a port of entry. 10 Rather, with a grant of advance parole, the individual is issued a document authorizing travel (in lieu of a visa) indicating “that, so long as circumstances do not meaningfully change and the DHS does not discover material information that was previously unavailable, . . . DHS's discretion to parole him at the time of his return to a port of entry will likely be exercised favorably.” 11 10 See Matter of Arrabally, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 779 n.6 (citing 71 FR 27585, 27586 n.1 (May 12, 2006) (“[A] decision authorizing advance parole does not preclude denying parole when the alien actually arrives at a port-of-entry, should DHS determine that parole is no longer warranted.”)). 11 Id. Currently, upon an individual's arrival at a U.S. port of entry with a parole travel document ( e.g., a Department of State (DOS) foil, Authorization for Parole of an Alien into the United States (Form I-512L), or an Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766)), a CBP officer at a port of entry inspects the prospective parolee. If parole is authorized, the CBP officer issues an Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) documenting the grant of parole and the length of the parolee's authorized parole period. See 8 CFR 235.1(h)(2). CBP retains the authority to deny parole to a parole applicant or to modify the length of advance parole authorized by USCIS. See 8 CFR 212.5(c). Because parole does not constitute an admission, individuals may be paroled into the United States even if they are inadmissible under section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). Further, parole does not provide a parolee with nonimmigrant status or lawful permanent resident status. Nor does it provide the parolee with a basis for changing status to that of a nonimmigrant or adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident, unless the parolee is otherwise eligible. Under current regulations, once paroled into the United States, a parolee is eligible to request employment authorization from USCIS by filing a Form I-765 application with USCIS. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). If employment authorization is granted, USCIS issues the parolee an employment authorization document (EAD) with an expiration date that is commensurate with the period of parole on the parolee's Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94). The parolee may use this EAD to demonstrate identity and employment authorization to an employer for Form I-9 verification purposes as required by section 274A(a) and (b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a) and (b). Under current regulations, the parolee is not employment authorized by virtue of being paroled, but instead only after receiving a discretionary grant of employment authorization from USCIS based on the Application for Employment Authorization. Parole will terminate automatically upon the expiration of the authorized parole period or upon the departure of the individual from the United States. See 8 CFR 212.5(e)(1). Parole also may be terminated on written notice when DHS determines that the individual no longer warrants parole or through the service of a Notice to Appear (NTA). See 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i). B. Final Rule Following careful consideration of public comments received, DHS has made several modifications to the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM (as described above in Section I.C.). The rationale for the proposed rule and the reasoning provided in the background section of that rule remain valid with respect to these regulatory amendments. Section III of this final rule includes a detailed summary and analysis of public comments that are pertinent to the proposed rule and DHS's role in administering the International Entrepreneur Rule. A brief summary of comments deemed by DHS to be out of scope or unrelated to this rulemaking, making a detailed substantive response unnecessary, is provided in Section III.K. Comments may be reviewed at the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number USCIS-2015-0006. III. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule A. Summary of Public Comments In response to the proposed rule, DHS received 763 comments during the 45-day public comment period. Of these, 43 comments were duplicate submissions and approximately 242 were letters submitted through mass mailing campaigns. As those letters were sufficiently unique, DHS considered all of these comment submissions. Commenters consisted primarily of individuals but also included startup incubators, companies, venture capital firms, law firms and representatives from State and local governments. Approximately 51 percent of commenters expressed support for the rule and/or offered suggestions for improvement. Nearly 46 percent of commenters expressed general opposition to the rule without suggestions for improvement. For approximately 3 percent of the public comments, DHS could not ascertain whether the commenter supported or opposed the proposed rule. DHS has reviewed all of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule and addresses relevant comments in this final rule. DHS's responses are grouped by subject area, with a focus on the most common issues and suggestions raised by commenters. B. Legal Authority Comments. One commenter supported DHS's stated authority for promulgating this regulation and said that the INA grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish policies governing parole and that efforts to reduce barriers to entrepreneurship via regulatory reform directly addresses DHS's mandate, “to ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.” On the other hand, some commenters questioned DHS's authority to implement this rule. A commenter asserted that the rule created a new visa category which is under the exclusive purview of Congress, and therefore an illegal extension of authority by the executive branch. Another commenter indicated that the proposed rule is too vague regarding whether “the agency intends to grant parole to aliens already present in the United States,” and questioned whether the proposed exercise of parole authority is supported by legislative history, is consistent with the INA's overall statutory scheme, and whether “significant public benefit parole” as outlined in this rule is “arbitrary and capricious.” Response. DHS agrees with the commenter that contended that the Secretary has authority to promulgate this rule. As noted above, DHS's authority to promulgate this rule arises primarily from sections 101(b)(1)(F) and 402(4) of the HSA; sections 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3); section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5); and section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B). The Secretary retains broad statutory authority to exercise his discretionary parole authority based upon “significant public benefit.” DHS disagrees with the comment asserting that the proposed rule would effectively create a new visa category, which only Congress has the authority to do. See INA section 101(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (identifying nonimmigrant categories). Congress expressly empowered DHS to grant parole on a case-by-case basis, and nothing in this rule uses that authority to establish a new nonimmigrant classification. Among other things, individuals who are granted parole—which can be terminated at any time in the Secretary's discretion—are not considered to have been “admitted” to the United States, see INA sections 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A); and cannot change to a nonimmigrant category as a parolee, see INA section 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258(a). Nor does parole confer lawful permanent resident status. To adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident, individuals generally must, among other things, be admissible to the United States, have a family or employment-based immigrant visa immediately available to them, and not be subject to the various bars to adjustment of status. See INA section 245(a), (c), (k); 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), (c), (k); 8 CFR 245.1. DHS further disagrees with the comment that this rule is inconsistent with the legislative history on parole. Under current law, Congress has expressly authorized the Secretary to grant parole on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The statutory language in place today is somewhat more restrictive than earlier versions of the parole authority, which did not always require case-by-case review and now includes additional limits on the use of parole for refugees and certain alien crewmen. See INA section 212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B) (refugees); INA section 214(f)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(f)(2)(A) (alien crewmen); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, div. C, sec. 602(a)-(b), 110 Stat. 3009-689 (1996) (changing the standard for parole). But the statute clearly continues to authorize the granting of parole. Across Administrations, moreover, it has been accepted that the Secretary can identify classes of individuals to consider for parole so long as each individual decision is made on a case-by-case basis according to the statutory criteria. See, e.g., 8 CFR 212.5(b) (as amended in 1997); Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 72 FR 65,588 (Nov. 21, 2007). This rule implements the parole authority in that way. In addition to the concerns described above, one commenter argued that the proposed rule did not clearly explain whether “the agency intends to grant parole to aliens already present in the United States.” DHS believes it is clear under this rule that an individual who is present in the United States as a nonimmigrant based on an inspection and admission is not eligible for parole without first departing the United States and appearing at a U.S. port of entry to be paroled into United States. See INA sections 212(d)(5)(A), 235(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), 1225(a)(1). As further discussed in section III.H. of this rule, moreover, DHS does not contemplate using this rule to grant requests for parole in place for initial requests for parole. Comment: A commenter objected to the extension of employment authorization by this rule to entrepreneur parolees for the sole purpose of engaging in entrepreneurial employment, stating that DHS is barred from doing so given the comprehensive legislative scheme for employment-based temporary and permanent immigration. Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter. Under a plain reading of INA section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), the Secretary is provided with broad discretion to administer and enforce the Nation's immigration laws and broad authority to “establish such regulations . . . and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the [INA],” see INA section 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). Further, the specific definitional provision at section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), which was raised by the commenter, presumes that employment may be authorized by the Secretary and not just by statute. See Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Congress has given the Executive Branch broad discretion to determine when noncitizens may work in the United States.”); Perales v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1048, 1050 (5th Cir. 1990) (describing the authority recognized by INA 274A(h)(3) as “permissive” and largely “unfettered”). The fact that Congress has directed the Secretary to authorize employment to specific classes of foreign nationals in certain statutory provisions does not diminish the Secretary's broad authority under other statutory provisions to administer the immigration laws, including through the extension of employment authorization. See generally 8 CFR 274a.12 (identifying, by regulation, numerous “classes of aliens authorized to accept employment”). C. Significant Public Benefit Comment: One commenter stated that the quality of the jobs created should be a factor in determining whether the entrepreneur's parole will provide a significant public benefit. The commenter suggested formalizing some form of priority criteria. Response: Under this final rule, evidence regarding job creation may be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for “significant public benefit.” An entrepreneur may be considered for an initial period of parole if the entrepreneur's start-up entity has received a qualifying investment or grant. Alternatively, if the entity has received a lesser investment or grant amount, the entrepreneur may still be considered for parole by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Evidence pertaining to the creation of jobs, as well as the characteristics of the jobs created ( e.g., occupational classification and wage level) may be considered by DHS in determining whether the evidence, when combined with the amount of investment, grant or award, establishes that the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. As with initial parole determinations, evidence pertaining to the creation of jobs, as well as the characteristics of the jobs created ( e.g., occupational classification and wage level) may be considered by DHS to determine whether the entrepreneur should be granted re-parole. Given the way job creation will already be considered, DHS believes it is unnecessary to make “job quality” its own separate criterion in determining whether to grant parole or re-parole. It is also unclear how the commenter believes DHS should apply any such criterion. Under this final rule, DHS will evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence about job creation, in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for significant public benefit. D. Definitions 1. Entrepreneur—Ownership Criteria Comments: Several commenters expressed concern with the 15 percent “substantial ownership interest” requirement in the definition of “entrepreneur” in the proposed rule. One such commenter said the 15 percent “substantial ownership interest” requirement is only reasonable for smaller startups and proposed that the rule also separately include a dollar amount to satisfy the “substantial ownership interest” requirement ( e.g., 15 percent ownership interest or ownership interest valued at $150,000 or more). Several commenters recommended that the final rule reduce the initial parole threshold from 15 to 10 percent and reduce the re-parole threshold from 10 to 5 percent. Other commenters suggested that 10 percent ownership per individual would be a more appropriate threshold because some start-ups may be founded by teams of founders that need to split equity and requiring more than 15 percent ownership might be too restrictive and limit business creativity and growth. Response: Consistent with the commenters' concerns and suggestions, DHS is revising the definition of entrepreneur in this final rule to reduce the ownership percentage that the individual must possess. See 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Based on further analysis, DHS believes that the thresholds from the proposed rule could have unnecessarily impacted an entrepreneur's ability to dilute his or her ownership interest to raise additional funds and grow the start-up entity. In this final rule, an individual may be considered to possess a substantial ownership interest if he or she possesses at least a 10 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole and possesses at least a 5 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of a subsequent period of re-parole. DHS believes that the revised ownership percentage requirements in this final rule adequately account for the possibility of equity dilution, while ensuring that the individual continues to have a substantial ownership interest in, and assumes more than a nominal financial risk related to, the start-up entity. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS declines to adopt a separate option of establishing substantial ownership interest based on a valuation of the entrepreneur's ownership interest. DHS believes that the percentages provided within the final rule offer clear guidance to stakeholders and adjudicators as to what constitutes a substantial ownership interest regardless of the industry involved. Reliance upon valuations of an owner's interest would unnecessarily complicate the adjudicative review process, could potentially increase fraud and abuse, and may be burdensome for the applicant to obtain from an independent and reliable source. DHS, therefore, believes that the best indicator of an entrepreneur's ownership interest is the individual's ownership percentage since that is easy for an applicant to establish and provides an objective indicator for DHS to assess. DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources. 2. Other Comments on Entrepreneur Definition Comment: One commenter stated that, in defining who counts as an “entrepreneur,” the rule should take into account whether an individual has been successful in the past, including by having previously owned and developed businesses, generated more than a certain amount of revenue, created more than a certain number of jobs, or earned at least a certain amount. Response: Under this final rule, evidence regarding an entrepreneur's track record may be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for “significant public benefit.” The final rule's definition of entrepreneur requires the applicant to show that he or she both: (1) Possesses a substantial ownership interest in the start-up entity, and (2) has a central and active role in the operations of that entity, such that the alien is well-positioned, due to his or her knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. See new 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Some of the factors suggested by the commenter are relevant evidence that the applicant can submit to show that he or she is well-positioned to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. DHS will also evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine whether an applicant's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit and that he or she otherwise merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Given the way an entrepreneur's track record may already be considered on a case-by-case basis, DHS believes it is unnecessary to make the specific factors identified by the commenter their own separate criteria in determining whether to grant parole or re-parole. Comment: A few commenters recommended that DHS clarify the term “well-positioned” as used in the definition of “entrepreneur.” See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) (requiring an international entrepreneur to prove that he or she “is well-positioned, due to his or her knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business”). The commenters believe that the proposed rule did not explain how an applicant would demonstrate that he or she is “well-positioned.” The commenters recommend that the “substantial ownership interest” test in the same provision should provide a rebuttable presumption that the entrepreneur is “well-positioned” and that the “significant capital financing” requirements reflect the market demand for the entrepreneur to grow the business. Response: DHS believes that both the proposed rule and this final rule sufficiently explain how an applicant may establish that he or she is “well-positioned” to grow the start-up entity. An applicant may generally establish that he or she is well-positioned to advance the entity's business by providing evidence that he or she: (1) Possesses a significant (at least 10 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole, and (2) has an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and growing its business in the United States. Such an applicant cannot be a mere investor. The applicant must be central to the entity's business and well-positioned to actively assist in the growth of that business, such that his or her presence would help the entity create jobs, spur research and development, or provide other benefits to the United States. Whether an applicant has an “active and central role,” and therefore is well-positioned to advance the entity's business, will be determined based on the totality of the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. Such evidence may include: • Letters from relevant government agencies, qualified investors, or established business associations with an understanding of the applicant's knowledge, skills or experience that would advance the entity's business; • news articles or other similar evidence indicating that the applicant has received significant attention and recognition; • documentation showing that the applicant or entity has been recently invited to participate in, is currently participating in, or has graduated from one or more established and reputable start-up accelerators; • documentation showing that the applicant has played an active and central role in the success of prior start-up or other relevant business entities; • degrees or other documentation indicating that the applicant has knowledge, skills, or experience that would significantly advance the entity's business; • documentation pertaining to intellectual property of the start-up entity, such as a patent, that was obtained by the applicant or as a result of the applicant's efforts and expertise; • a position description of the applicant's role in the operations of the company; and • any other relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the applicant's ability to advance the entity's business in the United States. Particularly given the way this evidence will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the need to ensure parole is justified by significant public benefit, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion of adopting a rebuttable presumption that certain applicants meet the “well-positioned” requirement. The burden of proof remains with the applicant. Comment: One commenter representing a group of technology companies recommended that DHS add the term “intellectual property” as a metric that an adjudicator would take into consideration when determining the “active and central role” that the international entrepreneur performs in the organization. The commenter noted that it had several member companies that have non-citizen inventors on a key patent application, and have had core intellectual property developed by non-citizens, often within the university environment. In many of these situations, the non-citizen inventors were unable to obtain work authorization and join the emerging startup company, resulting in loss of key technical ability, delay, and additional cost for the startup company to achieve market success. The commenter believes this rule could alleviate this investment risk. Response: As discussed above, an applicant for parole under this rule may provide any relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the applicant's ability to advance the entity's business in the United States. Such evidence includes documentation pertaining to intellectual property of the start-up entity, such as a patent, that was obtained by the applicant or as a result of the applicant's efforts and expertise. DHS will consider such evidence to determine whether the applicant performs, or will perform, an active and central role in the start-up entity. Given the breadth of evidence that can already be considered in these determinations, DHS declines to amend the definition of “entrepreneur” in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) to include some consideration of “intellectual property” as a specific metric to determine if the applicant will have an active and central role in the start-up entity. DHS believes it is appropriate to allow for sufficient flexibility in the definition for adjudicators to evaluate each case on its own merits. Given the considerable range of entrepreneurial ventures that might form the basis for an application for parole under this rule, DHS believes that such flexibility is important to ensure that cutting edge industries or groundbreaking ventures are not precluded from consideration simply because of an overly rigid or narrow definition of “entrepreneur.” Comment: One commenter noted that DHS's inclusion of criteria in section IV.B.1. of the NPRM, “Recent Formation of a Start-Up Entity,” is reminiscent of criteria used in the O-1 nonimmigrant classification for individuals with extraordinary ability, except for the focus on entrepreneurial endeavors. The commenter especially welcomed the final “catch-all” that referenced “any other relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the entity's potential for growth.” The commenter asserted that as it pertains to “newspaper articles,” one of the major difficulties of the O-1 petition process is the lack of awareness by adjudicators of tech-press publications, such as Recode or TechCrunch. The commenter explained that coverage in these publications is very valuable to startups, and forcing startups to garner traditional media coverage in publications like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times is often counterproductive towards the entrepreneur's success. Response: DHS agrees with the commenter that the list of evidence provided in the preamble to the NPRM and this final rule provides an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of the types of evidence that might be submitted by an applicant to establish that he or she meets the definition of entrepreneur in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Applicants may submit any relevant, probative and credible evidence that demonstrates the entity's potential for growth, including tech-press publications. Comment: One commenter recommended broadening the proposed requirement that the parolee play a central role in operations. The commenter noted that the DHS November 2014 memorandum, 12 which initially directed USCIS to develop a proposed rule under the Secretary's parole authority, refers to researchers, not just managers or founders. The commenter stated that in the technology world, “technical founders” are key employees who lead the research and development phase, and recommended that these technical founders be included even if they are not managing overall operations. To keep this expansion targeted, the commenter recommended requiring a technical founder to have an advanced degree in a STEM field from a U.S. institution of higher education. 12 Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, DHS Secretary, Policies Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Business and Workers 4 (Nov. 20, 2014), at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_business_actions.pdf. Response: DHS agrees that “technical founders” are often key employees who play an important role in the development and success of a start-up entity. DHS disagrees, however, with the commenter's assertion that the definition of entrepreneur in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) does not sufficiently encompass technical founders. Technical founders can perform a central and active role in the operations of their start-up entity, and may be well-positioned, due to their knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. The definition of “entrepreneur” is not limited to those individuals who manage the overall operations of the start-up entity. Thus, DHS believes it is unnecessary to broaden the definition of “entrepreneur” in the way the commenter suggests. Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should provide a clear-cut definition of a typical entrepreneur. This commenter asserted that the draft rule does not adequately account for situations where a typical entrepreneur partially qualifies or does not qualify for parole, but nevertheless seeks to start a business in the United States. The commenter stated that USCIS and the White House should plan to have a separate case study team to evaluate each application. Response: DHS believes that the rule provides a reasonable and clear definition of an entrepreneur. This rule is not designed or intended to provide parole to everyone who seeks to be an entrepreneur, but will instead provide a framework for case-by-case determinations based upon specified criteria for determining that a grant of parole in this context provides a significant public benefit. The framework in this rule is consistent with DHS's parole authority under INA section 212(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5), and is based on the statutory authorization to provide parole for significant public benefit. Each application for parole under this rule will be adjudicated by an Immigration Services Officer trained on the requirements for significant public benefit parole under 8 CFR 212.19. DHS believes that a separate case-study team could unnecessarily complicate and delay adjudications and declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. 3. Definition of Start-Up Entity—“Recently-Formed” and the 3-year Limitation Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the definition of “start-up entity” and the requirement that an entity, in order to satisfy that definition, must have been created within the 3 years immediately preceding the parole request filing date. A few individual commenters said that the 3-year limitation could be inadequate in certain situations, such as when investing in an inactive business with other co-founders to initiate the start-up, or when investing in high-priority areas like healthcare, biotechnology, and clean energy that have long gestation times. A couple of individual commenters said that the 3-year limitation may not be necessary given the other, more stringent requirements in the proposed rule. Some commenters provided the following recommendations relating to the 3-year limitation: Eliminate the limitation, lengthen the period to 5 years, lengthen the period to 10 years, or include a case-by-case provision allowing for submissions that may satisfy the definition of “start-up entity.” One commenter recommended that “recently formed” should include entities formed within the last 10 years, and also requested that where applicable, DHS accept alternative evidence to determine and establish that the company is a “start-up” entity, such as letters of attestation from investors, industry experts within a particular niche field, and government agencies that speak to the average growth cycle of a new company within a particular area. A few commenters stated that the 3-year limitation was appropriate. Response: In response to these comments, DHS revised proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) and the definition of “start-up entity” in this final rule to require that the entity must have been formed within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing of the initial parole application, rather than 3 years as proposed. DHS believes that this definition appropriately reflects that some entities, particularly given the industry in which the entity operates, may require a longer gestation time before receiving substantial investment, grants, or awards. This 5-year limitation continues to reflect the Department's intention for parole under this final rule: To incentivize and support the creation and growth of new businesses in the United States, so that the country may benefit from their substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS recognizes that the term “start-up” is usually used to refer to entities in early stages of development, including various financing rounds used to raise capital and expand the new business, but the term “goes beyond a company just getting off the ground.” 13 Limiting the definition of “start-up” in this proposed rule to entities that are less than 5 years old at the time the parole application is filed is a reasonable way to help ensure that the entrepreneur's entity is the type of new business likely to experience rapid growth and job creation, while still allowing a reasonable amount of time for the entrepreneur to form the business and obtain qualifying levels of investor financing (which may occur in several rounds) or government grants or awards. 13 U.S. Small Business Administration, Startups & High Growth Businesses, available at https://www.sba.gov/content/startups-high-growth-businesses (“In the world of business, the word `startup' goes beyond a company just getting off the ground.”). 4. Other Comments on the Definition of Start-up Entity Comment: One commenter said that formation should be defined to be either the creation of a legal entity under which the activities of the business would be conducted or the effective date of an agreement between the entrepreneur and an existing business to launch the business activities as a start-up, branch, department, subsidiary, or other activity of an existing business entity. Another commenter suggested that DHS consider restructuring ( e.g., use successor-in-interest rules) and other pivots (in terms of changes in the service or product, as well as markets) during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the parole application and at time of application for re-parole. Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions and notes that recent formation within the definition of “start-up entity” in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) is already limited to the creation of the entity within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the alien's initial parole request. DHS further declines to amend 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) to broaden what may be considered “recently formed” to include the effective date of an agreement between the entrepreneur and an existing business to launch new business activities, restructurings and other pivots. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources. Comment: One commenter suggested that start-up entities under this rule should be limited to businesses that fill a need that is currently not being fulfilled in the United States. Response: One of the goals of this final rule is to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States; and, under this rule, evidence regarding the expected contributions of a start-up entity will be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States. A successful start-up entity, particularly one with high-growth potential, will fulfill an identified business need. For example, the entrepreneur may be starting the business to alter an existing industry through innovative products or processes, innovative and more efficient methods of production, or cutting-edge research and development to expand an existing market or industry. It is also unclear from the commenter's suggestion how “business need” would be defined, and DHS believes that attempting to do so in this rule could result in an overly restrictive definition that fails to account for future innovation, would be unnecessarily rigid, and would lessen the rule's ability to retain and attract international entrepreneurs who will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Comment: An individual commenter requested that staffing companies be included as a type of startup. Response: In this final rule, and for purposes of parole under this program, DHS defines a “start-up entity” as a U.S. business entity that was recently formed, has lawfully done business during any period of operation since its date of formation, and has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. See 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2). The rule requires that entities meet certain specified criteria for obtaining parole, but the rule does not specifically exclude staffing companies from participating if they otherwise meet these criteria. DHS therefore will not revise the definition of start-up entity in this rule as requested by the commenter. Comment: One commenter asserted that the rule fails to specify how a start-up entity can demonstrate that it has “lawfully done business” or “has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.” The commenter recommended revising the definition to more closely align with 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)( 2 ) and (l)(1)(ii)(H) by instead requiring evidence that the entity is or will be engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. This commenter suggested that the submission of expert witness testimony by a reputable third party, such as a recognized professor or leader in the start-up entity's proposed field, should be given deference and treated under the final rule as a rebuttable presumption establishing that the start-up “has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.” Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenter's suggested changes in this final rule. DHS believes that an applicant can demonstrate the start-up entity's lawful business activities through many different means and will keep this requirement flexible to account for the many differences among start-up entities. Such evidence might include, but is not limited to, business permits, equipment purchased or rented, contracts for products or services, invoices, licensing agreements, federal tax returns, sales tax filings, and evidence of marketing efforts. DHS believes that the rule provides a clear framework for establishing that a start-up entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. See 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). An applicant generally must satisfy the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) to be considered for parole under this rule. An applicant who only partially meets one or both of the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) may still be eligible for consideration for parole under this rule if the applicant provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that the start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS recognizes that the rule does not provide specific evidence that must be submitted in order to satisfy the alternative criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii). DHS believes that providing a specific set of evidence would have the unintended effect of narrowing a provision that was designed to allow for the submission of any evidence that the applicant believes may establish the substantial potential of his or her start-up entity, recognizing that such evidence may vary depending on the nature of the business and the industry in which it operates. DHS believes that it is important to retain criteria that provide flexibility to the applicant and DHS. Such flexibility is consistent with DHS's parole authority and the case-by-case nature of each parole determination as required by statute. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). DHS does not believe that the rule should be revised to align with 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)( 2 ) and (l)(1)(ii)(H). The requirements set forth in 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)( 2 ) and (l)(1)(ii)(H) relate specifically to eligibility for classification as an L-1 nonimmigrant and are not necessarily relevant to the requirements set forth in this rule, which are specifically designed to provide the framework by which USCIS will determine whether to grant parole to certain individuals for significant public benefit. Particularly given the way this evidence will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the need to ensure parole is justified by significant public benefit, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion of adopting a rebuttable presumption that certain entities have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. The burden of proof remains with the applicant. 5. Qualified Government Award or Grant Comment: One commenter stated that the rule's grant-based criteria for consideration focused too narrowly on awards made by government entities The commenter noted that entrepreneurs seek grants from a variety of sources and that funding from non-profits or not-for-profit entities (such as U.S. universities) can be significant sources of start-up capital. The commenter requested that the rule be revised to allow entrepreneurs of non-profit start-up entities to qualify for parole under this program based on the receipt of charitable grants. Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's suggestion, but declines to adopt the suggestion in this final rule to include charitable grants as a type of qualifying grant or award under 8 CFR 212.19(a)(3). DHS believes, given the nature of charitable grants, that they would not present the same level of validation regarding the entity's high-growth potential as would a grant or award from a Federal, State, or local government entity with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. Since the validating quality of a substantial government grant or award is an important factor DHS will rely upon to determine if the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States, and since that same validating quality does not necessarily extend to charitable grants or awards, DHS declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. DHS notes, however, that nothing in this final rule prohibits entrepreneurs from accepting charitable grants or pointing to such funding as evidence that parole would be justified and that they merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Moreover, given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources. Comment: One commenter noted that the definition of qualified government award or grant and the phrase “federal, state, or local government entity,” are ambiguous as to whether an entrepreneur may qualify under the rule based on a grant by a foreign government. According to the commenter, the rule does not explicitly state that the “federal, state, or local government entity” needs to be restricted to entities in the United States. The commenter encouraged USCIS to adopt a broad approach in determining which kinds of grants may qualify and to allow entrepreneurs to qualify if their start-up entity attracts substantial foreign government financing. The commenter also suggested that USCIS and CBP should again emphasize that parole may be discretionarily denied in cases that could risk national security or impair international relations. Response: While DHS always maintains the ability to deny parole in its discretion, including in those cases where there may be a national security or foreign relations concerns, DHS declines to expand the definition of qualified government grant or award to include grants or awards from a foreign governmental entity. To eliminate potential confusion, DHS is revising the definition as proposed to specifically exclude foreign government entities. The receipt of significant funding from certain U.S. federal, state or local government entities is an important factor that DHS will weigh in determining if the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. DHS believes that significant funding from certain U.S. federal, state or local governmental entities is a strong indicator of a start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth, including through enhancing innovation, generating revenue, obtaining significant additional investments of capital, and creating jobs. Such government entities regularly evaluate the potential of U.S. businesses, so the choice to provide a significant award or grant to a particular start-up entity can be a compelling indicator of that start-up's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Because these government entities are formed to serve the U.S. public, their choice to fund a particular business may be more indicative than that of a foreign government as to whether the business's operations would provide a significant public benefit in the United States. DHS believes that the reliability and weight of the independent assessment performed by certain U.S. federal, state or local governmental entities before issuing a grant or award does not necessarily extend to grants or awards made by foreign governmental entities. DHS therefore declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion to revise the rule to include funding from foreign governmental entities as one of the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(3). 6. Qualified Investment Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS define “capital” broadly to include cash, cash equivalents, secured or unsecured loan proceeds, payments for or obligations under binding leases, the value of goods, equipment, and intangible property such as patent rights, trademarks, trade secrets, and distinctive “know how.” Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions. “Qualified investment” as a general criterion for parole is limited to a specific monetary investment in the form of equity or convertible debt, to ensure that the investment is easily valued as well as significant in nature. This promotes fair and efficient administration of the process under this rule, while also ensuring the integrity of that process. In addition, equity investments and convertible debt investments both involve a distinctive level of expert review, due diligence, and oversight. For example, according to the Small Business Administration, venture capital firms and angel investors typically review a business plan and evaluate a start-up's management team, market, products and services, operating history, corporate governance documents, and financial statements before making an equity investment. 14 Such investment generally also involves active monitoring via board participation, strategic marketing, governance, and capital structure. 15 While non-monetary contributions made to a start-up entity may not be considered as a qualified investment for purposes of the general criteria of a parole determination under this rule, the rule does not prohibit such contributions and they may be considered as evidence under the alternative criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(iii) to establish that the start-up entity has, or continues to have, substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. 14 Venture Capital, https://www.sba.gov/starting-business/finance-your-business/venture-capital/venture-capital. 15 Id. Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement that start-up capital must be equity or convertible debt may be too limiting given the venture finance markets today. The commenter said that other investment instruments are commonly used by sophisticated market participants, and that such investments might not technically be considered equity or convertible debt even though they are bona fide capital investments. The commenter recommended that the definition be made “future-proof” by creating a catch-all for other investment instruments that are convertible, exchangeable, or exercisable for equity in the start-up, regardless of the name of the investment instrument. Response: DHS understands that the regulatory text may not capture all possible future investment instruments and has amended the regulatory text to capture other commonly used convertible securities now and in the future. The final rule defines “qualified investment” as an investment made in good faith, and that is not an attempt to circumvent any limitations imposed on investments under this section, of lawfully derived capital in a start-up entity that is a purchase from such entity of its equity, convertible debt or other security convertible into its equity commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry. DHS believes that this definition, in practice, will apply to other securities convertible into equity (other than convertible debt) that are or become commonly used within the start-up entity's industry, and DHS may issue additional guidance in the future regarding such securities as necessary. Given that this program is new and complex, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it is able to assess implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources. 7. Qualified Investor Comment: Several commenters, including associations and individual commenters, stated that the proposed “qualified investor” definition is more stringent than the “accredited investor” definition adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Several commenters stated that many angel investors, especially newer investment firms and angels, would not be considered “qualified investors” under this rule. One of these commenters suggested revising the definition of a qualified investor using the guidelines set forth by AngelList, which requires all syndicate leads on their site to have registered as accredited investors, to have made at least two direct investments in technology start-ups, and to have attracted additional funding beyond the syndicate lead. Some commenters generally stated that many potentially high-growth firms started by international entrepreneurs will not qualify for parole or re-parole because the business did not receive an investment from a qualified U.S. investor, and encouraged the rule to be more flexible to allow for additional sources of capital. Response: In response to comments received, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5), which provides the definition of a qualified investor. For purposes of this section, such an individual or organization may be considered a qualified investor if, during the preceding 5 years, the individual or organization made investments in start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt or other security convertible into equity commonly used in financing transactions within their respective industries comprising a total in such 5-year period of no less than $600,000. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(i). DHS has removed the proposed requirement that the total investment amount be made in 3 separate calendar years and, consistent with its analysis of relevant investment data, reduced the amount from $1,000,000 to $600,000. 16 DHS is also making revisions consistent with the change to the qualified investment definition by adding “other securities that are convertible into equity issued by such an entity and that are commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry.” DHS agrees with commenters that the qualified investor requirement is more stringent than the SEC “accredited investor” definition, but believes the additional parameters for qualified investors under the rule are appropriate. The “accredited investor” definition for SEC purposes is focused on the investing entity's assets or the individual investor's net worth or annual income, 17 not on the investor's track record of successfully investing in start-up entities. An investor's successful track record of investing in start-up entities provides an important measure of objective validation that DHS will rely upon as part of evaluating whether granting parole to a particular individual would provide a significant public benefit. 16 To arrive at this level, DHS relied on the $250,000 median seed round for active firms that successfully exited accelerators, as is described more fully in in the “Volume Projections” subsection of the “Statutory and Regulatory Requirements” section of this final rule notice. Second, DHS multiplied this figure by 2.4, which is an estimate of the average number of investments made over a five-year period by qualified investors. DHS arrived at the figure for average investments over five years using the following methodology. DHS used the “investor graph” section of the Seed DB data set to extract investment round information for investors that have invested in various startup accelerators' portfolio companies. The search engine is not set up in a manner in which random sampling can be done, so DHS obtained data for nine accelerators chosen from the 2016 Seed Accelerator Rankings project (SARP), the report of which is found at: http://seedrankings.com/pdf/sarp_2016_accelerator_rankings.pdf. SARP ranks accelerators via a composite scoring system based on various metrics, including funding value averages and exit performance, and produces a list of the top-rated accelerators, although there is no pre-set number of accelerators that can appear in the ranking list each year. In the 2016 SARP report there were twenty-three Seed Accelerators ranked out of a total of 160 that the program tracks. DHS was able to extract investment round data from nine of the twenty-three SARP ranked accelerators, for a total of about 3,600 individual investment rounds. Next, DHS grouped these rounds for the five-year period October 2011-November 2016 to result in 3,085 records. Next, DHS removed duplicates to parse the list into records for unique investor names. As a result, 1,329 unique investors remained. Dividing the 3,085 by 1,329 investors yields an average of 2.4, which DHS used as a reasonable estimate of the average number of investments that qualified investors made in a five year period, at least for the specific accelerators involved. DHS notes that there are several caveats to this analysis. First, the data only includes investments made through accelerators. If non-accelerator investments were included, for which DHS could not obtain data, the average would likely be higher. Second, some rounds did not include an amount and some investor names appeared with variations. DHS conducted several data runs based on different filtering techniques and generally the range of average investments was between 2.32 and 2.5. 17 17 CFR 230.501(a). DHS also declines to adopt the investor track record criteria associated with AngelList's requirements, as DHS believes that the past success of qualified investors can be demonstrated sufficiently by utilizing the criteria set forth in the final rule. DHS has maintained the requirements under 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii) as evidence that the investor has had previous successful investments, which are similar to certain criteria for a start-up entity to demonstrate eligibility for re-parole under this rule. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii). Comment: A joint submission from an advocacy group and a non-profit organization proposed that DHS create a “whitelist” of qualified investors and modify the rule such that any start-up receiving an investment from a whitelisted investor proceed through an expedited review process. The commenter said that this would both streamline the parole process and diminish the burden on adjudicators to analyze the merits of often complicated technology companies. The commenter said that the qualification process for such an investor whitelist could be significantly more robust than the rule's proposed definition of “qualified investor” and should be updated on an annual or biannual basis. Another joint submission suggested the creation of a “Known Qualified Investor” program, similar to the “Known Employer” pilot program recently created by DHS in a different context, to assist the overall adjudication process. Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions. The Known Employer program referenced by the commenter remains in a pilot stage. DHS will assess the effectiveness of the Known Employer program after the pilot is complete, and then determine whether the program should be made permanent. If the program is successful, DHS will assess whether it may be expanded to other adjudication contexts. Committing to use a similar program in the context of this rulemaking would thus be premature. DHS also declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to create a “whitelist of qualified investors” and an expedited process for applications based on investment from such investors at this time. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after the Department has assessed the implementation the process and its impact on operational resources. 8. Evidence Required To Establish Qualified Investor Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the burden of proving that investors have met the revenue and job creation criteria in the definition of qualified investor, which the commenters said could prevent investors from participating. One commenter stated that early-stage investors usually do not keep records of employees or the revenues of their portfolio companies, and that those companies would not be inclined to respond to paperwork requests from their investors that do not relate to their own success. Another commenter said that some investors do not make their investments known publicly and the vast majority of investors do not make public their returns (let alone the number of jobs created). Another commenter said that the rule should only require evidence of publicly available information, concluding that it would be too invasive to require disclosure of confidential employee data or other confidential financial information of third-party companies that have no ties to the start-up entity related to the parole applicant. A few commenters requested that DHS allow venture capitalists, accelerators, and incubators to register so that they would not be required to produce the evidence of their qualifications with each parole application. Response: DHS does not believe that providing evidence of revenues generated or jobs created by entities in which the investor previously invested is overly burdensome or would require the investor to publicly reveal otherwise sensitive information. DHS believes, given the significance of an investor's track record of successful investment in start-ups to the determination of significant public benefit, that the need for this evidence outweighs the potential burden on the applicant and investor to compile and submit it. However, as DHS continues to assess the implementation of the process once the rule is final, the Department will consider potential ways to modify the process given the kinds of issues raised by these comments. 9. Foreign Funding/Investment Comment: Several commenters provided input on the proposed requirement that “qualified investor” funds must come from either U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or entities that are majority owned and controlled by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Nearly all commenters on this topic expressed concerns about this requirement as a major limiting factor of the rule. Some commenters focused on the potential economic benefits of broadening the definition of “qualified investor” to include foreign investment. These commenters asserted that it would be economically beneficial to allow non-U.S. investments, as there are many experienced investors from outside the United States that could bring direct foreign investment into the country and create jobs. Another commenter stated that, by limiting qualification to domestic investors, DHS is foregoing a critical opportunity to attract foreign entrepreneurs and their investments. Response: DHS disagrees with the assertion that this rule precludes or otherwise discourages foreign investment. This rule does not preclude entrepreneurs from seeking and obtaining investment from any number of sources, whether that is foreign investment, personal funds, or funds from friends and family. This rule, however, does limit the types of investment that will be considered by DHS as a qualifying investment for purpose of determining if the entrepreneur and his or her start-up entity meet the requirements for consideration for parole set out in 8 CFR 212.19. DHS believes it is important to limit the type and source of investment that will be considered a qualifying investment, since the investment is meant to serve in part as an objective way to help ensure and validate that the start-up entity's activities will benefit the United States. DHS does not believe investments from foreign sources—which are significantly more difficult for DHS to evaluate for legitimacy and screen for indicators of fraud and abuse—would provide the same measure of objective validation. Comment: Multiple commenters stated that eligibility criteria should focus exclusively on the location of the start-up entity and its related growth and job creation, not on the citizenship and residence of the investor. Some commenters stated that excluding foreign investors from the definition of “qualified investors” is unduly limiting, because many high-potential international entrepreneurs might not have a pre-existing relationship with a U.S.-based investor. Commenters state that such entrepreneurs, especially if living in other countries, would have difficulty attracting investment from U.S. investors and becoming eligible for parole under this rule. Another commenter cited data concluding that foreign entrepreneurs currently outside of the United States are at a particular disadvantage, as they lack access to U.S.-based angel and venture funding. Response: DHS agrees that the U.S. location of the start-up entity and its related growth and job creation should be a critical component of eligibility under this rule in order to help ensure the exercise of parole is justified by significant public benefit to the United States. DHS believes, however, that the “qualifying investor” must also be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident or an entity that is majority owned or controlled by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. DHS can evaluate more rapidly, precisely, and effectively whether these investors have an established track record of prior investments, in part due to greater access to relevant and reliable records. Such investors will also be subject to the laws of the United States, which provides some additional assurance that the entrepreneurs they back will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. DHS is not prohibiting foreign investors from investing in the entrepreneur's start-up entity, but rather is simply limiting those investors that can serve as “qualified investors” for purposes of establishing the entrepreneur's eligibility for parole under this rule. DHS anticipates that entrepreneurs living outside the United States will be able to demonstrate eligibility for parole consideration under this rule, whether based on investment from U.S. investors, grants or awards from certain U.S. Government entities, or a mixture of alternative criteria. For all the reasons above, the definition of “qualified investor” will help DHS manage an efficient process for adjudicating requests under this rule while appropriately screening for potential fraud or abuse and ensuring that each grant of parole is justified by significant public benefit to the United States. Comment: Other commenters focused on specific ways that DHS might allow applicants to use foreign investment to establish their eligibility for parole consideration, including by limiting such investment to the entrepreneur's country of origin, or to only those foreign investors who do not present a national security concern. A few commenters asserted that DHS has the capability to verify the bona fides of foreign investors through, for example, the following mechanisms: Making inquiries through U.S. embassy officials, requesting resumes and the investment history for foreign angel investors, requesting similar documentation used by EB-5 petitioners to establish their lawful source of funds, and consulting publicly available data on reputable foreign investors with a history of successful investments in various countries. Some commenters provided suggestions for alternative or revised definitions relating to foreign investors that could remain easily verifiable by DHS, with the burden being on the investor, including (1) professionally managed funds with at least $10 million under management and registered with the local jurisdiction, and (2) angel investors that have made credible investments in U.S. companies under the same standards as U.S. “qualified investors.” Finally, an individual commenter expressed concerns that even investments from U.S. sources could be suspect, and could serve as a pass-through for ineligible investors such as the entrepreneur's family or foreign nationals. Response: While DHS understands that international entrepreneurs can attract legitimate investment capital from non-U.S. sources, DHS believes—as explained at greater length above—that it is appropriate and important to require that a “qualified investment” come from a U.S. source as one of the general criteria to establish that the start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS is prepared to monitor the bona fide nature of such U.S.-based investments, as described in greater detail above. Moreover, the rule neither precludes an applicant from securing funding from non-U.S. sources nor precludes such funding from being considered, non-exclusively, under the alternative criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iii). Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources. 10. Self-Funding/“Bootstrapping” Comment: Several commenters argued that entrepreneurs should be able to demonstrate eligibility for parole under this rule not only through funding from U.S. investors or U.S. Government entities, but also through self-financing (known as “bootstrapping”). One commenter noted that many highly successful start-up founders initially grew their companies through bootstrapping, not by raising capital from external investors. Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of “qualified investment” to include self-funding by the entrepreneur applicant. DHS believes that this definition should include only those investors who have a history of making similar investments over a 5-year period and who can demonstrate that at least two of the entities receiving such investments have subsequently experienced significant growth in revenue or job creation. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5). DHS believes that the investment of a substantial amount of capital by qualified investors in an entrepreneur's start-up entity can serve as a strong indication of the entity's substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation. Self-funding, while a rational financing strategy for many entrepreneurs, does not provide the same objective and external validation that DHS requires in assessing whether granting parole to an individual is justified based on significant public benefit. 11. Other Comments on Qualified Investors a. Crowdfunding Comment: Several commenters stated that the rule should allow crowdfunding as a qualified investment. These commenters noted that entrepreneurs have raised over a billion dollars in investments through various types of crowdfunding platforms, which serve to broaden the base of available investors and demonstrate a venture's potential growth. Commenters also cited the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) of 2012, which created a national regulatory framework for securities-based crowdfunding platforms in particular, along with public statements suggesting that securities-based crowdfunding is recognized by Congress and the Administration as a valuable and increasingly-used investment tool. One commenter also stated that allowing the use of crowdfunding platforms would increase the pool of potential applicants for entrepreneurial parole and could provide a workable intermediary for foreign investment in eligible start-up entities. One commenter suggested potential requirements that would facilitate the use of crowdfunding investment sources, such as setting a threshold amount for eligible crowdfunding investments and confirming that such investments have been deposited in the start-up entity's bank account after the end of the crowdfunding campaign. Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions. Investments made in a start-up entity through an SEC-compliant intermediary, such as an SEC-compliant crowdfunding platform, will be treated no differently for purposes of this rule than had the investments been made directly. In order to promote the integrity of adjudications under this rule, DHS declines to make changes to the definition of “qualified investor” that would effectively treat funds generated through crowdfunding platforms as a different class of eligible investment. DHS notes, however, that evidence of a successful donation-based or securities-based crowdfunding campaign could be provided under the rule's alternative eligibility criteria. b. Established U.S. Investors Comment: One commenter questioned the requirement that capital be received “from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities.” The commenter stated that the requirement increases the relative bargaining power of established investors working with entrepreneurs seeking parole under this rule, while diminishing that of new venture capital firms, new angel investors, and new start-up accelerators. The commenter stated that if it is kept in its current form, the rule is not clear whether an investment from a non-established investor would jeopardize the parole eligibility of an entrepreneur whose start-up entity is also funded by established investors. Response: The definition of “qualified investor, including the requirement that an investor have a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities, is intended to help ensure that such investors are bona fide and not concealing fraud or other illicit activity—and thus protect the integrity of the parole process under this rule. The definition is also intended to ensure that a qualifying investment serves as a strong and reliable indicator of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, which is relevant to assessing whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit. DHS emphasizes that the rule does not prohibit investment from U.S. investors who do not have an established track record of substantial investment in start-up entities under the rule's definition of “qualified investor.” Any investment from an investor who is not a qualified investor, however, will not count toward the minimum investment criteria associated with the initial parole period or re-parole period. DHS will, of course, monitor all elements of an application for evidence of fraud or other illegal or illicit activities. It will also assess the totality of the evidence in evaluating whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit. c. Approved Regional Centers Comment: One commenter requested that USCIS-approved Regional Centers (based on an approved Form I-924) be allowed to qualify as established U.S. investors. The commenter stated that investment by a Regional Center in a U.S. start-up entity would be a natural extension of what Regional Centers already do, since Regional Centers pool investment for qualified EB-5 visa projects. Response: DHS believes it is important to limit qualifying investors to those who have an established record of successful investments in start-up entities. DHS believes that such a record would include, during the 5-year period immediately preceding the filing of the parole application, one or more investments in other start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt comprising a total of no less than $600,000. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(i). DHS will require monetary commitments, rather than non-monetary commitments such as credit for in-kind value ( e.g., credit for services), given the difficulty of valuing such commitments and the potential for fraud and abuse. The applicant would also need to show that, subsequent to such investment by the investor, at least 2 such entities each created at least 5 qualified jobs or achieved at least $500,000 in revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii). As described in greater detail above, these criteria are intended to ensure that investors are bona fide and thus protect the integrity of the parole process under this rule. They are also intended to ensure that a qualifying investment serves as a strong and reliable indicator of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, which is relevant to assessing whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit. DHS declines to adopt a special provision for regional centers approved to participate in the EB-5 visa program. Although such centers are not categorically excluded from the definition of “qualified investor” under this rule, they would need to meet all the same criteria as any other qualified investor. 12. Qualified Jobs a. Qualifying Employee Comments: Two commenters recommended that DHS broaden the definition of the term “qualifying employee.” One commenter stated that the term should include any individual authorized to work in the United States, regardless of immigration status, to avoid creating a conflict for employers who are prohibited from discriminating based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Another commenter advocated for the inclusion of independent contractors in the definition of qualifying employee. Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of qualifying employee, which already includes a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or other immigrant lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States, who is not an entrepreneur of the relevant start-up entity or the parent, spouse, brother, sister, son, or daughter of such an entrepreneur. See final 8 CFR 212.12(a)(7). DHS believes that creating jobs for these individuals is more likely to provide a significant public benefit given their stronger ties to the United States. Similarly, DHS believes that entrepreneurs and start-up entities that create positions for employees are more likely to provide a significant public benefit than those who rely only on arrangements with independent contractors. Such arrangements would generally have a weaker nexus to the start-up entity, may not have been created as a direct result of the start-up entity's activities, and could be more difficult to validate. Nothing in this rule either supersedes or conflicts with nondiscrimination laws enacted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). 18 Under existing law, it would generally be an unfair immigration-related employment practice for an entity to discriminate against someone authorized to work in the United States because of that person's national origin or, in the case of a “protected individual,” citizenship status. See 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a) (generally prohibiting such practices, subject to specific exceptions, and defining “protected individual” to include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain other immigrants). This rule does not permit any such otherwise prohibited practices. Instead, it uses the creation of jobs for U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and other authorized immigrants as one indication of the benefit created by an entrepreneur's start-up entity. 19 18 Public Law 99-603 section 102, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986); INA section 274B. 19 It is important to note that job creation during the initial period of parole is not the only way to demonstrate the start-up entity's continued substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(C), and (c)(2)(iii). b. Full-Time Employment Comments: Several commenters said that the rule should have a more flexible definition of “full-time employment.” One commenter said that the definition of the term should not require the job to be filled for at least a year and should include job-sharing arrangements. Another commenter recommended that the definition of full-time employment include combinations of part-time positions. Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of full-time employment to include jobs filled for less than a year by a qualifying employee, job-sharing arrangements, and combinations of part-time jobs. DHS believes that the creation of long-term and full-time positions is a more reliable indicator that an entrepreneur's start-up entity is continuing to yield significant public benefit. Jobs filled for less than a year could be temporary or seasonal, thus limiting the duration and impact of the benefit. Additionally, including job-sharing or combinations of part-time positions could significantly complicate adjudications. The final rule, moreover, already reduces by half the threshold number of jobs to qualify for a re-parole period, making it all the more reasonable to require that each of such jobs be full-time positions as part of the criteria for ensuring that [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%3A2017-00481. Public record. Not legal advice.