Why do our EB-5 visa investor clients in Direct Investment Businesses get approved while others are denied? The answer's simple: We work hard to ensure that we are conservative & comply with the law.

My website shows our process and this link http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.2540a6fdd667d1d1c2e21e10569391a0/?vgnextoid=0609b8a04e812210VgnVCM1000006539190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=0609b8a04e812210VgnVCM1000006539190aRCRD&path=%2FB7+-+Form+I-526+and+I-829%2FDecisions_Issued_in_2013 shows why our process works while many of our competitors clients were denied:

The 2013 investor petition decisions shown in the link above are all related to I-526 petitions, and all but APR172013_01B7203 are for direct investment EB-5 cases. It seems that whosoever is now writing AAO decisions is very detail-oriented and a fan of the precedent decision Matter of Ho. This AAO writer repeatedly returns to the decision’s treatment of the “at risk” requirement. According to Matter of Ho: “Simply formulating an idea for future business activity, without taking meaningful concrete action, is similarly insufficient for a petitioner to meet the at-risk requirement. Before it can be said that capital made available to a commercial enterprise has been placed at risk, a petitioner must present some evidence of the actual undertaking of business activity; otherwise, no assurance exists that the funds will in fact be used to carry out the business of the commercial enterprise. This petitioner’s de minimis action of signing a lease agreement, without more, is not enough.” Now the AAO is also focused on the issue of “meaningful concrete action,” and is requiring EB-5 visa petitioners to provide evidence of funds already spent in the business, contracts already executed, and employees already hired prior to I-526 filing. These aren't for I-829 cases, but I-526 cases. Direct EB-5 investors should remember that if they have primary control over the business’s bank account, USCIS may require you to show evidence at I-526 that you not only invested $500K/$1 million but that your business has already spent or was irrevocably/contractually committed to spending that amount before you even filed the I-526 petition. This is why our clients are avoiding RFE's while our competitor's clients are getting denied. There is a reason we're confidently offering fee refund guarantees while our competitors refuse to offer the same guarantee. The reason is simple: We're the best because we put our client's interests first, and our competitors know that they aren't even in our league because they're not in business to serve clients but to cheat clients.

Some people may ask: Is it fair to deny a case because the petitioner provided, in RFE, a copy of a lease that post-dated I-526 filing? Because the petitioner, prior to I-526 approval, spent only a portion of the one million invested in the NCE business?

I say, better to be conservative, especially if it helps reduce and eliminate fraud, than to be liberal and continue seeing thousands of EB-5 visa investors being ripped off by the same crooks who cheated thousands of EB-5 visa investors by committing securities fraud using regional centers. On a related note, I won't be surprised if EB-5 visa seekers who chose Fred Burgess & Joe Sloboda's direct investment franchises end up getting rejected and suffering capital loss and visa denial too. You heard it here first!

Yours truly
Mohamed Shaikh, MBA, CFE, Licensed Business & RE Broker (CA & FL)
Online: