Good Hope Sponsors EB-5 Investors in Lawsuit on Visa Backlog

Good Hope Investment Services has provided support and sponsored legal fees for its Chinese EB-5 investors, who filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government last Tuesday related to visa policies that may potentially delay their residency for up to 15 years. More than 450 Chinese EB-5 investors have joined the lawsuit.

Good Hope Investment Services is a subsidiary of CreditEase Wealth Management, a major Chinesewealth management institution. Good Hope, as one of the largest investment immigration service providers in China, has helped nearly 50 of their EB-5 investors to register as plaintiffs in the filed case.  Additionally, Good Hope is providing legal fee sponsorship to those investors in their pursuit of this case.

Legal representation for the lawsuit is being provided by Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli and Pratt, P.A., a top Florida law firm with decades of experience in immigration law and civil litigation. The lawsuit aims to substantially reduce the current EB-5 visa backlog faced by Chinese investors and their families by challenging how the EB-5 annual visa quota is calculated by the U.S. Government.

The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program (EB-5 Program) aims to create jobs for U.S. workers while providing lawful permanent residency to foreign nationals who invest in new U.S. commercial enterprises. Annually, up to 10,000 EB-5 investors are eligible to receive green cards through the EB-5 program, however, under current visa quota allocation practices, spouses and children of EB-5 investors are counted as part of the State Department’s annual visa quota.

Ira Kurzban, lead attorney in the lawsuit, argues that “the U.S. government counts each child and each spouse in determining the numbers of immigrant investor visas each year. However, we believe that the EB-5 program for investors requires the government to only count investors when allocating the visas. The decision to count derivatives as part of the 10,000 visas means that only approximately 3,300 in fact go to investors. This is a loss for investors in China who must wait many, many years and it is a loss for the United States because fewer people are investing in the U.S.”

During the last several years, the number of EB-5 investments from China have exceeded the annual quota, resulting in a longer waiting line for investors and their families. As the backlog increases, investors are facing additional problems, including the possibility that their children may “age out” of the program, preventing them from receiving their green cards as a “derivative” of their parents.

Jenny Zhan, President of Good Hope and Senior Vice President of CreditEase adds, “The purpose of the lawsuit is more than about just winning the case. As an investment immigration stakeholder, we support any efforts in shortening the waiting period for investors. The EB-5 program has created millions of jobs for Americans and has stimulated substantial economic growth in local communities. Through EB-5 reform and a reduced backlog, the U.S. economy can benefit more from billions of immigration capital that comes in each year.”

About Good Hope Investment Services

Good Hope is a subsidiary of CreditEase Wealth Management, headquartered in Beijing, China. It works closely with Chinese high net worth migrants to develop personalized wealth management, investment, tax planning, insurance, immigration and lifestyle solutions. Good Hope offers clients institutional advice provided by a talented team of international professionals with local expertise.

Over the years, Good Hope has grown successfully by empowering its clients to participate in globalization via secure and compliant cross-border wealth management solutions, while protecting capital through investment discipline and robust risk management.

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/07/30/1543908/0/en/Good-Hope-Sponsors-EB-5-Investors-in-Lawsuit-on-Visa-Backlog.html

Mentions

• KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER, TETZELI & PRATT, P.A.
• Ira J. Kurzban Esq.

Litigation Cases

• Chinese investors vs U.S. Department of State & United States of America