Speaking on the issues of retrogression (the technical term for 12-year waiting lists for Chinese nationals) and the redeployment of capital invested in EB-5 projects, Ronald Klasko, head of Klasko Immigration Law, spoke to Investment Migration Insider about how many immigration law firms’ interpretations of the “sustained at risk” clause, as well as the 10,000 applicant quota, differs from that of the USCIS and the State Department.
Klasko said that, in his opinion, the investment needed to be sustained and at risk only until the investor receives the conditional green card, after which, while it still needed to be sustained, should not have to be “at risk”.
With regards to the applicant quota, Klasko’s view aligns closely with that of IIUSA president Robert Kraft.
“I believe that the law has always said that it’s 10,000 investors and not 10,000 [investors with] family members.”
Klasko says he has been approached by and been in discussions with many Chinese firms about matter, and that he hopes to begin litigation early next year.
“There’s a lot of interest among Chinese investors and agents and others in funding litigation to try to get a federal court to make that ruling. If that happened, it would change everything because, all of a sudden, the numbers available would more than triple.”