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, and outlines the ways in which his law firm has successfully argued on EB-5 petitioners’ behalf, with respect to these allegations, in court.
Allow us to address your EB-5 needs by contacting us. We look forward to hearing from you!