Advertisement

April 16, 2014

The Myths of Retrogression of the Visa Numbers in the EB-5 Program

As we reported in December, the increased demand in the EB-5 immigrant investor visa category will most likely result in visa retrogression for Chinese born EB-5 investors in the Spring of 2013.

Some have reported that this type of retrogression will mean that EB-5 applications for Chinese investors will come to a standstill. This is not only false, but legally inaccurate. I-526 applications for Chinese nationals will still be processed by the USCIS. They will be assigned a priority date, and will need to wait until that priority is available before actually obtaining the conditional residence.

Here is a short review of the system as described in December 2012.

What is Retrogression?

The Immigration and Nationality Act limits the number of green cards issued annually within each fiscal year. The government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. In the employment-based categories, immigration is divided into five preference categories: EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. The law does not permit any one country to have more than a specific percentage of the total number of green cards annually. In situations where there is greater demand than availability and these category limits are exceeded for a particular nationality, a back log occurs. Immigrants are placed on a waiting list according to the date of their immigrant petition case filing. This date is called a “Priority Date”. While an applicant MAY continue to file an underlying immigrant petition at any time they may not file their actual green card application (Adjustment of Status if they are in the U.S. or consular processing if they are processing through their home country). When an individual’s priority date is reached on the Visa Bulletin then their green card application may continue to be proceed.

Who Will Be Impacted by Retrogression?

Investors born in Mainland China will be impacted by the predicted visa retrogression. It is important to note, that investors born in Mainland China but that later obtained citizenship or permanent residency in another country, would still be subject to the backlog. The backlog will not apply to investors born in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan or other countries. The predicted backlog in EB-5 would be the first of its kind. While new visas would become available on the first date of the next fiscal year i.e. October 1, 2013, there is a possibility that as more applicants from China continue to file EB-5 cases that the wait times for priority dates to become current could grow longer. This would have implications for investors with children who may age out prior to their 21st birthday and who may at that point not be able to derive the benefit from the principal investor. Ultimately, this could stymie the demand for EB-5 visas by Chinese nationals and have an adverse impact on regional center operators.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Of Counsel

Kate Kalmykov focuses her practice on business immigration and compliance. She represents clients in a wide-range of employment based immigrant and non-immigrant visa matters including students, trainees, professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty investors and traders, persons of extraordinary ability and immigrant investors.

973.443.3276

About the Author

Co-Managing Shareholder, Tysons Corner Office

Laura Reiff focuses her practice on business immigration laws and regulations affecting U.S. and foreign companies, as well as related employment compliance and legislative issues. 

703-749-1372

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.