Centro Regional ou Investimento Direto para sua Petição EB-5?
Santos Lloyd Law Team • January 9, 2025
Click here to read this article in English
À medida que os efeitos do EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act de 2022 continuam a se desenvolver, essa categoria de visto de imigração tem visto uma popularidade crescente nos últimos meses. Antes de 2022, muitos indivíduos de alto patrimônio líquido evitavam totalmente a categoria EB-5, devido à incerteza generalizada em torno do programa. Não é segredo que a categoria EB-5 é cara, e quem poderia culpar um investidor por hesitar em destinar uma quantia tão significativa de capital em um meio de investimento com supervisão ou transparência limitadas? Com a grande maioria das preocupações sobre o programa tendo sido atenuada pelas disposições do EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act de 2022, que permitiram maior supervisão regulatória, aumentaram os limites de investimento, promoveram maior transparência e até removeram camadas de burocracia, os investidores estão mais uma vez ansiosos para participar deste programa altamente benéfico.
Se você está considerando um investimento financeiro significativo nos Estados Unidos, o programa EB-5 é uma excelente oportunidade não apenas para fazer o investimento, mas também para garantir a residência permanente e, eventualmente, a cidadania dos EUA em troca dessas contribuições. A ideia por trás do programa EB-5 é gerar estímulo econômico para os Estados Unidos, incluindo a criação de um número significativo de oportunidades de emprego para trabalhadores americanos. Os limites de investimento para os valores mínimos de investimento qualificáveis foram projetados com base no estímulo econômico suficiente gerado pelo capital investido. No entanto, com uma grande diferença entre os dois limites de investimento qualificáveis e uma ampla variedade de projetos potenciais para investir, muitos investidores ficam se perguntando qual caminho EB-5 é o mais adequado para eles.
De forma ampla, existem dois tipos de investimento EB-5: Investimento Direto ou Investimento por meio de um centro regional aprovado pelo USCIS. O melhor caminho para cada caso potencial depende das prioridades de cada indivíduo que está aplicando.
Para o investimento direto, a petição é apresentada com o formulário I-526, Petição de Imigrante por Investidor Individual. Um investidor que apresenta uma Petição de Investimento Direto EB-5 tem a oportunidade de investir em uma empresa responsável pela criação de pelo menos 10 empregos em tempo integral. Contanto que a organização possa verificar a criação real e a existência desses empregos, essas petições têm uma excelente chance de serem aprovadas. Essas petições podem ser particularmente benéficas para um investidor que acredita fortemente no sucesso de uma nova empresa ou conceito e deseja que a maior parte de seu investimento seja focada diretamente na empresa geradora de empregos.
Para um investimento em centro regional, a petição é apresentada com o formulário I-526E, Petição de Imigrante por Investidor de Centro Regional. Esses centros regionais são criados com o objetivo de facilitar o investimento EB-5. Cada centro regional deve se inscrever corretamente no USCIS e obter aprovação antes de serem listados pelo USCIS na lista de Centros Regionais de Investidores Imigrantes EB-5 Aprovados. Um dos principais benefícios de investir por meio de um centro regional é a facilitação do processo de aplicação, já que os centros regionais fornecerão uma parte substancial da documentação exigida. No entanto, isso também resulta em um nível mais baixo de controle sobre os fundos de investimento, em comparação com um investimento direto.
Para ambos os tipos de EB-5, o limite de investimento é determinado por fatores geográficos e econômicos dentro dos Estados Unidos. Como o programa foi projetado para estimular a economia dos EUA, há uma preferência geral por investimentos em áreas conhecidas como “Áreas de Emprego Alvo (TEAs)”. Essas são áreas rurais ou outras áreas designadas como tendo uma alta taxa de desemprego, definida como uma taxa de desemprego pelo menos 50% maior do que a média nacional dos EUA. O valor mínimo de investimento qualificado para uma Área de Emprego Alvo é de apenas US$ 900.000, em comparação com um limite mínimo de US$ 1,8 milhão para um investimento fora de uma TEA. Para aqueles investidores que são motivados principalmente pela obtenção de um green card, não há muito benefício em investir o dobro do capital em uma área fora de TEA. No entanto, para os investidores que estão confiantes em um determinado projeto de investimento e são motivados principalmente por retornos potenciais, pode valer a pena investir diretamente na organização com maior potencial, independentemente da localização geográfica nos EUA onde o investimento será focado.
Em última análise, a decisão sobre qual caminho EB-5 é melhor deve ser tomada por cada investidor individual e muda de caso para caso. No entanto, com uma quantia tão grande normalmente em jogo, todo investidor deseja ter confiança de que está escolhendo o melhor caminho para alcançar seus objetivos individuais. Se você está considerando seguir um investimento EB-5 e gostaria de discutir questões ou preocupações que possa ter sobre qual caminho EB-5 é o certo para você, encorajamos que agende uma consulta com um de nossos advogados experientes.
Este blog não se destina a fornecer aconselhamento jurídico e nada aqui deve ser interpretado como estabelecimento de um relacionamento advogado-cliente. Por favor, agende uma consulta com um advogado de imigração antes de agir com base em qualquer informação lida aqui.
In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its vetting procedures for individuals seeking entry into the United States, whether through visa applications abroad or inspection at ports of entry. This shift, prioritized by the current administration, is having a noticeable impact on immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful permanent residents (LPRs). At U.S. consulates worldwide, applicants are experiencing increased delays , often being placed into administrative processing under Section 221(g) or referred for Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) , which can significantly prolong visa issuance. Officers are now engaging in deeper reviews of applicants' backgrounds, including their t ravel histories, social media accounts, and foreign ties . This scrutiny applies to a wide range of visa categories, from visitor visas to employment-based petitions. Importantly, officers are exercising broader discretion when deciding who qualifies for a visa, making the process more unpredictable, even for applicants with strong cases. This enhanced vetting does not end at the consulate. Individuals entering the U.S. — even those with valid visas or green cards — are increasingly subject to prolonged secondary inspections by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Officers may ask detailed questions about prior immigration history, travel patterns, and social media activity. In some cases, travelers are asked to provide access to their electronic devices for further inspection. There are also growing reports of travelers being referred to deferred inspection or even issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for removal proceedings, despite previously lawful entries. While some of these practices have existed in the past, the current administration has formalized and expanded them. Experts warn that additional travel restrictions or targeted bans could also emerge as part of the administration’s enforcement priorities. For employment-based applicants, these delays and complications can severely impact U.S. businesses and foreign nationals who contribute critical skills to the U.S. economy. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared before attending a visa interview or traveling internationally. Understanding your rights and preparing thoroughly can help you navigate this uncertain landscape. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. , our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, supported, and protected. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
On March 31, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) implemented a policy update that limits gender marker selections on all immigration forms and systems to two biological sexes: male and female. This change eliminates the option for applicants to select a non-binary or “X” gender marker—an option that had previously been permitted on some forms. While USCIS emphasizes that this update does not change who qualifies for immigration benefits, it may significantly impact how certain applications—particularly asylum claims based on gender identity-related persecution—are understood and evaluated. What Has Changed? Under the revised policy, applicants may now only choose “Male” or “Female” when completing USCIS forms. The ability to select a non-binary or third-gender option is no longer available. Applicants may still request to change their gender marker with USCIS, but only within the male/female binary. Supporting documentation, such as medical or legal records, is not required to make the change. This means that transgender individuals can still align their gender marker with their identity—if it falls within the two binary categories—but non-binary individuals are no longer represented. The change follows guidance issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which called for greater consistency in the collection of sex and gender data across federal agencies. Impact on Asylum Applicants This policy update is especially important for individuals applying for asylum based on persecution related to their gender identity. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum is available to people who have suffered persecution—or fear future persecution—based on their membership in a “particular social group.” This includes people targeted for being transgender, gender non-conforming, or otherwise not aligning with socially expected gender roles in their home country. Although the legal standard for asylum remains unchanged, the removal of the non-binary gender marker could make it harder for some applicants to clearly present and document their identity. In asylum cases, credibility and clarity are crucial. The ability to accurately reflect one’s gender identity on official forms can play an important role in establishing the foundation of a persecution claim. Now, applicants who identify as non-binary or outside the traditional male/female categories may be forced to select a gender that does not align with their lived experience. This could lead to confusion in their case file or require additional explanation during interviews or hearings. This policy could weaken the strength of some asylum claims—not because the underlying facts have changed, but because the official forms now fail to reflect the applicant’s true identity. For example: A non-binary person applying for asylum after being targeted in their home country may now have to select “Male” or “Female” on their asylum application, despite not identifying as either. This mismatch may lead adjudicators to question the applicant’s identity, possibly weakening the strength of the claim or requiring added clarification and documentation. In defensive asylum cases—where applicants are in removal proceedings—such inconsistencies could create unnecessary hurdles and complicate the evidentiary presentation. What Can Applicants Do? Despite the change, individuals can still pursue asylum based on gender identity. The underlying eligibility criteria remain the same. However, applicants should be prepared to clearly explain any differences between their stated identity and the gender marker required on USCIS forms. Applicants are encouraged to: Include a personal declaration explaining their gender identity in detail and how it relates to their fear of persecution. Provide evidence such as affidavits, country condition reports, or expert testimony that supports the claim. Work with an experienced immigration attorney who can help present the claim effectively and prepare for any questions that might arise from the new form limitations. The new USCIS policy on gender markers may seem like a technical update, but for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution, it has real implications. While individuals are still legally eligible to seek protection, the limitation to binary gender options could make it more difficult to fully and clearly present their case. If you or someone you know is facing immigration challenges related to gender identity—or is concerned about how this policy may impact an asylum claim—please contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced immigration attorneys. We’re here to help ensure your voice is heard and your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
In 2025, the immigration landscape continues to shift under the weight of national security concerns, ushered in by Executive Order “ Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. ” This directive tasks federal agencies—including the U.S. Department of State—with implementing enhanced screening and vetting protocols for all foreign nationals seeking visas or other immigration benefits. The result? A dramatically intensified vetting process, along with mounting concerns from immigrants, attorneys, and civil liberties advocates alike. Traditionally, airport security focused on verifying travel documents and screening for prohibited items, while consular officers assessed the legitimacy of visa petitions and the admissibility of applicants. Extreme vetting, however, represents a significant shift toward a far more invasive and comprehensive investigative process. It now includes detailed background checks, biometric verification, digital forensics, and expansive scrutiny of an applicant’s online presence and criminal or financial records. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, the implementation of extreme vetting has expanded rapidly. Today, border screenings go far beyond routine document checks, encompassing a full-scale evaluation of a traveler’s digital life. This pivot reflects the administration’s intensified focus on national security, but it has also triggered urgent discussions about privacy, due process, and the fairness of modern immigration enforcement. At U.S. ports of entry—especially airports—noncitizens are now subject to rigorous and invasive procedures, including: Inspection of cell phones, laptops, and other devices (including deleted content) Review of social media activity on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) Biometric scanning, including fingerprinting and facial recognition These measures are no longer confined to travelers from high-risk countries. In practice, extreme vetting applies broadly across all nationalities, and increasingly affects lawful permanent residents as well. For noncitizens, this new landscape introduces a heightened level of uncertainty and vulnerability. Delays at U.S. consulates for visa issuance or renewal are becoming routine. Travelers must now be acutely aware of these changes, and those attending consular interviews or seeking visa renewals should be prepared to provide additional documentation verifying their maintenance of status, compliance with visa conditions, and the bona fide nature of their visa applications. It is critical to organize supporting materials in advance and be ready to answer questions about employment, education, travel history, and online activity. As the U.S. government continues to expand its use of data-driven risk assessment tools, travelers must adapt to a new normal, one where preparation is essential to navigating the immigration system without disruption.
