On May 30, 2013, USCIS published a new EB-5 Policy Memorandum that implemented policies from prior drafts to implement worthwhile changes. The May 30 memorandum was created to build upon prior policy guidance for adjudicating EB-5 applications and petitions.

The most important change that will occur, should these points be implemented, is that regional centers will no longer require approval for a proposed enterprise’s project geographic area, industry (NAICS code), business method (loan, equity or combination) or economic methodology before investors in the enterprise can file Forms I-526 to show EB-5 eligibility. The I-526 petitions will be required to qualify in each respect. This means existing regional centers will be able to sponsor any project that meets USCIS requirements without prior USCIS approval. By skipping the previously required approval methods, the developer, with USCIS compliant business plan and offering documents, can immediately subscribe investors who can in turn immediately file Forms I-526 to start their immigration process. This way, developers seeking EB-5 capital will be able to tap into it much more quickly than before using existing regional centers.

The second major change allows a way out for investors whose investment enterprise projects have materially changed since they immigrated as conditional residents. The change would allow EB-5 immigrants to gain I-829 approval if they show that the funds were put to job creating use to meet the ultimate requirements.

Other changes are as follows (provided by IIUSA):

Requirements explained: The memo explains the purposes of EB-5, and how the main requirements relate to those purposes, and it emphasizes numerous times that the standard is the preponderance of the evidence: is it shown to be more likely than not.

No distributions in kind to investors from NCE: if the NCE promises to distribute a particular asset such as a piece of real estate (condo, home, etc.) or personal property.

Degree of Risk: “The law does not specify what the degree of risk must be; the entire amount of capital need only be at risk to some degree.” [This seems to support low risk investments, even investments in enterprises making loans backed by collateral or third party promises.]

Foreign escrow accounts: at I-526 investor must show that the exchange rate and transfer fees will not reduce the amount delivered to the project below the minimum, and at I-829 that the minimum was in fact delivered.

Portfolio investments: Allowed, as long as investment is in one enterprise, and for direct EB-5 it goes from there into 100% subsidiaries (more flexible for RC-affiliation, not clear any limits on how extended the arrangements could be). Jobs can be added among the projects for allocation to EB-5 investors (by regulation, per any agreement they have). [No clarity on extent to which each project must be planned for proportionate job creation.]

TEA “principally doing business”: Most significantly related to the job creation. (No discussion of projects spanning more than one TEA).

Examples of restructuring (for meeting “new” with business established before Nov. 1990): Restaurant converted to nightclub, or crop production into livestock farm.

Standards for RC geography: Conceivably USCIS management is urging a more generous approach when it states, “The question is a fact-specific one and the law does not require any particular form of evidentiary showing, such as a county-by-county analysis.” But then it acknowledges that the area normally “is contributing significantly to the supply chain, as well as the labor pool, of the proposed projects.” That seems to support the current narrow approach.

Exemplar, actual, and hypothetical projects for I-924: Exemplar gets review of organizational and transactional documents, as well as Matter of Ho compliance; actual gets review of Matter of Ho  compliance;  hypothetical  ostensibly  gets  review  of  job  creation  ratio  (which  still  can implicate “verifiable detail” for assumptions underlying economic analysis).

Buying land: EB-5 funds can be used for this, even though economic analysis cannot base job creation predictions on such expenditure that is not inherently job-creating.

Bridge financing: Bridge loan or equity can be replaced with EB-5 funds, best if planned before bridge is received but possible if other bridge replacement fell through.

Short-term jobs: recognition of direct jobs that last for at least two years does not mention “and through the filing of the I-829″ as mentioned in the December 11, 2009 memo. [So perhaps that extra requirement, not usually mentioned in RFEs either, is defunct]

Indirect jobs outside RC area: They can be counted, but based on “reasonable methodologies.” [Economists may emphasize that setting the model to focus, for instance, on an MSA– as USCIS increasingly pushes them to do– does not foreclose assessing indirect job creation outside that area.]

How to apply Matter of Ho: A business plan need not contain all the detailed elements of Matter of Ho; instead, the totality of circumstances should be reviewed, but the more elements shown, the more likely it qualifies.

Double-counting: Different investors (i.e., through different projects counting direct or indirect effects) cannot claim credit for the same jobs.

“Reasonable time” for job showing at I-829: One year more, unless extreme circumstances such as force majeure.

RC Amendments: not required before I-526 filings for changes to industries, geography, business plans (structure), or economic methodologies. [But possible train wreck in I-526s if USCIS finds the change not appropriate.  Particularly beware geographic expansion not closely contiguous to approved area.]

Deference: Afforded to I-924 exemplar or I-526 approvals for same project. Ostensibly this means once the first I-526 in a project is approved, the rest should be OK as to project (vs. source of funds), and I-829 gets deference to what was approved in I-526 (consistent with Chang v. INS). Exceptions for material change, misrepresentation, or objective mistake of law or fact (ostensibly not just judgment calls).

Material change defined: Changed circumstances that would have a natural tendency to influence or are predictably capable of affecting the decision, citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988). [This case often is cited for a fairly broad approach to what would constitute a “material” misrepresentation giving rise to an alien’s permanent inadmissibility, and it could be a problematically expansive standard in EB-5]

Effects of material change: Pending I-526 through admission as CPR: file new I-526, with age- out of children who have turned 21 and with loss of “priority date” for visa number. Between admission as CPR and end of conditional residence (still not clear if I-829 due date or I-829 approval), show that changes meet investment and job creation requirements, possibly without deference to prior decision (maybe some deference if industries and analysis are the same).

Liquidation of enterprise before end of CPR: Liquidation and reallocation to another job-creating enterprise “may not comply” with USCIS’ “sustain the investment” requirement. [Not clear if or how it “may comply.” Ostensibly, liquidation without reinvestment, such as holding proceeds in the investment enterprise or distributing to EB-5 investors, fails to comply.]

Industry limitations on RCs eliminated: While NAICS codes are useful for assessing economic analysis  and  “verifiable  detail,”  RCs  are  not  limited  to  NAICS  codes  for  job  creation  in previously approved projects.

2013年5月30日，美国移民局出台了最新EB-5政策备忘录，从之前草案到政策执行都做了相应调整。5月30日的这个备忘录是针对以前的政策做的相应调整，涉及EB-5申请及递件等。

如果这些调整被执行的话，最明显的变化是放宽了对区域中心的要求。区域中心在投资人递交I-526申请前区域中心不再需要项目区域范围、行业(NAICS代码)、经营方式（贷款、股权或组合）或经济分析方法申请。 I-526申请要求在每个方面均符合要求。也就是说，已有的区域中心可以参与符合移民局的要求的任何项目，而不需要预批。跳过之前需要的预批，符合移民局要求的开发商、商业计划书、发售文件可以吸募投资人，而投资人也可马上准备I-526备件开始移民申请流程。这样的话，较之以前，项目开发商可以更快募集和使用EB-5资金。

第二个重大变化是对于已经获得条件性绿卡的投资人，对于其所投资的项目如有做了材料变更（materially change），在这种情况下允许以一种方式退出。这个调整意味着只要证明资金用于创造就业并符合最终要求，就允许EB-5投资人获得I-829条件解除获得永久绿卡。

其他变化和调整如下（投资美国协会IIUSA提供）：

重新阐述投资移民要求：备忘录解释了EB-5投资移民法案的目的、操作主要要求与其法案目的是怎样相关联的、反复强调了其标准的证据优势：证明了总比不证明好。

投资人的新企业(NCE)不准实物分派给投资人：如投资人新企业(NCE)承诺将部分资产如房产（公寓、房子）或个人财产作为偿还。

风险程度：” 法律没有明细具体是哪种程度的风险；所需的全部资金仅是在某些程度上处于风险状态。”（这个似乎是支持低风险投资，甚至借贷方式投资也有抵押品或第三方承诺支持）

外汇托管账户：I-526阶段的投资人必须显示汇率，且转账金额必须达到项目投资的最低要求，手续费另付。I-829阶段相应支付。

组合投资：可以，只要投资在一新企业，直接EB-5投资100%进入子公司（对隶属区域中心更灵活、具体怎么扩展安排无清晰限定）。几个项目之间可以增加就业，分配给EB-5投资人（根据双方的缔约的任何协议按规定处理）。

目标就业区TEA“主要相关的”：与就业创造最显著相关的。（跨多个目标就业区的多个项目未予讨论）

企业重组示例（在1990年11月前建立“新”的企业）：餐厅改成夜店，或农作物生产企业改成畜牧场的。

区域中心的地理范围标准：移民局正要求更宽泛的对区域中心的界定“这个问题本应是根据具体情况可以落实的， 但法律部不要求任何形式的证明（如各县的分析）”但随后又承认范围基本是“指所推项目所在地对生产供应、劳动力等有明显贡献的区域”。从这点看似乎是支持目前狭隘的计算方法。

I-924定义假设、实际项目和示例项目：示例项目需要合规事务文档；如果项目符合“Matter of Ho ”商业计划的要求，就是实际的项目。反之，则是“假设“；此外，实际项目、假设项目是否合符EB-5条件需要更多细节。假设表面审核就业创造的比率（实际仍需要“可验证细节”对经济分析做假设）

购买土地：EB-5投资资金可以用于购买土地，但是不能输入这些用于购买土地资金到创造就业机会的经济模式中来计算创造就业机会的预期数字，因为购买土地本质上不能创造就业。

过桥融资：过桥贷款或股权可以替代EB-5资金，在过桥融资前收到最好，但根据实际情况，其他形式过渡融资也可；

短期就业：根据2009年12月11日备忘录，所认可为期至少两年的直接就业并不涉及“含I-829递案阶段”。（所以或许额外要求，或RFE里通常提到的已不起作用）

区域中心辖区外的间接就业：可以算在内，但必须基于“合理的方法”（经济学家可能强调关注计算模型，如都会统计区域（MSA）–移民局强烈推荐的–就不阻止区域外的间接就业机会创造）；

如何申请“Matter of Ho”：商业计划书不需要Matter of Ho的所有细节内容；但整体情况应予以查看，提供相关细节信息越多，则越有可能符合要求。

双计数：不同的投资人（如通过不同的项目计算的直接或间接影响）不可以就同一个就业反复统计，只能计算一次。

I-829就业机会的“合理时间”：一年多，除不可抗力的极端情况

区域中心调整：在I-526申请前不需要就行业改变、区域改变、经营方式改变、经济分析方法的变更的事先批准。（但移民局如发现这样不合适的话有可能失败。尤其注意区域扩张是否属于合理范围扩展）

顺批：对同一项目的I-924样本材料和I-526的申请适用。这个意味着一旦项目投资人的I-526获批，则不再重新审查项目材料，其余部分也应该没问题（如资金来源）；对于I-829,移民局如果发现其经营计划和I-526批准的经营计划无二，也将“顺批”。但如果出现材料变更（material change）、失实陈述、法律或事实缺失错误除外。

材料变更定义：可能影响或可预见影响决定的情况，引用Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988)（这点经常引用，对于什么情况或构成重大失实陈述而致使外籍投资人永久不受理，这可能是有问题的扩展标准）

材料变更影响：条件性绿卡批准I-526等待：重新递交I-526申请，年龄已满21岁的小孩失去了获得绿卡的机会，得单独申请。在条件性绿卡居住期间（I-829到期日或I-829获批仍不清楚），如有投资变更或就业创造要求变更则由可能不顺批（如行业和分析仍类似的话，则有可能顺批）

条件性绿卡到期前的企业清算：清算和就业机会再创造的企业“可能不符合”移民局的“持续投资”要求。（不清楚是否或如何“符合”）从表面看，清算但不再重新投资，如投资企业的所得款项或分配给EB-5投资人则有可能不符合要求。）

区域中心淘汰的行业限制：北美产业分类体系NAICS代码对评估经济分析和“可验证细节”起有用参考；区域中心在以前批准的项目中对NAICS代码的就业机会创造不受限。