UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KIRILL SYCHEV, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3484 (CKK) UR M. JADDOU, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 30, 2022) In this action, Plaintiff Kirill Sychev (“Plaintiff” or “Sychev”) seeks injunctive and mandamus relief ordering officials of the United States Department of State (“State Department”) and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to more expeditiously act on his Form I-526 petition for an EB-5 immigrant investor visa pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) bar on “unreasonabl[e] delay[].” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Because DHS has already conveyed Plaintiff’s visa application for processing to the State Department’s National Visa Center (“NVC”), the Court shall dismiss as moot the complaint as against the DHS Defendants. As for the State Department Defendants, the Court shall order additional briefing from the parties before ruling. Accordingly, and upon review of the pleadings, 1 the relevant legal authority, and the record as a whole, the Court shall GRANT IN PART AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE IN PART Defendants’ [15] Motion to Dismiss. 1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following: • Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”); • Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof, ECF No. 15 (“Mot.”); • Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion Motino to Dismiss, ECF No. 16 (“Opp.”); and I. BACKGROUND The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., authorizes the issuance of “EB-5” visas to immigrants who have “invested” capital in a “new commercial enterprise” that “will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment” for ten citizens or non-citizens with work authorization. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). Through this process, the applicant must have also made a direct investment of at least $1,000,000 or an investment of $500,000 into a “targeted employment area.” § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii). 2 A “targeted employment area” is a “rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment.” § 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). At the time of the complaint, the law offered EB-5 applicants a second route through investing into a “regional economic center.” See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-395, § 610(a), 106 Stat. 1828, 1874 (Oct. 6, 1992); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m). These regional centers combine the funds of many investors and channel them to enterprises that “increase[] export sales, improve[] regional productivity, job creation, or increase[] domestic capital investment.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(i). A foreign investor’s investment in an approved Regional Center satisfies the • Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17 (“Repl.”). In an exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that oral argument would not assist in the resolution of the pending Motion. 2 Effective November 21, 2019, the threshold amounts required for EB-5 investments were increased from $1,000,000 to $1,800,000 generally and from $500,000 to $900,000 for targeted employment areas. See Final Rule, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals