Author: Niu Ltd

Regional Citizenship by Investment (CIP) countries are welcoming positive statements made by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the impact of the CIP to the socio-economic structure of participating countries.

The IMF is remaining consistent in recognizing the programme as a significant contributor of revenues and it lauds the programme for assisting in reducing national debts, as well as it’s contribution to the country’s gross domestic product.

Commenting on the statements from the IMF, the CEO of the Investment Migration Councils, Bruno L’ecuyer says that he is delighted that the IMF has recognized CIP programmes as a major socio-economic contributor to developing states.

“The liquidity injection to Caribbean economies creates significant societal and sovereign value. It helps to diversify the economies of those regions; it creates sustainable employment and eases the fiscal and monetary challenges that are faced by sovereign governments the world over.”

From inception, the CIP has been the center of many discussions as developed countries debate concerns of the validity of such programs. ]

These negative global influences can deter potential investors and cause missed economic opportunities for participating countries. When positive counteractions are made by organisations which are as prestigious as the IMF, it gives encouragement to CIP participating countries.

CIP Head for St. Lucia and Chairman of The Citizenship by Investment Programme Association (CIPA), Nestor Alfred, supports the IMF’s statements and seeks routes for the programme’s sustainability to create a positive assurance to developed countries.

“The truth is, this is the time where we all need to come together, collaborate and make clear statements. Those statements do not necessarily have to be in words; they have to be in actions.

The issues of collaborations, ensuring that there is proper due diligence, transparency and accountability are important pillars for the sustainability and continued existence of CIP programmes”

Alfred cites OECS’s founding CIP countries St. Kitts and Nevis and Dominica as examples of economies which would have been disastrously impacted had the CIP been terminated. The two countries have been involved in CIP programmes for 35 and 25 years respectively and CIP programmes have contributed in excess of 50% of the countries’ GDP.

“Again, the translation of the actual benefits of these programmes can be felt and seen in a lot of CIP participating islands. For example, Dominica where the housing developments have been taken for the middle class and low-income people. It is amazing and an IMF endorsement created a comfort level that CIP programmes are useful.”

Still, on the subject of collaboration, the Governor of the Eastern Central Banks (ECCB), Timothy Antoine is calling for unity of CIP countries as an attempt to strengthen the region’s CIP product. Currently, there are five CIP countries- Antigua & Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia and Grenada. However, each of these countries host programmes unique to its territory.

“So, our view is that we have to come together. We believe that coming together will help all of our CBI programmes. Set the same standards, ensure that if you get denied in country A, you cannot get accepted in country B, because it’s a single space. Set the price reasonable, but not too low. We don’t want to sell ourselves short.”

Antoine continued that the ECCB’s view is that the region is seen as one CIP brand despite what individual countries do.

Speaking on the ECCB’s call for collaboration, Nestor Alfred comments that the ECCB would be the most qualified institution to speak on the impact of CIP programmes on the economic development of the OECS islands.

 “Like anything else the ECCB has to ensure that those islands first understand how these programmes are and that it be done in a very sustainable way. Therefore, the ECCB made the call for that level of harmonization as it relates to due diligence and applications all with a defined definition.”

Leading CIP experts, Henley and Partners supports the IMF’s statements and agrees with the ECCB’s calls for collaboration. Managing Partner for Henley and Partners St. Lucia, Mark Maraj states that we should be encouraged by the IMF and ECCB to continue the steps that we are taking to harmonise the region’s CIP programmes.

“ It is indeed encouraging that a body as auspicious as the IMF, in it’s 2019 concluding mission statement of its staff report, would recognize the importance of these programmes to the economies of these small islands, where apart from tourism, is playing an important role in foreign direct investment inflows”

“That encouragement comes with a bit of advice that we continue to work on improving the transparency and governance of these programmes given their importance in these economies. In that regard, the role of the ECCB on signalling its intent to be more involved in these programmes, has good stead for the future”

Source: thestkittsnevisobserver.com
Published: 21 February 2020

Associate citizenship would let Britons retain rights on working and living in Europe and move freely between the UK and different EU states. It could mean that Britons who paid to apply for associated citizenship received a new passport or a stamp in their existing document.

Khan told reporters that he believed the idea had merit. “There’s an opportunity for us to move forward with this and I’ve been pleased with the response and it gives hope to London, as well as across our country”, he said, following meetings with EU officials.

London’s mayor travelled to the Belgian capital to meet the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and European Parliament president David Sassoli.

With the backing of the former prime minister of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt, Khan called for the idea to be at the “the heart” of the negotiations over the future relationship.

Khan said that rejoining the EU was not foreseeable in the “short to medium term” but that associate citizenship of the bloc could be one way to “make the best of Brexit”.

The plans are unlikely to become reality though as it would require treaty change from the EU and the UK government has repeatedly said that freedom of movement will stop at the end of the year.

The idea had been first raised in late 2016 by Verhofstadt, who was then the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator.

The mayor wants it to be included in negotiations on the terms of the UK’s departure. However, that is likely to conflict with EU law and has already been rejected in court cases brought by Britons in EU states.

More than one million Europeans live in London and EU citizens are able to vote in the forthcoming mayoral elections.

Source: internationalinvestment.net
Published: 21 February 2020

In immigration news:

• Worldwide: Jurisdictions around the world have implemented travel restrictions, closed government offices, and taken other measures to control the spread of the coronavirus. Visit Fragomen’s coronavirus-related news page for the latest immigration updates.
• United States: Beginning February 24, employers can set up accounts in USCIS’s new H-1B cap registration system. Refer to Fragomen’s answers to frequently asked questions about the H-1B cap registration system and the process for setting up registration accounts for your organization. According to the State Department’s March Visa Bulletin, EB-3 worldwide retrogresses immediately while most other categories will advance modestly. USCIS has confirmed that it will accept employment-based adjustment applications from foreign nationals with a priority date that is earlier than the Dates for Filing listed in the State Department’s March Visa Bulletin.
• Saudi Arabia: Foreign nationals traveling to Saudi Arabia for business must now obtain a visa pre-approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) before they submit a Business Visit Visa application.
• Belgium: Following a policy change, Single Permit renewal applicants no longer need approval from the Federal Immigration Office in order to continue work. These applicants can instead continue working upon approval by the Regional Employment Authority, which is an earlier stage of the renewal process.
• Azerbaijan: Companies who intend to hire foreign workers must submit quota reports to the State Migration Service by May 1, 2020.
• Singapore: The foreign worker quota for S Pass workers in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors will be cut in phases, the first in January 2021 from 20% to 18%, and subsequently in January 2023, to 15%. Existing S Pass holders may not be able to renew their passes if their company exceeds the quota.

In Brexit news this week, the UK government has published a paper outlining its plans for the new points-based immigration system, specifically for sponsored work routes, which will be phased in from August 2020 and fully operational from January 2021, when free movement from the European Union comes to an end.

Important Updates in Immigration 

Germany, February 20, 2020

Reminder – New Immigration Bill to Overhaul Skilled Migration

As a reminder, the following changes to the German immigration system will take effect March 1, 2020:

• A new departure notification requirement for early terminations, for both employers and foreign nationals;
• Facilitated work authorization for foreign nationals with vocational training and professional experience;
• Fast-track skilled migration immigration processing for local hires; and
• Review of overall compliance of sponsoring companies during application processing.

To view entire article, click here.

Source: fragomen.com
Published: 20 February 2020

Speaking to the Times of Malta, Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship, Alex Muscat, indicated the administration of which he is a part hopes to have the program’s second iteration ready by the time the first reaches its 1,800-application quota, an event he said was only months away.

“Personally, I am in favor of launching it straight away to avoid having a gap in revenue. We are looking at a scenario in which the new program will be rolled out later this year,” said Muscat, pointing out that since 70% of the maximum 1,800 applications had already been approved, “at this rate, the program will have been exhausted within months.”

Taking care to emphasize that Maltese public finances would be in good shape even without the program, Muscat argued that unnecessarily foregoing a tremendous source of revenue “would be presumptuous.”

The new Prime Minister, Robert Abela, has publicly made clear that he intends to extend the program upon expiry but also that a second edition would likely come with some enhancements.

Specifically, although the Maltese program’s due diligence is considered the industry benchmark, the government is actively exploring ways of further improving vetting procedures.

“We are also looking at further due diligence obligations on agents, and even to have certain checks and balances in place for a fixed period of time on successful applicants,” commented Muscat. “Should an agent became aware of certain issues, why should they not be obliged to flag the matter?”

Muscat also hinted the government may readjust the prices for the program’s real estate component to reflect the last seven years’ rising tide in the country’s overall property market. Program applicants must maintain a residence in the country to satisfy the European Union’s calls for “genuine links”.

At present, applicants have the choice between annual leases amounting to no less than EUR 16,000 (the option of choice for 92% of applicants at last count) and the acquisition of a property valued at no less than EUR 350,000. These price levels, Muscat points out, may have been appropriate when first conceived in 2013, but Malta’s property market has boomed; the country’s housing price index is today more than 40% above it’s 2013-level.

Source: imidaily.com
Published: 21 February 2020

The first ever EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions was agreed by Member States on 5 December 2017.
This list is part of the EU’s work to fight tax evasion and avoidance and aims to create a stronger deterrent for countries that consistently refuse to play fair on tax matters.

Press Release / Q&A sheet (situation on 18 February 2020)

FactsheetSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• (situation on 5 December 2017)

Fact-sheet, showing the evolution of the list

Objectives of the EU List

The overall goal of the EU list is to improve tax good governance globally, and to ensure that the EU’s international partners respect the same standards as EU Member States do.

The listing process

The list is a result of a thorough screening and dialogue process with non-EU countries, to assess them against agreed criteria for good governance.
These criteria relate to tax transparency, fair taxation, the implementation of OECD BEPS measures and substance requirements for zero-tax countries.

The criteria were agreed by Member States at the November 2016 ECOFIN and used as the basis for a screening “scoreboard”.

The EU-List

The countries in the list below are those that refused to engage with the EU or to address tax good governance shortcomings (situation on 7 November of 2019).

• American Samoa
• Cayman Islands
• Fiji
• Guam
• Oman
• Palau
• Panama
• Samoa
• Seychelles
• Trinidad and Tobago
• US Virgin Islands
• Vanuatu

The EU listing process also had a very positive impact as most jurisdictions engaged constructively with the EU during the listing process.

Many made concrete, high level commitments to improve their standards, as a result of the EU screening exercise.
This is the major achievement of the EU list process.

EU Member States will continue to monitor the situation, to ensure that jurisdictions implement their commitments.
Listed jurisdictions will be removed from the list once they have addressed EU concerns.

Related links

Detailed explanation of the methodologySearch for available translations of the preceding link••• and the scoreboard
External Strategy for Effective Taxation
EU anti-tax avoidance requirements on financing and investment operations

Source: ec.europa.eu
Published: 18 February 2020

A new cash-for-passports scheme is likely to be launched later this year and applicants may be forced to spend more on the property they must buy or rent.

Parliamentary secretary for citizenship and communities Alex Muscat outlined the government’s plans for the controversial Individual Investor Programme in an interview with The Sunday Times of Malta.

Launched in 2014, the IIP had been capped at 1,800 main applicants. According to Mr Muscat, more than 70 per cent of this allocation has been reached.

“At this rate, the programme will have been exhausted within months,” he said, pointing out that Prime Minister Robert Abela had already committed himself to retaining it.

The Chamber of Commerce, he noted, recently pronounced itself for the programme to be extended or a new one to be rolled out.

“Given that the scheme has raised over €1.3 billion in revenue, how long can the country afford to wait for the second programme to start?” he questioned.

“Personally, I am in favour of launching it straight away to avoid having a gap in revenue. We are looking at a scenario in which the new programme will be rolled out later this year.”

But is a €350,000 property or an expenditure on annual rent of €16,000 – the minimum requirements for IIP applicants – such a big deal nowadays?

Mr Muscat conceded that these thresholds might have made sense when the programme was drafted in 2013 but, in the context of the property boom, which has seen prices soar, there was a case for an upward revision.

As for the reason why most successful applicants were opting to rent rather than buy, he said it was probably due to the fact that it did not require as much red tape and was a more expedient process.

It was pointed out that his urgency over starting a new programme seemed to contradict the finance minister’s repeated assurances that the budget was not dependent on IIP revenue.

There was no such contradiction, he said.

“Without the programme, public finances would still be very strong and Malta’s economy is not dependent on the sale of passports. But it would be presumptuous to say the country should refuse this additional stream of revenue.”

In the last financial year, the IIP accounted for over €270 million in revenue and this, he said, was contributing to various infrastructural projects in areas like roads and education. Only 30 per cent of the revenue was going towards the annual budget while the remaining 70 per cent was put into the National Development and Social Fund, which had reached nearly €600 million.

However, the government’s decision to finance a €50 million social housing programme from this fund has prompted criticism that government’s expenditure is dependent on the IIP.

Again, Mr Muscat insisted this was not the case.

“Social housing is not dependent on the sale of passports but is being aided by it,” he said. “The IIP means that certain capital expenditures can be made sooner rather than later.”

One of the most controversial aspects of the individual investor programme has always been the residency clause, whereby applicants need to show some sort of genuine link with Malta in order to allay concerns of having ulterior motives for buying a passport.

Main applicants are meant to be in Malta physically for the entirety of 12 months before taking the Oath of Allegiance, and questions are frequently raised on how this provision is being enforced.

Asked if controls would be tightened, Mr Muscat insisted Malta was one of the few countries that “enforced” the residency aspect.

“Applicants are required to submit boarding passes as proof of having entered or left Malta.”

Further enforcement was “tricky” in the wake of the fact that European laws did not impose restrictions on free movement.

“Having no such impediment imposed on us as a member state, we cannot introduce such restrictions either,” he said.

Other changes in the pipeline to “strengthen” the programme are a legal obligation to have a register of accredited agents and clearer provisions on how to suspend or revoke a licenced operator.

“We are also looking at further due diligence obligations on agents, and even to have certain checks and balances in place for a fixed period of time on successful applicants,” he said.

“Should an agent became aware of certain issues, why should they not be obliged to flag the matter?”

He pointed out that the authorities had started proceedings to revoke citizenship for three successful IIP applicants.

“This action was taken on the strength of information which emerged later.”

Last October, Opposition MP Karol Aquilina had denounced what he had described as “fake due diligence”. He listed five names of foreigners who, shortly after obtaining a Maltese passport, made headlines for the wrong reasons.

Yet, Mr Muscat said the bottom line was that Malta’s “rigid” due diligence regime meant that it had the lowest acceptance level in Europe at around 76 per cent of applicants, in contrast to the UK at 91 per cent, Latvia 98 per cent and Hungary at 99 per cent.

“There were cases in which applicants who were rejected for Maltese citizenship on the strength of our due diligence regime were accepted in other member states.” And there were no applicants who were accepted under the IIP after having been rejected elsewhere.

Noting that neither the Venice Commission nor MoneyVal had expressed themselves against the IIP, he said Malta was the only country which had an independent regulator as watchdog.

Asked why the government was publishing the names of successful IIP applicants only together with thousands of others who acquired Maltese citizenship through other means, Mr Muscat insisted that only Malta and Austria ‘published’ the names.

“There are data protection issues as one would be making distinctions between IIP applicants, naturalisations and those who got married,” he said.

“I don’t agree we should make such a distinction.”

Source: timesofmalta.com
Published: 16 February 2020

Since its establishment in 2013, Antigua and Barbuda Citizenship by Investment Program (CIP) has attracted a steady stream of international business investors through its many financial and practical benefits. The Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda has become a compelling investment option for wealthy individuals in recent years, and Antigua and Barbuda’s CIP is one of the most attractive offerings in this burgeoning market.

There are four investment options for prospective citizens to choose from when applying to Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship by Investment Program (CIP). Antigua and Barbuda’s citizenship program has a robust and multi-tiered due diligence process that ensures it is globally trusted and respected. What’s more, it grants those on the program visa-free travel to more than 150 countries, including the UK, the Schengen Area, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

The process is estimated to take between three and four months from the initial submission of the application to receipt of the passport. Antigua allows dual citizenship and does not require you to renounce your previous citizenship. The combined size of 442 square kilometers and a population of over 80,000 make Antigua & Barbuda the ninth-largest country by size in the Caribbean.

Citizenship Investments

1. Donation (National Development Fund): $100,000
2. Real estate: $400,000
3. Business Investment: $1.5 million
4. University of the West Indies fund: $150,000

Under the National Development Fund option, the contribution for a single applicant or a family of up to four people is USD 100,000, and the processing fee is USD 25,000. For a larger family, the NDF contribution is USD 125,000, with processing fees of USD 25,000 for the main applicant and the first three dependents. An additional fee of USD 15,000 will apply for the fifth and each additional dependent thereafter.

Under the Real estate option, you may choose to purchase real estate with a minimum value of $400,000. Real estate projects are approved by the cabinet once the Antigua and Barbuda Investment Authority (ABIA) have made a recommendation. Under this option, you must own your property for up to five years.

Under the Business Investment option, make a direct purchase of an eligible business for a minimum amount of USD 1.5 million. Two or more applicants may make a joint business investment with an individual threshold of at least USD 400,000 and a total investment of at least USD 5 million.

Antigua and Barbuda Passport:

• Visa-free travel: 150+ countries
• Processing time: 60 days accelerated processing
• Caribbean citizenship: Yes
• Residency requirements: 5 days
• Dual citizenship: Allowed

Antigua Citizenship by Investment Program (CIP) Highlights:

• Lifetime citizenship for family and children with a one-time investment.
• Visa-free travel to EU Schengen countries including the UK and Ireland.
• No wealth, inheritance, personal income taxes.
• No personal visit required.
• Freely hold dual citizenship with other countries.
• Free movement in the Caribbean CARICOM countries.
• No interviews, business experience or language tests.
• No requirement to live in Antigua before or after getting citizenship.

The largest of the English-speaking Leeward Islands attracts visitors with its mesmerizing beaches of the finest white sand and azure waters.

Source: ceoworld.biz
Published: 12 February 2020

On March 13, USCIS will hold a public engagement to discuss and field questions about its recent announcement that “USCIS Adjusts Process for Managing EB-5 Visa Petition Inventory.” Here are my questions, so far. I may revise in response to reader comment. The deadline for submitting questions is February 11.

— Revision —

I attempted to condense my questions, hoping that will maximize the likelihood that USCIS may answer any of them. Here’s the revised list that I’m actually sending to USCIS:

1. Why is USCIS proposing an operational change to select just a few petitions to be processed “in a timely fashion” instead of using available resources to process all I-526 in a timely fashion?
2. In 2018, IPO had about 50 adjudicators working on I-526 and processed over 15,000 I-526 petitions. After implementing the “visa availability approach,” how many adjudicators will IPO allocate to I-526, and how many I-526 does IPO aim to process per quarter?
3. If IPO has reduced staff committed to I-526 adjudications, and downgraded its productivity goals, why?
4. The “visa availability approach” could appear to be an excuse to reduce I-526 adjudication volume from 2018 levels – is it?
5. How does IPO plan to identify the “individuals from countries where visas are currently available, or soon available”? (Does “available” look at the current visa bulletin Chart A or Chart B, visa bulletin projections, or long-range visa availability projections? Will “individuals” account for the fact that the family may claim visas based on the nationality of the petitioner’s spouse?)
6. Does the visa availability approach aim to limit adjudications to individuals with visas immediately or soon-to-be available? (In other words, does IPO aim to match a petition’s I-526 wait time to the visa wait time, however long that may be?)
7. Does the visa availability approach aim to adjudicate only enough I-526 annually to claim annual visas available under the country caps? If so, what processing time and visas-to-I-526 assumptions will IPO use to choose how many I-526 to adjudicate?
8. How far in advance of visa availability will IPO assign an I-526 for adjudication, considering the processing times associated with I-526 and I-485 or consular processing?
9. How will IPO change the processing times report for I-526, after March 31, 2020?
10. After March 31, 2020, will the visa availability approach apply to pending petitions that were issued an RFE or NOID prior to March 31?
11. What meaning will Exemplar I-526 approval have after March 31, 2020?
12. What meaning will an approved Expedite request have after March 31, 2020?
13. How does IPO intend to ensure fairness for petitioners who invested at the same time in the same project, but who will not get concurrent adjudication due to the visa availability approach?
14. A FIFO approach aims to minimize the time between the EB-5 investment and USCIS review. This is important for program integrity, giving IPO opportunity to catch frauds as early as possible, trigger investigations while there’s still time to act, and investigate source and path of funds before trails have gone cold. The “visa availability approach” aims to defer USCIS review for some countries. How does IPO intend to help protect security in EB-5 investments and source of funds, under conditions of deferred review?
15. As described in the USCIS Policy Manual, the I-526 stage is, by its nature “the preliminary filing stage,” with eligibility requirements defined by the preliminary stage. Will USCIS revise the Form I-526 if the form will, as a matter of policy, often not be adjudicated in time to assess the preliminary stage?
16. In what sense does USCIS consider I-526 comparable to I-130?
17. Under a visa availability approach, I-526 processing times depend on the country composition of the I-526 inventory. USCIS does not currently publish data on the country composition of the I-526 inventory. When will it start to publish this data?

— Original Post —

Original question list:

1. Inventory management is not only about priority. There’s also the question of resources and productivity.

• In FY2018, IPO had about 50 adjudicators assigned to I-526, and completed over 15,000 I-526. That same resource commitment and volume could clear the entire current backlog of pending petitions in about a year. What staffing allocation and specific volume goals does IPO have for I-526 in FY2020? If I-526 resources, commitment, and volume are much lower in FY2020 than they were in FY2018, what is the explanation and justification?
• The visa availability approach intends to “give priority to petitions where visas are immediately available, or soon available.” Does it also, conversely, intend to delay I-526 for petitions where visas are not soon available – not only incidentally as a side effect of taking current countries first, but as a strategy to match I-526 wait time to visa wait time, providing a justification to reduce the volume of petitions that call for timely attention from IPO? If IPO clears the backlog of pending petitions from current countries, will it move resources away from I-526 adjudications, leaving I-526 from non-current countries to wait, pending visa availability?

2. How will IPO will balance visa availability priority with other forms of priority? Consider the following hypothetical scenarios. The answers should not be case-specific, but should express the general guidelines that would clear up the ambiguities illustrated by practical example.

• The I-526 petition has an approved expedite request, but it’s for a Chinese petitioner with 2019 priority date that won’t be current for over a decade. The backlog of pending petitions includes many petitions with no expedite requests, but current visa availability.
• The petition is for a project that has Exemplar approval, but it’s for a Chinese petitioner with 2019 priority date.
• Two Vietnamese have identical 2019 priority dates. One invested in a project with Exemplar approval; the other invested in a project without Exemplar approval.
• The petitioner is Chinese with a 2017 priority date that won’t be current for at least a decade. He’s part of a pooled investment in project for which IPO has already reviewed all the project documents, and denied all I-526 for other investors in the project.
• The petitioner is Chinese with a 2017 priority date. He’s part of a pooled investment in project for which IPO has already reviewed all the project documents, and approved all I-526 for other investors in the project.
• The petitioner is Chinese with a 2017 priority date. The petition was issued a Request for Evidence prior to March 30, 2020, but a decision has not yet been made.
• The petition is affected by a court order, but it’s for a Chinese petitioner with 2019 priority date.

3. The visa availability approach will result in petitioners in a pooled investment who file I-526 at the same time but come from different countries potentially reaching adjudication at very different times. How will this affect the policy that “The 2-year period is deemed to begin 6 months after adjudication of Form I-526. The business plan filed with the immigrant petition should reasonably demonstrate that the requisite number of jobs will be created by the end of this 2-year period. ”

4. Which metric will IPO use to select the “petitions where visas are immediately available, or soon available.” Will the decision be based on public predictions by Charles Oppenheim for visa availability in the coming 12 months? If so, will USCIS look at his “best case scenario” or “worst case scenario” prediction for visa availability? Or will USCIS wait to react to the monthly visa bulletin? If so, how will it respond to monthly fluctuations and retrogression? Or does IPO plan to rely on private and undisclosed information about future visa availability? Or does IPO simply plan to shelve all I-526 from countries that are not current, regardless of petitioner priority date, in favor of adjudicating current-country petitions when the volume of current-country petitions is large? What assumptions does IPO make about I-526 touch time and visa application and I-485 processing times, when IPO decides how far in advance of visa availability an I-526 should be assigned for adjudication? How will IPO recognize the issue of cross-chargeabiltiy, and the fact that a visa may be available to the petitioner based on the spouse’s nationality?

To assist in answering these questions, the following scenarios highlight areas of ambiguity. The answers need not discuss the specific hypothetical examples, but the answers should express practical guidelines that resolve the practical ambiguities illustrated by the specific examples. (The answers would only be case-specific if IPO plans to implement the visa availability approach on an arbitrary case-by-case basis, lacking generally-applicable principles.)

India

• Circumstances:  India has been “current” in the Visa Bulletin Chart B Dates for Filing, which means that Department of State considers all Indian priority dates to be “within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process,” and USCIS has been accepting I-485 for all India priority dates. Meanwhile, the Visa Bulletin Chart A Final Action Date for India is September 1, 2018. Charles Oppenheim predicted that in the next few months, this date could either progress to being “current” (best case scenario) or retrogress to November 1, 2017 (worst case scenario). [1]
• Implications: Considering this, starting in April 2020, will IPO:
  • Let all India I-526 stay in the queue together with current countries for FIFO adjudication, since the Visa Bulletin Chart B signals that that all Indian priority dates are  currently“within a timeframe justifying immediate action,” and Oppenheim predicted that India could be current in the Visa Bulletin Chart A in October 2020; or
  • For now, shelve India I-526 with priority dates more recent than November 1, 2017, since Department of State predicted that could be the worst case cut-off for India visa availability by October 2020; or
  • For now, shelve India I-526 with priority dates more recent than September 1, 2018, since these dates are not authorized for visa issuance per the current visa bulletin. Then react month-by-month to future visa bulletin date shifts; or
  • For now, prioritize India I-526 with priority dates older than September 1, 2018, since these dates are authorized for final action per the current visa bulletin (in the spirit of the stated goal to make each country “better able to use their annual per-country allocation of EB-5 visas”).

Vietnam

• Circumstances:  Vietnam is included in the “all chargeability areas except those listed” in the Visa Bulletin Chart B Dates for Filing. This category has been “current,” and USCIS has accepted Chart B for Vietnam I-485 so far in 2020. This indicates that Department of State and USCIS consider all Vietnamese priority dates to be “within a timeframe justifying immediate action in the application process.” Meanwhile, Vietnam has a Final Action Date of December 15, 2016 in the February 2020 Visa Bulletin. Charles Oppenheim predicted that by October 2020, the Vietnam Final Action Date will progress to either June 1, 2017 (best case) or April 1, 2017 (worst case).
• Implications: Considering this, starting in April, will IPO:
  • Let all Vietnamese I-526 stay in the queue together with current countries for FIFO adjudication, since the Visa Bulletin Chart B signals that that all Vietnamese priority dates are “within a timeframe justifying immediate action,” and USCIS has been accepting I-485 for all Vietnamese priority dates; or
  • For now, shelve all Vietnamese I-526 with priority dates before June 1, 2017, Oppenheim’s outside estimate for final action visa availability for October 2020? If so, how will USCIS decide when to advance the “adjudication date” cut-off for Vietnam?

China

• Circumstances:  China has a Final Action Date of December 1, 2014 in the February 2020 Visa Bulletin. Charles Oppenheim predicted that by October 2020, this date will progress to February or March 2015.  Meanwhile, If Charles Oppenheim’s past predictions are correct, China priority dates since 2016 all face long waits to visa availability:
  • 2016 priority dates may have visas available around 2023[2]
  • 2017 priority dates available around 2027[3]
  • 2018 priority dates available around 2032[4]
  • 2019 priority dates available around 2035[5]
• Implications: Considering this, starting in April, will IPO:
  • Even contemplate the option of leaving China I-526 unadjudicated for a decade or more, to free bandwidth for other work?
  • If so, what kind of “preliminary stage” adjudication and security checks does IPO think would be possible for the I-526 a decade or so after the investment was made and the project implemented? In other words, would the I-526 be possible to adjudicate as an I-526 after such extended delay?
  • Assuming it would be unthinkable to defer any currently-pending petitions to the 2030s, how will IPO decide when to adjudicate China I-526? Assuming there will be a continual inflow of new current-country I-526, how will IPO decide when to take not- current China I-526 off the shelf and give them attention? What is the principle of fairness applied to pending I-526 from China?
  • What if the primary applicant is China-born with a 2018 priority date, but the spouse was born in Europe, and thus visas would be currently available to the family based on her place of birth, were the China petition approved?

South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil

• Circumstances:  South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil are all “current” in the February 2020 Visa Bulletin, and expected to still be current in the October 2020 visa bulletin. [6] However, Charles Oppenheim stated that as of October 1, 2019, each country had sufficient applicants on pending I-526 petitions to exceed the approx-700 annual visa quota: 1,900 for South Korea, 1,241 for Taiwan, and 765 for Brazil). [7]
• Implications: Considering this, starting in April, will IPO:
  • Let all South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil I-526 stay in the queue together with other current countries for FIFO adjudication, since they are current in the Visa Bulletin and expected to remain so at least through October 2020; or
  • Actively prioritize I-526 from South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil this year, since they have potential to reach the visa quota per Oppenheim’s calculations, if only IPO can adjudicate enough of the pending petitions in time (in the spirit of the stated goal to make each country “better able to use their annual per-country allocation of EB-5 visas”); or
  • Demote petitions from South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil behind petitions from countries that are not even on Oppenheim’s radar to exceed the annual visa limit?

Countries other than China, Vietnam, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil

• Circumstances Any country becomes not current if annual visa demand reaches about 700. The USCIS press release for the “visa availability approach” indicates that a goal of the I-526 priority change is to make countries “better able to use their annual per-country allocation of EB-5 visas.”
• Implications: Considering this, starting in April, will IPO:
  • Keep a certain I-526-to-visas multiplier in mind for each country, and adjudicate only a maximum number of I-526 per year per country to avoid exceeding the per-country visa allocation?
  • Publish timely data on I-526 receipts by county, so that the market is able to judge if countries are meeting or in danger of exceeding the annual per-country allocation, and moderate or encourage demand accordingly?
  • Consider any factor other than/in addition to priority date order, when adjudicating I-526 for countries with visas immediately available? For example, whether the project has Exemplar approval?

[1] IIUSA Conference presentation October 2019 https://wolfsdorf.com/blog/2019/11/01/important-updates-on-eb-5-from-u-s-department-of-state-indian-eb-5-estimates-reduced-prepare-to-file-last-chance-cases-before-november-21-2019/

[2]IIUSA Panel with Charles Oppenheim https://event.crowdcompass.com/la2016/page/rFpfQUiXJw

[3] 2017 CIS Ombudsman Report (EB-5 visa backlog calc on p. 32-33) based on data and calculations from Charles Oppenheim https://www.dhs.gov/publication/2017-annual-report-congress

[4] Charlie Oppenheim presentation at AILA/IIUSA conference https://iiusa.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/EB-5-AILA.IIUSA-Visa-numbers-panel-for-EB-5-Conference-October-2018.pdf

[5] Charlie Oppenheim at IIUSA Conference https://iiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IIUSA_Visa-Update-w-Charlie-Oppenheim-and-Roundtable-Discussion.pdf

[6] IIUSA Conference presentation October 2019 https://wolfsdorf.com/blog/2019/11/01/important-updates-on-eb-5-from-u-s-department-of-state-indian-eb-5-estimates-reduced-prepare-to-file-last-chance-cases-before-november-21-2019/

[7] Charlie Oppenheim at IIUSA Conference https://iiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IIUSA_Visa-Update-w-Charlie-Oppenheim-and-Roundtable-Discussion.pdf

Source: blog.lucidtext.com
Published: 4 February 2020

Disgraced and saddled with $24 million to pay back to defrauded investors, developer Lobsang Dargey has been released from federal prison.

It marks the latest chapter of Dargey’s extraordinary journey from Buddhist monk, to Tibetan refugee, to entrepreneur who spearheaded towering projects around Puget Sound, to convicted fraudster who duped over 200 Chinese investors out of millions of dollars on a promise of U.S. residency.

The Bellevue man, 46, was released from custody on Jan. 23, having served much of his sentence at a low-security prison in Lompoc, California. At sentencing in 2017, he pledged to “do everything that I can to help” the people he had misled.

Dargey, the son of poor illiterate barley and potato farmers in a remote Tibetan village, began studying to be a monk at the age of 13. In his teens, he collected grains to fund a stupa for local monks by going door-to-door for donations.

Amid political turmoil in Tibet in the 1990s, he tried twice to escape across the Himalayan mountains. On the second try, he and a small group evaded Chinese police for hundreds of miles on foot, court records show. According to a fellow monk who was one of his close friends, Dargey carried another refugee’s daughter, 3, on his back across the mountains. Ill-equipped for the bitter cold, they ate ramen, biscuits and snow.

The group crossed into Nepal under gunfire from Chinese security forces, while weary, malnourished and suffering from frostbite, on the way to Dharamshala in north India, home of the Dalai Lama, according to accounts in federal court papers.

For a few years he served as a “business monk,” in charge of finances at a monastery, before he immigrated to the United States in 1997, knowing little English, with only a few hundred dollars to his name.

He worked as gardener, house painter, and Sprint salesperson; wed the sister of tennis star Andre Agassi; and in 2006, he purchased a rundown building that’s now home to the Sno-Isle Food Co-op in Everett. Dargey oversaw a dramatic renovation, and two years later, he did the same with another downtown Everett landmark, the Chicago Title Building.

Then from the ground up, he led construction of a 100-unit mixed-use development on the site of a former car lot on Pacific Avenue, then known as Potala Village, named for the winter palace of past Dalai Lamas.

In those projects, he was not accused of fraud by federal prosecutors.

It was a towering 220-unit apartment complex on Grand Avenue, anchored by a year-round indoor farmers market on the ground floor, that began Dargey’s downfall in 2012.

He tied in the financing with the federal EB-5 program, enticing Chinese investors with a pitch that a $545,000 investment would be a pathway to a new life in the United States.

“In reliance on Dargey’s fraudulent promises, families who dreamed of a brighter future in the United States mortgaged their houses, sold their businesses and other assets, and invested the funds with Dargey,” prosecutors wrote in court papers. “Many moved to this country, started new jobs, and enrolled their children in American schools.”

He also raised $110 million from investors to build a 40-story skyscraper, Potala Tower, next to the Cinerama Theater in Belltown, and proposed other major projects in King County.

Dargey promoted himself as a deep-pocketed entrepreneur who was putting his own money into these developments, but in reality, he was siphoning money from investors — buying a $2.5 million home in Bellevue, withdrawing over $10 million for his own use and other unrelated projects, and in loan applications, covering up many millions of dollars in shortfalls by falsifying bank statements, according to federal prosecutors.

“Despite his repeated assurances to the contrary, Dargey shattered these immigrant investors’ dreams by looting millions of their investment dollars and using them for Dargey’s personal benefit … ,” prosecutors wrote. “The magnitude, breadth, and deceptive nature of Dargey’s misconduct is shocking.”

Dargey’s defense countered that he needed a nice Bentley, for example, because no Chinese investors would want to go into business with him, if he showed up at the airport in a dirty Toyota Tundra. In January 2017, Dargey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and a scheme to conceal information from the United States.

He was ordered to repay $24 million, with much of that owed to the investors.

Dargey could not be reached for comment this week.

In dozens of letters to the court, friends and associates described Dargey as a selfless, loving father and friend who lived far more modestly than prosecutors alleged, and who hardly seemed capable of the crimes recounted in the news.

Psychological exams suggested he lived with post-traumatic stress from his youth in China, as well as an attention disorder that could make him come off as scatterbrained.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik later denied Dargey’s request to serve the last year of his sentence at a reentry center, leaving his placement to the discretion of the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Records show Dargey did eventually serve the last stretch of his time at a kind of halfway house in Seattle. His sentence also included three years on probation. For at least those three years, he must repay no less than 10% of his monthly household income for restitution, starting this month.

In the meantime, new developers jump-started the stalled construction of the Potala Tower in Seattle, and the 440-foot building, redubbed Arrivé, opened two blocks from Amazon’s headquarters in early 2019, while Dargey sat behind bars.

Source: heraldnet.com
Published: 5 February 2020

Source: rt.com
Published: 12 February 2020