USCIS, Sept. 25, 2024 "Policy Highlights • Clarifies that USCIS calculates the CSPA age of an applicant who established extraordinary circumstances and is excused from the sought to acquire...
NILA, Sept. 25, 2024 "Increasingly, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and other immigration agencies are challenging venue in U.S. district court lawsuits brought by noncitizens...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/26/2024 "Eligible citizens, nationals, and passport holders from designated Visa Waiver Program countries may apply for admission...
Mazariegos-Rodas v. Garland "Beky Izamar Mazariegos-Rodas and Engly Yeraicy Mazariegos-Rodas (collectively, the Petitioners) are two sisters who are natives and citizens of Guatemala. The Petitioners...
Cyrus Mehta, Sept. 23, 2024 "When the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) designated Matter of Z-A- Inc . as an “Adopted Decision” in 2016 it was seen as a breakthrough as it recognized...
"This is a putative class action brought by immigrant investors who sought and were unlawfully denied the chance to immigrate to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), known as the “Immigrant Investor Law” or “EB-5 Program.”
... Despite Plaintiffs’ compliance with the statute’s capital investment requirement, USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ petitions. The denials do not dispute that Plaintiffs, as a factual matter, wired $500,000 in cash into bank accounts designated for the EB-qualifying new commercial enterprises. Nor is there any dispute that those new commercial enterprises would have used Plaintiffs’ investments to create at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers. Instead, USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ petitions on the sole basis that because Plaintiffs obtained the cash they invested in the new commercial enterprise through a loan, that cash was not “cash,” but “indebtedness.”
... USCIS’s denials are fundamentally incompatible with the plain language of the statute and implementing regulations. The agency justified treating Plaintiffs’ cash investments as “indebtedness” rather than “cash” because Plaintiffs obtained the cash they invested in their new commercial enterprises through a loan. But the fact that Plaintiffs obtained the cash they invested in the new commercial enterprise does not transform that cash into anything other than cash. And “cash” is unambiguously and unconditionally defined as a form of “capital” under Defendants’ regulations. Plaintiffs therefore satisfied the EB-5 statute’s capital investment requirement."
- Zhang v. USCIS, filed June 23, 2015 by KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER, TETZELI & PRATT, P.A.