¿Centro regional o inversión directa para su solicitud EB-5?
Kyle Huffman • August 15, 2024
Click here to read this article in English
A medida que los efectos de la Ley de Reforma e Integridad del EB-5 de 2022 continúan desarrollándose, esta categoría de visado de inmigrante ha experimentado un aumento vertiginoso de popularidad en los últimos meses. Antes de 2022, muchas personas de alto poder adquisitivo evitaban por completo la categoría EB-5, debido a la incertidumbre generalizada en torno al programa. No es ningún secreto que la categoría EB-5 es cara, y ¿quién podría culpar a un inversor por dudar a la hora de invertir una suma tan importante de capital en un vehículo de inversión con una supervisión o transparencia limitadas? Con la gran mayoría de las preocupaciones en torno al programa que se han aliviado a través de las disposiciones de la Reforma EB-5 y la Ley de Integridad de 2022, lo que permite una mayor supervisión reglamentaria, el aumento de los umbrales de inversión, la transparencia, e incluso la eliminación de capas de trámites burocráticos, los inversores están una vez más deseosos de participar en este programa altamente beneficioso.
Si está considerando realizar una inversión financiera significativa en los Estados Unidos, el programa EB-5 es una excelente oportunidad no sólo para realizar la inversión, sino para asegurar la residencia permanente, y eventualmente la ciudadanía, en los Estados Unidos por esas contribuciones. La idea que subyace al programa EB-5 es generar un estímulo económico para Estados Unidos, lo que incluye la creación de un número significativo de oportunidades de empleo para trabajadores estadounidenses. Los umbrales de inversión para los importes mínimos de inversión admisibles se diseñaron sobre la base de que la inversión de capital alcanzara un nivel suficiente de estímulo económico. Sin embargo, con un amplio margen entre los dos umbrales de inversión admisibles, y una amplia gama de posibles proyectos en los que invertir, muchos inversores se preguntan cuál es la vía EB-5 más adecuada para ellos.
En sentido amplio, hay dos tipos de inversión EB-5: Inversión directa, o Inversión a través de un centro regional aprobado por el USCIS. El mejor camino para cada caso potencial depende de las prioridades de cada individuo que solicita.
Para la inversión directa, la petición se presenta con el formulario I-526, Petición de Inmigrante como Inversor Independiente. Un inversor que presenta una Petición de Inversión Directa EB-5 tiene la oportunidad de invertir en una empresa responsable de la creación de al menos 10 puestos de trabajo a tiempo completo. Siempre que la organización pueda verificar la creación real y la existencia de estos puestos de trabajo, estas peticiones tienen una excelente oportunidad de ser aprobadas. Estas peticiones pueden ser especialmente beneficiosas para un inversor que crea firmemente en el éxito de una nueva empresa o concepto y desee que la mayor parte de su inversión se centre directamente en la empresa creadora de empleo.
Para una inversión en un centro regional, la petición se presenta con el formulario I-526E, Petición de inmigrante como inversor en un centro regional. Estos centros regionales se crean con el propósito expreso de facilitar la inversión EB-5. Cada centro regional debe solicitarlo debidamente al USCIS, y recibir su aprobación, antes de que pueda ser incluido por el USCIS en la lista de Centros Regionales Aprobados para Inversores Inmigrantes EB-5. Uno de los principales beneficios de invertir a través de un centro regional es la facilitación del proceso de solicitud, ya que los centros regionales proporcionarán una parte sustancial de la documentación requerida. Sin embargo, esto también suele dar lugar a un menor nivel de control sobre los fondos de inversión, en comparación con una inversión directa.
FPara ambos tipos de EB-5, el umbral de inversión viene determinado por factores geográficos y económicos dentro de Estados Unidos. Dado que el programa está diseñado para estimular la economía estadounidense, existe una amplia preferencia por invertir en lo que se conoce como "Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs)". Se trata de zonas rurales u otras zonas con una elevada tasa de desempleo, definida como una tasa de desempleo al menos un 50% superior a la media nacional de Estados Unidos. El importe mínimo de inversión admisible para una zona de empleo específica es de sólo 900.000 dólares, frente a un umbral mínimo de 1,8 millones de dólares para una inversión fuera de una zona de empleo específica. Sin embargo, para los inversores que confían en un proyecto de inversión concreto y están motivados principalmente por los beneficios potenciales, puede merecer la pena invertir directamente en la organización con mayor potencial, independientemente de la ubicación geográfica dentro de EE.UU. en la que se vaya a centrar la inversión.
En última instancia, la decisión sobre cuál es la mejor vía EB-5 es una determinación que debe tomar cada inversor individual y cambia en función de cada caso. Sin embargo, con una suma tan grande normalmente en juego, cada inversor quiere tener la confianza de que están eligiendo el mejor camino para sí mismos para lograr sus objetivos individuales. Si usted está considerando la posibilidad de realizar una inversión EB-5, y le gustaría discutir las preguntas o inquietudes que pueda tener acerca de qué camino EB-5 es el adecuado para usted, le animo a programar una consulta con uno de nuestros abogados expertos.
Este blog no pretende ser asesoramiento jurídico y nada de lo aquí expuesto debe interpretarse como el establecimiento de una relación abogado-cliente. Por favor, programe una consulta con un abogado de inmigración antes de actuar sobre cualquier información leída aquí.
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.
