WRITTEN TESTIMONY

OF

L. FRANCIS CISSNA
DIRECTOR
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

FOR A HEARING ON

“CITIZENSHIP FOR SALE: OVERSIGHT OF
THE EB-5 INVESTOR VISA PROGRAM”
BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

June 19, 2018
226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC

 INTRODUCTION:
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein and distinguished Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and testify about the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) Immigrant Investor Program and to ask for your full support for
the program’s Modernization Final Rule. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is
working to update its regulations governing the employment-based fifth preference (EB-5)
program, especially the regional center component, in order to better reflect congressional intent
and to codify existing policies.
USCIS adjudicates immigration benefits while remaining vigilant against those who seek to
undermine the integrity of our immigration system and those who seek to do harm to the United
States. USCIS is only able to accomplish its complex and vital mission through the efforts of its
thousands of dedicated public servants who administer an extremely complex immigration
system fairly, lawfully, and efficiently every day.
Today, I would like to describe the work that USCIS has completed in support of the EB-5
Immigrant Investor Program and provide an overview of the regulations that are currently under
consideration.
PROGRAM BACKGROUND:
Congress created the EB-5 visa program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job
creation and capital investment by foreign investors. The EB-5 program makes immigrant visas
available to foreign nationals who invest or are actively in the process of investing at least
$1,000,000 in a new commercial enterprise (NCE) and create or preserve at least ten permanent
full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers. Congress allowed for a reduced investment amount of
$500,000 if the investment is in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA), defined to include certain
rural areas and areas of high unemployment.
In 1992, Congress expanded the allowable measure of job creation for the EB-5 visa program by
launching the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program (or Regional Center Program), setting aside EB5 visas for investors in USCIS-designated regional centers. A regional center is an economic
unit, public or private, in the United States that is involved with promoting economic growth.
As of June 4, 2018, there are 903 regional centers in the United States. This is up from about 588
at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2014, and a total of only 11 at the end of FY 2007. Applicants for
regional center designation must present a general proposal for the promotion of economic
growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation or
increased domestic capital investment in a limited geographic area. Approved regional centers
must file an annual certification to demonstrate continued eligibility for designation as a regional
center.
All immigrant investors must file individual petitions supported by evidence that their
investment capital was fully invested or is actively in the process of being invested, the capital
has been placed at risk, and also that the invested capital was acquired through lawful sources.
Each petition also must be supported by evidence that the investment has, or will, create or
1

 preserve at least ten permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers. If approved, the
immigrant investor may be admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident.
Approximately two years after admission as a conditional permanent resident, the immigrant
investor is required to petition USCIS for the removal of such conditional status, at which time
the investor must show that he or she invested or was actively in the process of investing the
requisite capital, that he or she sustained those actions over the two-year conditional permanent
residence period, and that job creation requirements were met or will be met within a reasonable
time. If approved, the conditions on the investor’s permanent residence are removed.
The popularity of the program coupled with concerns that the program rules would change has
sparked a huge number of petitions being submitted to USCIS. The agency received 14,298
petitions in FY 2015, 14,147 in FY 2016 and 12,266 in FY 2017.
The Committee has been briefed in the past about various concerns related to fraud, abuse, and
national security risks related to the program. Concerns have been raised about how the program
is used by foreign governments to conduct economic espionage, to carry out terrorist activity, or
by investors to launder money in the United States. In May 2017, USCIS conducted an internal
fraud assessment and identified 19 cases of confirmed national security concerns. Specifically,
the national security concerns identified related to terrorism, espionage, information and
technology transfer, or a combination of these factors.
USCIS partners with other agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and our DHS partners at U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) / Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), to address program
vulnerabilities. We are also aware of concerns that the program is only benefiting a few major
metropolitan areas, and that EB-5 funding is not supporting the high unemployment and rural
areas as Congress intended. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued reports on the
EB-5 program in 2015 and 2016. The reports assessed fraud risks, as well as the validity and
reliability of methodologies used to determine job creation and economic benefits. While
highlighting the positive steps USCIS has taken to mitigate fraud and administer the EB-5
program, GAO made four recommendations in 2015 for USCIS to strengthen fraud prevention,
detection, and mitigation capabilities within the program and to more accurately assess and
report on program outcomes and the overall economic benefits of the program. DHS concurred
with these recommendations, has implemented two and is working to implement the others.
The EB-5 regional center program is set to expire on September 30, 2018. In the last decade, the
program has been re-authorized by Congress without added safeguards or tools for the
Department to better operate the program. In the absence of legislative reforms, Congress should
consider allowing the program to expire. In the meantime, however, USCIS continues to work
on various regulatory, policy, and operational changes to enhance the integrity of the program on
behalf of the American people and investors around the world.
RECENT OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM:
USCIS continues to take steps to improve the administration and integrity of the EB-5 program.
Some examples of these efforts include:
2

  The Investor Program Office (IPO) Fraud Detection and National Security
Directorate (FDNS) employees used the USCIS Administrative Site Visit Verification
Program in 2016 to visit project sites for 50 new commercial enterprises and job-creating
entities. In 2017, 232 site visits were conducted, and USCIS also hired additional officers
who are primarily dedicated to conducting EB-5 site visits.
 USCIS has expanded our security checks to cover both regional center businesses
and individuals participating in the program, and we also entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to further expand
access to FinCEN’s holdings and services.
 USCIS has partnered with other federal agencies including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to strengthen the EB-5 program. USCIS has hosted case agents as well as
attorneys from the Department of Justice to collaborate in furtherance of the departments’
and agencies’ individual missions.
 In FY 2016, USCIS began remotely interviewing foreign investors seeking to
remove their conditional status as part of a pilot program. As of June 1, 2018, we had
conducted more than 44 of these remote interviews. These interviews are conducted over
video conference in secured USCIS facilities and used to verify information submitted by
petitioners.
 In FY 2017, USCIS published revised forms to enhance our data collection to
improve vetting of regional centers, regional center principals, and individual petitioners, as
well as ensure the collection of appropriate application and petition fees to support these
enhanced vetting and compliance efforts.
 In FY 2017, IPO created a new Compliance Division that reviews all regional
centers’ annual certifications, which are the filings to ensure continued eligibility for
designation. This new division conducts regional center compliance reviews and terminates
the designations of regional centers that fail to maintain their eligibility under the regulations.
I would like to note that in FY 2017, USCIS terminated more than 80 regional center
designations, much more than in any previous year.
 In FY 2017, USCIS began to publish regional center termination notices, redacted
as appropriate, in the USCIS electronic reading room to promote program transparency.
There are also lists of currently designated and terminated regional centers posted on the
USCIS web site as well.
With regard to the compliance reviews for regional centers mentioned previously, the process
includes auditors researching information in government systems, reviewing commercial and
public records, and reviewing the evidence that accompanies regional center applications and
certifications. It also includes obtaining information, on a consensual basis, through data requests
and regional center site inspections.

3

 REGULATORY CHANGES:
In January 2017, USCIS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The comment period for both notices closed on April
11, 2017. I want to express my appreciation for the April 5, 2018, letter to Secretary Nielsen
from Chairman Grassley, Chairman Goodlatte, and Vice Chairman Leahy urging immediate
steps to finalize the proposed regulations, and I note that Chairman Grassley has followed up
with an additional letter on June 4, 2018 urging the Department to publish rules to modernize
and improve the integrity of the program. USCIS is currently reviewing the comments and
moving forward in the regulatory process with both of these items as expeditiously as possible.
In the meantime, I would like to point back to the list of enhancements that USCIS has already
implemented as evidence of our intent to improve the integrity and security of the program.
The ANPRM sought input from the public on ideas to reform the Regional Center Program,
including the revision of the regional center designation process, establishment of an exemplar
filing requirement, clarification of the requirements to maintain a regional center designation,
and delineating actions resulting in termination of the designation. USCIS is working diligently
on this rule as we also work to finalize the NPRM, explained below.
The NPRM proposed increasing the minimum investment amounts for the program, revising the
TEA designation process, providing priority date retention in certain circumstances, and making
some technical updates to the regulatory text.
The rules would provide overdue changes to the EB-5 program. A summary of the NPRM’s
proposed major provisions include:
Increases to the Investment Amounts – Increasing the Minimum Investment Amount
DHS proposed to increase the generally applicable minimum investment amount for all new EB5 petitioners to $1.8 million. This increase would ensure the amount reflects the present-day
dollar value of the investment amount originally established by Congress in 1990. DHS
calculated the amount to adjust for inflation from 1990 to 2015, as measured by the unadjusted
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), an economic indicator that tracks the
prices of goods and services in the United States.
DHS also proposed to set the investment amount in a TEA at 75 percent of the increased
standard minimum investment amount, or $1.35 million. DHS believes this would help strike a
better balance between investments at the standard and reduced thresholds and reduce the degree
to which the differential between the thresholds affects investment decisions.
In addition, DHS proposed regular CPI-U-based adjustments in the standard minimum
investment amount, and conforming adjustments to the TEA minimum investment amount, every
five years, beginning five years from the effective date of the regulations.

4

 TEA Designation
DHS proposed reforming the TEA designation process to ensure consistency in TEA
adjudications, ensure that TEA designations more closely adhere to congressional intent for such
designations, and to avoid gerrymandering. Specifically, DHS proposed eliminating the ability
of a state to designate certain geographic and political subdivisions as high-unemployment areas.
Instead, DHS would make such designations directly. These changes would help address
inconsistencies between and within states in designating high-unemployment areas and better
ensure that the reduced investment threshold for TEAs is reserved for areas experiencing
significantly high levels of unemployment, as Congress intended.
The proposed TEA designation rules include changes to the “special designation” of high
unemployment areas, which would rely on the census tract as the building block for the
geographic or political subdivision. Under the proposal, a TEA may consist of the project’s
census tract or tracts, as well as any adjoining census tracts. These new designation standards
would remove the possibility of gerrymandering areas to qualify as a TEA that otherwise would
not qualify, and better ensure that the reduced investment amount is reserved for areas which are
truly experiencing significantly higher levels of unemployment.
Priority Date Retention
DHS proposed allowing certain EB-5 petitioners to use the priority date of an approved EB-5
immigrant petition for use in connection with any subsequent EB-5 immigrant petition. This
would allow some EB-5 investors to retain their place in the immigrant visa queue if the petition
is denied through no fault of the investor. DHS believes priority date retention is increasingly
important as the demand for EB-5 visas now outpaces the statutorily limited supply of such
visas. Notably however, priority date retention would not be available in cases where DHS
revoked the original petition’s approval based on fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material
fact, or upon a determination that DHS approved the petition based on a material error.
ADDITIONAL NECESSARY ENHANCEMENTS:
Although we have accomplished much to strengthen the integrity of this program, there is still
more to do. USCIS has worked closely with Congressional staff to identify key statutory
enhancements that would strengthen the integrity of the program and reduce the challenges that
USCIS faces in administering the EB-5 program.
Legislative reforms that would greatly benefit the integrity of the EB-5 program include:
Authorizing USCIS to Act Quickly on Criminal and Security Concerns
Unfortunately, USCIS presently lacks explicit statutory authority to terminate a regional center
for criminal or security concerns. Under current regulations, USCIS may terminate a regional
center’s designation if the center is no longer promoting economic growth or fails to submit
required information to USCIS (on an annual basis, a cumulative basis and/or as otherwise
requested). Criminal activity or national security concerns are not statutorily included among the
5

 bases to terminate a regional center. Currently, in instances where USCIS has criminal or
security concerns about a regional center, USCIS has to either demonstrate these concerns are
related to the regional center’s failure to promote economic growth, or demonstrate the regional
center’s failure to promote economic growth separately from any criminal or security concerns,
which is an unnecessarily lengthy and circuitous route to terminate a regional center.
Protecting Investors by Regulating Regional Center Principals and Associated Commercial
Enterprises
USCIS is not currently authorized to prohibit persons from participating in regional centers and
associated commercial enterprises based upon certain criminal violations and fraud or securitiesrelated civil violations. In addition, all regional center principals should be required to be U.S.
citizens. Currently, USCIS is able to vet regional center principals; however, USCIS does not
have the statutory authority to exclude individuals from operating as regional center principals
solely on the basis of their past criminal history, though this factor could come into play in
assessing whether a regional center should be designated or terminated.
Enhancing Reporting and Auditing
USCIS is not currently authorized to enhance the regional center annual reporting process,
including requiring, as appropriate, certification of the regional center’s continued compliance
with U.S. securities laws; disclosure of any pending litigation; details of how investor funds were
utilized in a project; an accounting of jobs created; and the progress toward completion of the
investment project.
Providing Sanction Authority
USCIS does not have sanction authority to act proportionately where warranted, and should be
authorized to sanction regional centers with fines or temporary suspensions where appropriate.
CONCLUSION:
The EB-5 regional center program, which is set to expire on September 30 of this year, is in dire
need of reforms to better protect U.S. investors, businesses and communities against fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement. More importantly, reforms are needed to protect against national
security risks that allow foreign nationals to invest for the purpose of laundering money or
conducting espionage against us. I am committed to working with this Committee and with any
Member who wishes to improve the program, better protect investors, and ensure that our legal
immigration system serves the interest of the American people while continuing to support those
who wish to contribute to this great country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support
of DHS. I am pleased to answer any questions.

6