Chinese investors & Taiwanese investors & Investors from Hong Kong vs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Views: 3540
Investors in the Project from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong | vs. |
Filing Date:May 27, 2015
Case:JOHN DOEs 1-72, Vs. USCIS
Jurisdiction:Federal District Court for the District of Columbia
Status:Pending
Civil / Criminal:Civil
Denial of petition
Dozens of Chinese investors who poured millions of dollars into an Idaho mining operation have filed suit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, alleging the agency unfairly determined the money wasn’t “at risk” and denied their investor visas. In a complaint filed Monday in Washington, D.C., federal court, the plaintiffs — identified only as John Does 1-42 — accuse USCIS of arbitrarily and capriciously determining that their $500,000 investments weren’t at risk because of a redemption option in their agreement with Quartzburg Gold Company LP.
Exhibit D to Amended Complaint
ISRC CEO's letter to USCIS
Quartzburg_Gold_LP_ISRC_Letter_to_USCISpdf.pdfCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Case details between Investors and USCIS
Quartzbrg_Gold_Amended_Complaint.pdfQuartzburg CEO replies to USCIS
Details on 5 points raised by USCIS
Quartzburg_Gold_LP_Idaho_Attorney_Letter_to_ISR...MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
johndoes1-53v-160501003401.pdfAPPEAL OF IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAM OFFICE DECISION
The Petitioner seeks classification as an immigrant investor pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). This fifth preference (EB-5) classification makes immigrant visas available to foreign nationals who invest the requisite amount of qualifying capital in a new commercial enterprise that will benefit the United States economy and create at least 10 full-time positions for qualifying employees. The Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program Office denied the petition. The Chief concluded the Petitioner did not establish that the new commercial enterprise (NCE), will create at least I 0 full-time positions for qualifying employees. The Chief also noted that the submitted business plan was neither comprehensive nor credible. The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen which the Chief also denied, finding that a revised business plan submitted with the motion to reopen, and dated after the denial, constituted an impermissible material change to the original filing. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner does not submit additional evidence or an appellate brief to support her appeal.
NOV032016_01B7203.pdf
Securities Disclaimer
This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell shares or securities. Any such offer or solicitation will be made only by means of an investment's confidential Offering Memorandum and in accordance with the terms of all applicable securities and other laws. This website does not constitute or form part of, and should not be construed as, any offer for sale or subscription of, or any invitation to offer to buy or subscribe for, any securities, nor should it or any part of it form the basis of, or be relied on in any connection with, any contract or commitment whatsoever. EB5Projects.com LLC and its affiliates expressly disclaim any and all responsibility for any direct or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from: (i) reliance on any information contained in the website, (ii) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information or (iii) any action resulting therefrom.
