Compliance: A cup of “TEA” can save you $500,000
The purpose of TEAs is to encourage foreign investment in areas that are in greatest economic need, but investing in an economically depressed location may entail a heightened level of risk
December 18, 2013 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The EB-5 Program is very appealing to many prospective immigrants, especially those who do not qualify for any other visa. The $1,000,000 minimum investment, however, makes an EB-5 visa prohibitively expensive for most foreign nationals. Fortunately, there is an alternative that may make this program more affordable. By investing in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA), the minimum EB-5 investment amount can be lowered to $500,000. This is a huge savings, and it can open up the EB-5 Program to many more potential investors. But in order to take advantage of this reduced investment option, petitioners and project administrators need to understand what a TEA is and, more importantly, how a TEA designation is to be obtained.
A TEA is simply an area that is, at the time of the investment, either a rural area or an area that is experiencing an unemployment rate that is 150 percent of the national average. Petitioners typically request that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services designate an area as a TEA at the time they file their I-526 (EB-5) Petition. The documentation that should be included with the request includes: (1) evidence that the area is rural; (2) unemployment data for the relevant MSA or (3) a letter from the state government designating a geographic or political subdivision located outside a rural area but within its own boundaries as a high unemployment area.
A state government may also designate an area as a TEA based on high-unemployment (note: there are no provisions for a state to designate an area as a TEA based on it being rural). State designation requires that an authorized body within the state government issue an official letter to the USCIS certifying that the area qualifies as a TEA. And while the USCIS defers to state designations, it still considers each TEA request individually in order in order to ensure the state's methodology complies with the statutory requirements.
Some states, such as California, New York and Florida, maintain a list of pre-qualified TEAs. California, for example, has posted a list of High Unemployment Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and a list of qualifying individual census tracts within its borders. But California does not consider individual TEA requests, so if a location is not listed as a qualified TEA, it will not receive certification from the state. Investors can, however, still seek TEA designation from the USCIS on their own by providing documentation from sources that are acceptable for calculating unemployment, such as U.S. Census Bureau data (including data from the American Community Survey) and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (including data from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics).
As mentioned above, TEA designations are generally adjudicated at the time the investor submits their I-526 (EB-5) petition. A change in population or unemployment that causes an area to lose its TEA designation after the submission of the I-526 will not adversely affect the petition (i.e. require an additional $500,000 investment). However, if a Regional Center receives a TEA designation but then loses it prior to the filing of the petitioner's I-526, the reduced investment provision will not apply and the petitioner will need to make the full $1 million investment. Petitioners would be wise, therefore, to request that the Regional Center provide its most current TEA designation letter.
Clearly, the purpose of TEAs is to encourage foreign investment in areas that are in greatest economic need. Investors must consider, however, that investing in an economically depressed location may entail a heightened level of risk. EB-5 petitioners should therefore conduct a thorough cost/risk/benefit analysis, and seek guidance from objective counsel, before deciding on whether or not to “have a cup of TEA” with their EB-5 investment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250