September 12, 2021 21 Comments
What is the path, timeline, and content for regional center program reauthorization legislation? This urgent question should be directed toward advocacy groups and official advisors, not to a business plan writer and spare-time blogger. But, a few notes and resources for reference, as we find ourselves in the drama-filled month of September.
The regional center program can be reauthorized as soon as (1) there is a vehicle to which reauthorization legislation could be attached, and (2) Congress agrees to reauthorization legislation that satisfies the EB-5 industry.
The first condition — available vehicle — potentially exists now, as Congress works on major funding and infrastructure bills. The industry’s best near-term hope for legislative vehicle for reauthorization may be the omnibus Appropriations Act, which is due to be passed by September 30 before the start of every fiscal year, and which must get passed eventually. (Here’s the recent history: FY2016 appropriations (due September 30, 2015) passed in December 2015; FY2017 appropriations was delayed until May 2017; FY2018 passed in March 2018, FY2019 passed in February 2019, FY2020 passed in December 2019, and FY2021 passed in December 2020.) The Hill speculated last week that the FY2022 appropriations act due the end of this month may also be deferred to December.
When Congress misses the September 30 deadline to fund the new year, as usual, they fill the gap with one or more Continuing Resolutions, which extend the deadline on the previous year’s appropriations act. CRs by nature are smaller and more limited than an appropriations act (fewer pages), and thus less hopeful for miscellaneous additions. It’s possible that a hefty EB-5 reform bill could be attached to a CR this month, but I’d be surprised. I assume that the larger appropriations act, whenever that passes, is the industry target for EB-5. (From 2015 to 2020, regional center program authorization was not specially mentioned in CRs, but extended by default in CRs thanks to RC authorization being attached to the previous year’s appropriations. This year, a CR deadline extension would not help in and of itself, because RC program authorization is now decoupled from the FY2021 appropriations deadline.) FYI my log of past regional center program extensions includes a list of continuing appropriations and appropriations acts for the past six years, with dates and links. Note that “610(b)” or “203(b)(5)” are search terms to locate EB-5 content in a bill. (The bare minimum language needed for reauthorization is this sentence: “Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) shall be applied by substituting [future date] for ‘’September 30, 2015’.” An EB-5 reform bill will include a sentence similar to “Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)) is amended…”)
The timing for the second reauthorization condition – agreement by Congress to industry demands – is an open question. I already discussed my understanding of the field in my post Sizing the Reauthorization Hurdle. EB5IC and AAED are still committed to advance an alternative to the sub-optimal Grassley/Leahy EB-5 reform bill — an alternative that would not only reauthorize the RC program but add provisions to make the program more viable. This ambitious agenda has powered through blocking the Grassley/Leahy bill in June, seeing the RC program expire, and missing the Senate infrastructure bill opportunity. How long will it take for these ambitions to finally be either accepted by Congress or moderated by industry? Lobbyists realize that patience is limited, and are reportedly working very hard to get Congress to agree to reauthorization soon, before investors, USCIS and Department of State give up on regional center petitions and applications. (As evidence that “the last minute” has already arrived, a USCIS leaker tells me that 154 EB-5 investors withdrew their I-526 petitions just in the last two weeks. Action is needed soon to stop the bleeding.)
I see three theoretical possibilities for the content of reauthorization legislation: (1) what industry groups including EB5IC and AAED want (legislation not yet made public, but reportedly based on S.2778 from last Congress); (2) what Senators Grassley and Leahy want, based on their S.831/HR.2901; or (3) a reauthorization that simply extends the RC program expiration deadline short-term in connection with the appropriations deadline, with no attached reform provisions. I discussed these options in detail a couple months ago in my post EB-5 legislation and the question of options (Grassley’s S.831 vs. the “holistic” S.2778). Of these, only the first appears a practical possibility at the moment.
#3 is what we got every year from 2015 to 2020: short-term extensions to give the industry more time to agree on EB-5 reform legislation. #3 looks less probable now, since Congressional leadership went out of their way in December 2020 to decouple RC program authorization from appropriations, ostensibly to force the EB-5 legislation that’s already been deferred for five years.
#2 also seems improbable, since Senators Grassley and Leahy have not demonstrated the power to overcome industry opposition to get their reform bill passed. True, Senator Leahy can claim credit as the “driving force” for all regional center program authorizations from 2003 through 2012, and IIUSA has been willing to support the continued Grassley/Leahy reauthorization effort. But EB5IC has celebrated success in blocking Grassley/Leahy EB-5 legislation since 2015 (with other industry groups including U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Roundtable), and industry most recently demonstrated the will and power to block the Grassley/Leahy reauthorization path in June 2021.
So we’re left to hope that Congressional decision-makers might eventually agree with what industry groups want with reauthorization. EB5IC and AAED report that legislation is drafted and ready to go behind the scenes, though the text has still not been disclosed to the public. (“They love the darkness better than the light because____” “…because their bill text includes no poison pills for Congress and honors promises to industry stakeholders.” Maybe.) To be fair, Grassley/Leahy also tried to get their EB-5 reform bill passed last year without disclosing it until the very last minute. This is politics, apparently. EB5IC and AAED report having secured some key Congressional support for their legislation. We shall see whether the support is sufficient to get Congress to shortly attach reauthorization to a bill that will pass.
Whether the industry effort has universal industry support may be irrelevant at this point. The main issue and question is probably just Congressional support. (One thing I don’t know: whether industry forces that have kept entire public silence this time but influential in past legislative efforts (e.g. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Related Companies, and U.S. Immigration Fund) may exercise veto power behind the scenes. Since IIUSA’s bottom line goal is reauthorization one way or another, I think it would and could not stand in the way of any bill moving forward. But not sure about the others.) In taking control of the ball for EB-5 legislation and running with it, EB5IC and AAED are now positioned to be showered in gratitude or criticism, depending on how their play turns out.
Separate from the regional center program authorization issue, the EB-5 category could be affected as part of other immigration proposals being discussed now. See “Democrats make immigration case to Senate parliamentarian” (September 10, 2021) in Roll Call and “Chairman Nadler Announces Committee Print for Full Committee Markup of Build Back Better Act” (September 10, 2021) at house.gov (including link to the proposed immigration provisions). This particular immigration proposal promises limited EB-5 impact, and I’ll wait to analyze it until it makes any progress. But something like this is probably the best hope for EB-5 visa relief. EB-5 visa relief bundled with reauthoriation legislation would just make the reauthorization controversial, by making it a stand-alone immigration issue rather than an economic development issue. EB-5 visa relief theoretically has better politics and opportunity as bundled with visa relief for other visa categories that are immigration priorities for the Administration, and supported by other powerful industries. (My post from a few months ago discusses Analyzing potential changes to EB-5 visa availability.)
Meanwhile, a reminder for those negotiating for Chinese investor interests to examine examine “parole.” The prospect of parole with work authorization appears to be a key bargaining chip within the industry for EB-5 legislation, and also wreathed in hopes that may not match the temporary/conditional benefits in existing immigration parole programs. See the Congressional Research Service report on “Immigration Parole,” for an overview, and program details on the USCIS page for Parole for Individuals Outside the United States.
I’d also like to repeat my hope and trust that the visa-set-aide proposal has already been excised from the S.2778 template. (Set-asides meaning 3,000 EB-5 visas per year set aside for new TEA investors, and thus deducted from the pool historically leftover from low-demand countries and issued to the oldest backlogged Chinese visa applicants). Lobbyists have publicly disclaimed queue-cutting set-asides. But just in case anyone is tempted to keep pushing set-asides despite lingering visa backlogs, I suggest reviewing Shakespeare’s Richard III, Act 4 Scene 4. See how Richard approaches his sister-in-law Queen Elizabeth, whose sons he has slain, to woo her daughter as his wife. Richard counts on Elizabeth’s ambition to make it work, and argues the past sacrifice can be covered by future benefit for her. But Elizabeth points out that her daughter “cannot choose but hate thee, having bought love with such a bloody spoil.” I like to think that Chinese migration agents would stand up like Queen Elizabeth, if asked to take a bloody spoil of set-aside visas to woo new investors. How wonderful if the China market could re-open with visas available for new investment! But that bright possibility must depend on visa relief not bought with visa pain for past Chinese investors. There must be good faith with past investors — not merely in intention (“but we did not mean set-asides to hurt, and we did mean other provisions to compensate” — a classic Richard III line), but in the real-world results of legislative changes. Ideally we could get backlog relief, which is essential to EB-5 program health and future. At minimum, let’s all keep responsible to avoid net backlog harm from any new EB-5 legislation. Long-suffering Chinese investors deserve good advocacy now, considering that they already committed billions of dollars and spurred creation of tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S. economy.
This content was originally published here.