with consulates abroad , conducts more complex on-site investigations and audits to verify assertions made in EB-5 filings . And because the Federal Rules of Evidence are mostly inapplicable in the immigration context , regional centers and investors would be hard-pressed to challenge USCIS ’ sua sponte introduction and reliance on extra-record evidence .
As the size and complexity of EB-5 filings continues to grow , and as USCIS intensifies its independent investigative procedures , the need to ensure that representations in filings are accurate and reasonable is particularly acute .
By extension , the ability to adequately respond to USCIS ’ concerns when credibility is called into question could be the difference between a Green Card and a waste of $ 500,000 . Because we assume that EB-5 petitioners and their representatives are aware of the need to present true and accurate information , we focus below on circumstances where things fall through the cracks .
In this regard , we initially examine an area of immigration practice where credibility determinations are quite common and have yielded a sizeable body of relevant case law – namely , immigration proceedings involving applications for asylum and related relief governed by the Real ID Act . Drawing lessons from relevant federal case law , we then discuss several strategies that could be helpful in preempting and / or responding to credibilitybased concerns in EB-5 adjudications .
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN ASYLUM PROCEEDINGS
Asylum is a discretionary form of relief that hinges on persecution in the applicant ’ s country of origin on account of a protected ground . Credibility is arguably the most important facet of an asylum claim , and is often the single greatest substantive obstacle facing asylum applicants . In 2005 , Congress enacted the Real ID Act , which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ).
Congress changed the manner by which credibility determinations are rendered in immigration proceedings involving applications for asylum and related relief . In particular , the Real ID Act codified for the first time the types of considerations that an immigration judge (“ IJ ”) may take into account in assessing an asylum applicant ’ s credibility .
These include an applicant ’ s candor , demeanor or responsiveness ; a lack of corroboration ; and written and testimonial omissions , implausibilities , inconsistencies , inaccuracies and falsehoods without regard to
27 EB5 INVESTORS MAGAZINE