In re Izummi

• Decision Date: 13 July 1998
• Docket Number: A76 426 873.,Interim Decision No. 3360.
• Parties: In re IZUMMI, Petitioner
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

22 I&N Dec. 169

In re IZUMMI, Petitioner

Interim Decision No. 3360.

A76 426 873.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, July 13, 1998.

(1) Regardless of its location, a new commercial enterprise that is engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-creating businesses may only lend money to businesses located within targeted areas in order for a petitioner to be eligible for the reduced minimum capital requirement.

(2) Under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, if a new commercial enterprise is engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-creating businesses, such job-creating businesses must all be located within the geographic limits of the regional center. The location of the new commercial enterprise is not controlling.

(3) A petitioner may not make material changes to his petition in aneffort to make a deficient petition conform to Service requirements.

(4) If the new commercial enterprise is a holding company, the full requisite amount of capital must be made available to the business(es) most closely responsible for creating the employment on which the petition is based.

(5) An alien may not receive guaranteed payments from a new commercial enterprise while he owes money to the new commercial enterprise.

(6) An alien may not enter into a redemption agreement with the new commercial enterprise at any time prior to completing all of his cash payments under a promissory note. In no event may the alien enter into a redemption agreement prior to the end of the two-year period of conditional residence.

(7) A redemption agreement between an alien investor and the new commercial enterprise constitutes a debt arrangement and is prohibited under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).

(8) Reserve funds that are not made available for purposes of job creation cannot be considered capital placed at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital being placed at risk.

(9) The Service does not pre-adjudicate immigrant-investor petitions; each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits.

(10) Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), all capital must be valued at fair market value in United States dollars, including promissory notes used as capital. In determining the fair market value of a

promissory note, it is necessary to consider, among other things, present value.

(11) Under certain circumstances, a promissory note that does not itself constitute capital may constitute evidence that the alien is "in the process of investing" other capital, such as cash. In such a case, the petitioner must substantially complete payments on the promissory note prior to the end of the two-year conditional period.

(12) Whether the promissory note constitutes capital or is simply evidence that the alien is in the process of investing other capital, nearly all of the money due under the promissory note must be payable within two years, without provisions for extensions.

(13) In order for a petitioner to be considered to have established an original business, he must have had a hand in its actual creation.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: MAURICE INMAN/FREDRICK W. VOIGTMANN, LOS ANGELES, CA.

DISCUSSION

The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, who certified the decision to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations for review. The decision of the director will be affirmed.

The petitioner seeks classification as an alien entrepreneur pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), and section 610 of the Appropriations Act of 1993. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had placed the requisite capital at risk. The director made the following findings: $30,000 of the claimed contribution would be used for the expenses of the Partnership rather than being infused into the subsidiary commercial enterprise for the purpose of employment creation; the majority of the remaining capital would not be available for job creation because the Partnership was required to maintain it in reserves; part of the petitioner's capital contribution was not an investment because it was made in exchange for a debt arrangement; and another part of the petitioner's contribution would derive from guaranteed annual interest payments received from the Partnership.

In response, the petitioner submits two separate briefs, two supplemental briefs, and numerous exhibits. He contends that the director's decision misstates existing facts and mischaracterizes the provisions of the American Export Limited Partnership ("AELP") investor program. The petitioner also complains that the director's decision fails to mention, distinguish, or "explain away" approvals of other AELP petitions by both the Texas Service Center and Vermont Service Center; furthermore, the director's decision fails to mention, distinguish, or "explain away" prior Service opinions and communications that directly supported and authorized the use of various features of the AELP program. The petitioner states that, even if the director had been correct in denying the petition, certain new amendments to the partnership plan should cause the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) to approve his petition.

Oral argument was granted in this case, and during his presentation counsel reiterated the points made in the brief. Counsel emphasized that the petitioner had made an investment by executing and delivering the promissory note for $500,000; the schedule of future payments under the note was irrelevant.

Section 203(b)(5)(A) of the Act provides classification to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise:

(i) which the alien has established,

(ii) in which such alien has invested (after the date of the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and

(iii) which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).

The petitioner indicates that the petition is based on an investment in a new business in a targeted employment area for which the required amount of capital invested has been adjusted downward. In addition, the business is located in an area designated as a "regional center" authorized to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

THE PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT AELP IS ENGAGING IN APPROVED REGIONAL-CENTER ACTIVITIES IN TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREAS

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) states, in pertinent part, that:

Targeted employment area means an area which, at the time of investment, is a rural area or an area which has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(6) states that:

If applicable, to show that the new commercial enterprise has created or will create employment in a targeted employment area, the petition must be accompanied by:

(i) In the case of a rural area, evidence that the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business within a civil jurisdiction not located within any standard metropolitan statistical area as designated by the Office of Management and Budget, or within any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more as based on the most recent decennial census of the United States; or

(ii) In the case of a high unemployment area:

(A) Evidence that the metropolitan statistical area, the specific county within a metropolitan statistical area, or the county in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business has experienced an average unemployment rate of 150 percent of the national average rate; or

(B) A letter from an authorized body of the government of the state in which the new commercial enterprise is located which certifies that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area. The letter must meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(i).

On October 19, 1995, American Export Partners, LLC ("AEP") filed its articles of organization with the State of South Carolina. On March 25, 1996, AELP filed its certificate of limited partnership with the State of South Carolina, and AEP was designated as AELP's general partner. Both AEP and AELP are located in Charleston, South Carolina.

In a letter dated February 8, 1995, the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications designated AEP a regional center and specified that individuals could file petitions with the Service "for new commercial enterprises located within the eight-county coastal areas, or Lowcountry, of South Carolina." On June 14, 1995, the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications expanded the geographical area covered by the AEP regional center to include 22 other counties in South Carolina.

The petitioner has presented evidence that many, but not all, of the counties within this regional center were considered rural in 1995 and qualified at that time as targeted employment areas.¹

In his brief, the petitioner explains that AELP has established a commercial credit corporation subsidiary, American Commercial and Export Credit Company, Inc., with its co-venturer, Resurgens Capital & Investment. This credit company makes asset-based loans and engages in receivables financing for small export companies "located throughout South Carolina and the southeastern United States." The capital provided by the alien investors to AELP is used to purchase stock in...