EB5 Investors Magazine (English Edition) Volume 5, Issue 1 - Page 28

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
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- RfƖw26FVW0Fw&rB2U442FV6fW2G2FWVFV@fW7FvFfR&6VGW&W2FRVVBFV7W&RF@&W&W6VFF2fƖw2&R67W&FRB&V6&R0'F7V&ǒ7WFR'WFV6FR&ƗGFFWVFVǒ&W7BFU44>( 66W&2vV7&VF&ƗG26VBFVW7F6V@&RFRFffW&V6R&WGvVVw&VV6&BBv7FPbCS&V6W6RvR77VRFBT"RWFFW'0BFV"&W&W6VFFfW2&Rv&RbFRVVBF&W6VBG'VRB67W&FRf&FvRf7W2&Vp6&7V7F6W2vW&RFw2fF&VvFR7&62खF2&Vv&BvRFǒW֖R&Vb֖w&F&7F6RvW&R7&VF&ƗGFWFW&֖F2&RVFP6BfRVFVB6V&R&Gb&VWf@66Rr( 2Vǒ֖w&F&6VVFw2ffpƖ6F2f"7VB&VFVB&VƖVbvfW&VB'FR&VB7BG&vrW762g&&VWfBfVFW&66RrvRFVF67W726WfW&7G&FVvW2FB6V@&RVgV&VVFrB"&W7FrF7&VF&ƗGЦ&6VB66W&2T"RFVF6F25$TD$ĕEDUDU$ԔD05T$4TTDu07V2F67&WF'f&b&VƖVbFBvW0W'6V7WFFRƖ6N( 26VG'b&v66VBb&FV7FVBw&VB7&VF&ƗG2&wV&ǐFR7B'FBf6WBb7V6B0gFVFR6vRw&VFW7B7V'7FFfR'7F6Rf6p7VƖ6G2#R6w&W72V7FVBFR&VB7Bv6VFVBFR֖w&FBFƗG7B6w&W726vVBFRW"'v67&VF&ƗGFWFW&֖F2&R&VFW&VB֖w&F&6VVFw0ffrƖ6F2f"7VB&VFVB&VƖVbख'F7V"FR&VB7B6FfVBf"FRf'7BFPFRGW2b66FW&F2FB֖w&FVFvP( Ĕ( ҒFRF66VB76W76r7VЦƖ6N( 27&VF&ƗGFW6R6VFRƖ6N( 26F"FVV" &W76fVW736b6'&&&FBw&GFV@FW7F֗762W6&ƗFW2667FV6W267W&6W2Bf6VG2vFWB&Vv&BF#pT#RdU5D%2tP