There are distinct eligibility requirements at each stage of the EB-5 immigration process. Where USCIS has previously evaluated and approved certain aspects of an investment, USCIS generally defers to that favorable determination at a later stage in the process. This deference policy promotes predictability for immigrant investors, new commercial enterprises, and their employees. Deference also conserves scarce agency resources, which should not ordinarily be used to duplicate previous efforts.

As a general matter, USCIS does not reexamine determinations made earlier in the EB-5 process, and such earlier determinations will be presumed to have been properly decided. When USCIS has previously concluded that an economic methodology is reasonable to project future job creation as applied to the facts of a particular project, USCIS defers to this determination for all related adjudications directly linked to the specific project for which the economic methodology was previously approved.

For example, if USCIS approves an Application For Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program (Form I-924) or an Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (Form I-526) presenting a Matter of Ho compliant business plan and a specific economic methodology, USCIS will defer to the earlier finding that the methodology was reasonable in subsequent adjudications of Form I-526 presenting the same related facts and methodology. However, USCIS will still conduct a de novo review of each prospective immigrant investor’s lawful source of funds and other individualized eligibility criteria.

Conversely, USCIS does not defer to a previously favorable decision in later proceedings when, for example, the underlying facts, upon which a favorable decision was made, have materially changed, there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, or the previously favorable decision is determined to be legally deficient. A change is material if it would have a natural tendency to influence, or is predictably capable of affecting, the decision. [1] See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988).

When a new filing involves a different project from a previous approval, or the same previously approved project with material changes to the project plan, USCIS does not defer to the previous adjudication.

Since prior determinations will be presumed to have been properly decided, a prior favorable determination will not be considered legally deficient for purposes of according deference unless the prior determination involved an objective mistake of fact or an objective mistake of law evidencing ineligibility for the benefit sought, but excluding those subjective evaluations related to evaluating eligibility. Unless there is reason to believe that a prior adjudication involved an objective mistake of fact or law, officers should not reexamine determinations made earlier in the EB-5 process. Absent a material change in facts, fraud, or willful misrepresentation, officers should not re-adjudicate prior agency determinations that are subjective, such as whether the business plan is comprehensive and credible or whether an economic methodology estimating job creation is reasonable.

Footnotes


1. [^]

See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988).