Centre régional ou investissement direct pour votre demande EB-5 ?
Kyle Huffman • August 8, 2024
Click here to read this article in English
Alors que les effets de la loi EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 continuent de se développer, cette catégorie de visa d'immigrant a vu sa popularité monter en flèche au cours des derniers mois. Avant 2022, de nombreuses personnes fortunées évitaient complètement la catégorie EB-5, en raison de l'incertitude généralisée qui entourait le programme. Ce n'est un secret pour personne que la catégorie EB-5 est coûteuse, et qui pourrait reprocher à un investisseur d'hésiter à placer une somme aussi importante dans un véhicule d'investissement dont le contrôle et la transparence sont limités ? La grande majorité des préoccupations relatives au programme ayant été apaisées par les dispositions de la loi de 2022 sur la réforme et l'intégrité de l'EB-5 (EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act), qui permettent une plus grande surveillance réglementaire, un relèvement des seuils d'investissement, la transparence et même la suppression des lourdeurs administratives, les investisseurs sont à nouveau désireux de participer à ce programme hautement bénéfique.
Si vous envisagez un investissement financier important aux États-Unis, le programme EB-5 est une excellente occasion non seulement de réaliser l'investissement, mais aussi d'obtenir la résidence permanente, et éventuellement la citoyenneté, aux États-Unis pour les personnes ayant contribué à l'investissement. L'idée qui sous-tend le programme EB-5 est de stimuler l'économie des États-Unis, notamment en créant un grand nombre d'emplois pour les travailleurs américains. Les seuils d'investissement pour les montants minimums admissibles ont été conçus pour que l'investissement en capital atteigne un niveau suffisant de stimulation économique. Toutefois, compte tenu de l'écart important entre les deux seuils d'investissement admissibles et du large éventail de projets dans lesquels il est possible d'investir, de nombreux investisseurs se demandent quelle est la voie EB-5 qui leur convient le mieux.
Au sens large, il existe deux types d'investissement EB-5 : L'investissement direct ou l'investissement par l'intermédiaire d'un centre régional approuvé par l'USCIS. La meilleure voie à suivre pour chaque cas potentiel dépend des priorités de chaque demandeur.
Pour l'investissement direct, la demande est déposée au moyen du formulaire I-526, Immigrant Petition by Standalone Investor (demande d'immigration par un investisseur autonome). Un investisseur qui dépose une demande d'investissement direct EB-5 a la possibilité d'investir dans une entreprise qui est responsable de la création d'au moins 10 emplois à temps plein. Tant que l'organisation peut vérifier la création et l'existence réelles de ces emplois, ces pétitions ont d'excellentes chances d'être approuvées. Ces pétitions peuvent être particulièrement avantageuses pour un investisseur qui croit fermement au succès d'une nouvelle entreprise ou d'un nouveau concept et qui souhaite que l'essentiel de son investissement soit directement consacré à l'entreprise créatrice d'emplois.
Dans le cas d'un investissement dans un centre régional, la demande est déposée au moyen du formulaire I-526E, Immigrant Petition by Regional Center Investor (demande d'immigration par l'investisseur du centre régional). Ces centres régionaux sont créés dans le but exprès de faciliter l'investissement EB-5. Chaque centre régional doit déposer une demande en bonne et due forme auprès de l'USCIS et recevoir son approbation avant de pouvoir figurer sur la liste des centres régionaux approuvés pour l'investissement des immigrants EB-5. L'un des principaux avantages de l'investissement par l'intermédiaire d'un centre régional est la facilitation du processus de demande, car les centres régionaux fournissent une grande partie de la documentation requise. Toutefois, cela se traduit généralement par un niveau de contrôle moins élevé sur les fonds d'investissement que dans le cas d'un investissement direct.
Pour les deux types d'EB-5, le seuil d'investissement est déterminé par des facteurs géographiques et économiques à l'intérieur des États-Unis. Le programme étant conçu pour stimuler l'économie américaine, une large préférence est accordée aux investissements dans ce que l'on appelle les "zones d'emploi ciblées" (Targeted Employment Areas - TEA). Il s'agit soit de zones rurales, soit d'autres zones désignées comme connaissant un taux de chômage élevé, défini comme un taux de chômage supérieur d'au moins 50 % à la moyenne nationale des États-Unis. Le montant minimum de l'investissement admissible dans une zone d'emploi ciblée n'est que de 900 000 dollars, contre un seuil minimum de 1,8 million de dollars pour un investissement en dehors d'une zone d'emploi ciblée. Pour les investisseurs qui sont principalement motivés par l'obtention d'une carte verte, il n'y a pas beaucoup d'avantages à investir deux fois plus de capital dans une zone non ciblée pour l'emploi. Toutefois, pour les investisseurs qui ont confiance dans un projet d'investissement particulier et qui sont principalement motivés par les rendements potentiels, il peut être intéressant d'investir directement dans l'organisation ayant le plus grand potentiel, quelle que soit la situation géographique aux États-Unis où l'investissement sera concentré.
En fin de compte, le choix de la meilleure filière EB-5 est une décision qui doit être prise par chaque investisseur et qui change au cas par cas. Toutefois, compte tenu de l'importance des sommes en jeu, chaque investisseur veut être certain de choisir la meilleure voie pour atteindre ses objectifs personnels. Si vous envisagez de réaliser un investissement EB-5 et que vous souhaitez discuter des questions ou des inquiétudes que vous pourriez avoir concernant la voie EB-5 qui vous convient le mieux, je vous encourage à prendre rendez-vous avec l'un de nos avocats qualifiés.
Ce blog n'est pas destiné à fournir des conseils juridiques et rien ici ne doit être interprété comme établissant une relation avocat-client. Veuillez prendre rendez-vous avec un avocat spécialisé en droit de l'immigration avant d'agir sur la base de toute information lue ici.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
On March 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented a policy update that limits gender marker selections on all immigration forms and systems to two biological sexes: male and female. This change eliminates the option for applicants to select a non-binary or “X” gender marker—an option that had previously been permitted on some forms. While USCIS emphasizes that this update does not change who qualifies for immigration benefits, it may significantly impact how certain applications—particularly asylum claims based on gender identity-related persecution—are understood and evaluated. What Has Changed? Under the revised policy, applicants may now only choose “Male” or “Female” when completing USCIS forms. The ability to select a non-binary or third-gender option is no longer available. Applicants may still request to change their gender marker with USCIS, but only within the male/female binary. Supporting documentation, such as medical or legal records, is not required to make the change. This means that transgender individuals can still align their gender marker with their identity—if it falls within the two binary categories—but non-binary individuals are no longer represented. The change follows guidance issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for greater consistency in the collection of sex and gender data across federal agencies. Impact on Asylum Applicants This policy update is especially important for individuals applying for asylum based on persecution related to their gender identity. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is available to people who have suffered persecution—or fear future persecution—based on their membership in a “particular social group.” This includes people targeted for being transgender, gender non-conforming, or otherwise not aligning with socially expected gender roles in their home country. Although the legal standard for asylum remains unchanged, the removal of the non-binary gender marker could make it harder for some applicants to clearly present and document their identity. In asylum cases, credibility and clarity are crucial. The ability to accurately reflect one’s gender identity on official forms can play an important role in establishing the foundation of a persecution claim. Now, applicants who identify as non-binary or outside the traditional male/female categories may be forced to select a gender that does not align with their lived experience. This could lead to confusion in their case file or require additional explanation during interviews or hearings. This policy could weaken the strength of some asylum claims—not because the underlying facts have changed, but because the official forms now fail to reflect the applicant’s true identity. For example: A non-binary person applying for asylum after being targeted in their home country may now have to select “Male” or “Female” on their asylum application, despite not identifying as either. This mismatch may lead adjudicators to question the applicant’s identity, possibly weakening the strength of the claim or requiring added clarification and documentation. In defensive asylum cases—where applicants are in removal proceedings—such inconsistencies could create unnecessary hurdles and complicate the evidentiary presentation. What Can Applicants Do? Despite the change, individuals can still pursue asylum based on gender identity. The underlying eligibility criteria remain the same. However, applicants should be prepared to clearly explain any differences between their stated identity and the gender marker required on USCIS forms. Applicants are encouraged to: Include a personal declaration explaining their gender identity in detail and how it relates to their fear of persecution. Provide evidence such as affidavits, country condition reports, or expert testimony that supports the claim. Work with an experienced immigration attorney who can help present the claim effectively and prepare for any questions that might arise from the new form limitations. The new USCIS policy on gender markers may seem like a technical update, but for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution, it has real implications. While individuals are still legally eligible to seek protection, the limitation to binary gender options could make it more difficult to fully and clearly present their case. If you or someone you know is facing immigration challenges related to gender identity—or is concerned about how this policy may impact an asylum claim—please contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced immigration attorneys. We’re here to help ensure your voice is heard and your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
