Read the article

Commonly, USCIS challenges to EB-5 petitions may allege an investment is not eligible because it either (a) is not held “at risk,” (b) constitutes a “debt arrangement,” or (c) will result in a “guaranteed redemption.” However, though these terms differ substantially, the distinctions are poorly understood by many EB-5 professionals — and may even be confused by USCIS itself.

“Often, USCIS uses the terms interchangeably, as if they all relate to the same concept,” writes immigration attorney Ron Klasko, of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP. “They do not.”

In this month’s featured article, Klasko explains the distinctions between the terms, identifies their respective legal precedents, discusses EB-5 eligibility and outlines the ways in which his law firm has successfully argued on EB-5 petitioners’ behalf, with respect to these allegations, in court.

The purpose of this article is to distinguish between the three concepts, distinguish between various scenarios in which these issues are raised, and distinguish between USCIS policy and our view of the law, which we advocate both to USCIS and in federal court.

Read the article about EB-5 Eligibility: “At Risk, Debt Arrangement, Guaranteed Redemption: Important Distinctions”

Contact us

Allow us to address your EB-5 needs by contacting us. We look forward to hearing from you!