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- Rf�Ɩ�w26��F��VW0�F�w&�r��B2U44�2��FV�6�f�W2�G2��FWV�FV�@���fW7F�vF�fR&�6VGW&W2�F�R�VVBF�V�7W&RF�@�&W&W6V�FF���2��f�Ɩ�w2&R67W&FR�B&V6��&�R�0�'F�7V�&ǒ7WFR�'�W�FV�6����F�R&�ƗG�F�FWVFVǒ&W7��BF�U44�>( ��6��6W&�2v�V�7&VF�&�ƗG��26��VB��F�VW7F���6�V�@�&RF�RF�ffW&V�6R&WGvVV�w&VV�6&B�Bv7FP��bCS��&V6W6RvR77V�RF�BT"�RWF�F���W'0��BF�V�"&W&W6V�FF�fW2&Rv&R�bF�R�VVBF�&W6V�BG'VR�B67W&FR��f�&�F����vRf�7W2&V��p���6�&7V�7F�6W2v�W&RF���w2f��F�&�Vv�F�R7&6�2ख�F��2&Vv&B�vR��F��ǒW�֖�R�&V�b��֖w&F���&7F�6Rv�W&R7&VF�&�ƗG�FWFW&֖�F���2&RV�FP�6������B�fR��V�FVB6��V&�R&�G��b&V�Wf�@�66R�r( 2��Vǒ���֖w&F���&�6VVF��w2��f��f��p�Ɩ6F���2f�"7��V��B&V�FVB&VƖVbv�fW&�VB'��F�R&V��B7B�G&v��r�W76��2g&��&V�Wf�BfVFW&��66R�r�vRF�V�F�67W726WfW&�7G&FVv�W2F�B6�V�@�&R�V�gV���&VV�F��r�B��"&W7��F��rF�7&VF�&�ƗG�Ц&6VB6��6W&�2��T"�RF�VF�6F���2�5$TD�$�ĕE�DUDU$Ԕ�D���0���5��T�$�4TTD��u0�7��V��2F�67&WF���'�f�&��b&VƖVbF�B���vW0���W'6V7WF�����F�RƖ6�N( �26�V�G'��b�&�v����66�V�B�b&�FV7FVBw&�V�B�7&VF�&�ƗG��2&wV&ǐ�F�R��7B���'F�Bf6WB�b�7��V�6�����B�0��gFV�F�R6��v�Rw&VFW7B7V'7F�F�fR�'7F6�Rf6��p�7��V�Ɩ6�G2���#R�6��w&W72V�7FVBF�R&V���B7B�v��6��V�FVBF�R��֖w&F����B�F���ƗG��7B�����6��w&W726��vVBF�R���W"'�v��6�7&VF�&�ƗG��FWFW&֖�F���2&R&V�FW&VB����֖w&F���&�6VVF��w0���f��f��rƖ6F���2f�"7��V��B&V�FVB&VƖVbख�'F�7V�"�F�R&V��B7B6�F�f�VBf�"F�Rf�'7BF��P�F�RG�W2�b6��6�FW&F���2F�B���֖w&F����VFvP��( Ĕ�( Ғ��F�R��F�66�V�B��76W76��r�7��VЦƖ6�N( �27&VF�&�ƗG��F�W6R��6�VFR�Ɩ6�N( �26�F�"�FV�V��"� �&W7��6�fV�W73��6��b6�'&�&�&F����Bw&�GFV��@�FW7F������֗76���2����W6�&�ƗF�W2���6��6�7FV�6�W2����67W&6�W2�Bf�6V���G2v�F��WB&Vv&BF�#p�T#R��dU5D�%2�t���P