For immigrants, there is one investor visa category, the EB-5 visa, which is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The category provides individual foreign national investors and their derivatives lawful permanent residence (LPR) in the United States when they invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise that creates at least 10 jobs. In general, individuals receiving EB-5 visas are granted a conditional residence status. After approximately two years they must apply to remove the conditionality from their residency status. If they have met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings. Some Members of Congress contended during discussions around the creation of the visa that potential immigrants would be "buying their way in" to the United States. In 1992, Congress created the Regional Center Program, an additional pathway for foreign national investors to obtain an EB-5 visa. Unlike the EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is temporary and is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2016. For each fiscal year, approximately 7.1% (roughly 10,000) of the total employment-based visas (140,000) are available for EB-5 investors and their derivatives, of which 3,000 are reserved for entrepreneurs investing in "targeted employment areas" (TEA), and 3,000 are reserved for those participating in the Regional Center Program. Questions include whether the Regional Center Program should be extended or made permanent, and if so should it be modified, or should it be allowed to expire. Some have also raised concerns about fraud in the program, including possible national security concerns. Other issues that have been raised include the capacity of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS, part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)) to handle the complexity of regional center designations and EB-5 petition adjudications, the need for more data collection, the measurement of the visa's economic impacts, and state determinations of targeted employment areas. Currently, there are two different pathways for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status through the EB-5 visa category, the standard visa and the Regional Center Program. 1. Since its creation, the program has been reauthorized several times and is set to expire on September 30, 2016. Regional centers are defined as "any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment." More simply, the term "regional center" refers to an entity (often a limited partnership or a limited liability corporation) where investment from multiple foreign nationals can be pooled to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. Certain state (e.g., Hawaii) and local governments have also established their own regional centers. In FY2006, investments in regional centers in a TEA were responsible for approximately 12% of the visas used; by FY2014 they represented 97% of the visas used. Individuals who are admitted to the United States on the basis of EB-5 visas are granted a conditional resident status. USCIS will issue a notice-to-appear (NTA) to foreign nationals who do not apply to have the conditional status removed or who are denied adjustment to full LPR status. China ranks at the top of investor visa recipient countries, with its citizens accounting for approximately 84% (8,156) of all EB-5 visas granted in FY2015. The EB-5 visa category was created as a way to increase investment and job creation in the U.S. economy. USCIS has also reported its estimates of the visa's creation of investment and jobs. Application and Petition Processing

An on-going issue within the EB-5 program is the processing times for EB-5 applications (both for the regional center designation and the petitions for foreign national investors), and the impact of these potential delays on the investors and project developers. EB-5 stakeholders have also stated that USCIS needs to adjudicate EB-5 and regional center applications in a more predictable manner, noting that the EB-5 program faces competition from other countries with more predictable and speedy immigrant investor program. USCIS Expertise

In drawing attention to some of the issues with the EB-5 visa, some have called into question whether USCIS is the right agency to manage the visa classification or whether USCIS should be required to consult or partner with other agencies regarding its EB-5 responsibilities. Some lawmakers were aware while creating the EB-5 program that the INS did not have all the expertise needed to implement the visa category and recommended the agency work with other agencies that have the necessary skills. In 2013, a DHS OIG report stated that "USCIS is unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy." Fraud and Security Risks

In comparison to other immigration visas, GAO found that EB-5 faces the risk of fraud in three unique respects that stem from its investment components. Second, the potential for large financial gains through the EB-5 visa may motivate regional center operators and intermediaries to take advantage of foreign investors. Lastly, the EB-5 visa classification is susceptible to the appearance of favoritism and special access. Addressing these could assist in its assessment and detection of fraud. For instance, USCIS' deference to states' determinations of the boundaries for high unemployment TEAs has allowed for variation across states in how they designate such an area. Some believe that this practice can accommodate commuting patterns and provide states with the choice as to what area fits their economic needs. The pending expiration of the program renewed attention on it and legislation has been introduced in the 114 th Congress related to the EB-5 visa category. In addition, H.R. 3370 would create an EB-5 fund to administer and operate the program.
The immigrant investor visa was created in 1990 to benefit the U.S. economy through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. The visa is also referred to as the EB-5 visa because it is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence (i.e., LPR status) to foreign nationals who invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States and create at least 10 jobs. The foreign nationals must invest $1,000,000, or $500,000 if they invest in a rural area or an area with high unemployment (referred to as targeted employment areas or TEAs).
There are approximately 10,000 visas available annually for foreign national investors and their family members (7.1% of the worldwide employment-based visas are allotted to immigrant investors and their derivatives). In FY2015, there were 9,764 EB-5 visas used, with 93% going to investors from Asia. More specifically, 84% were granted to investors from China and 3% were granted to those from Vietnam.
In general, an individual receiving an EB-5 visa is granted conditional residence status. After approximately two years the foreign national must apply to remove the conditionality (i.e., convert to full-LPR status). If the foreign national has met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings.
In 1992, Congress established the Regional Center (Pilot) Program, which created an additional pathway to LPR status through the EB-5 visa category. Regional centers are "any economic unit, public or private, which [are] involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment." The program allows foreign national investors to pool their investment in a regional center to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. The investment requirement for regional center investors is the same as for standard EB-5 investors. As the use of EB-5 visas has grown, so has the use of the Regional Center Program. In FY2014, 97% of all EB-5 visas were issued based on investments in regional centers. Unlike the standard EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is set to expire on September 30, 2016.
Different policy issues surrounding the EB-5 visa have been debated. Proponents of the EB-5 visa contend that providing visas to foreign investors benefits the U.S. economy, in light of the potential economic growth and job creation it can create. Others argue that the EB-5 visa allows wealthy individuals to buy their way into the United States.
In addition, some EB-5 stakeholders have voiced concerns over the delays in processing EB-5 applications and possible effects on investors and time sensitive projects. Furthermore, some have questioned whether U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the expertise to administer the EB-5 program, given its embedded business components. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) has recommended that USCIS work with other federal agencies that do have such expertise, while USCIS has reported that it has taken steps internally to address this issue. USCIS has also struggled to measure the efficacy of the EB-5 category (e.g., its economic impact). USCIS methodology for reporting investments and jobs created has been called into question by both the DHS OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Furthermore, some have highlighted possible fraud and threats to national security that the visa category presents. In comparison to other immigrant visas, the EB-5 visa faces additional risks of fraud that stem from its investment components. Such risks are associated with the difficulty in verifying that investors' funds are obtained lawfully and the visa's potential for large monetary gains, which could motivate individuals to take advantage of investors and can make the visa susceptible to the appearance of favoritism. USCIS has reported improvements in its fraud detection but also feels certain statutory limitations have restricted what it can do. Additionally, GAO believes that improved data collection by USCIS could assist in detecting fraud and keeping visa holders and regional centers accountable.
Lastly, the authority of states to designate TEAs has raised concerns. Some have pointed to the inconsistency in TEA designation practices across states and how it could allow for possible gerrymandering (i.e., all development occurs in an area that by itself would not be considered a TEA). Others contend that the current regulations allow states to determine what area fits their economic needs and allow for the accommodation of commuting patterns.
In addition to the issues discussed above, Congress may consider whether the Regional Center Program should be allowed to expire, be reauthorized, or made permanent, given its expiration on September 30, 2016. In addition, Congress may consider whether any modifications should be made to the EB-5 visa category or the Regional Center Program. Legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress that would, among other provisions, amend the program to try to address concerns about fraud, and change the manner in which TEAs are determined. Other bills would create an EB-5-like visa category for foreign national entrepreneurs who do not have their own capital but have received capital from qualified sources, such as venture capitalists.