00:00 Welcome, Panel Introductions & Program Disclaimer
[00:00] Peter Calabrese: Hello, welcome, and thank you all for joining. My name is Peter Calabrese, and I’m CEO of CanAm Investor Services, the FINRA-registered broker-dealer affiliate of CanAm Enterprises, one of the largest and most successful regional centers in the history of the EB-5 program. We always look to bring good, timely educational content, and today is no different. We have the pleasure of being joined by three leaders in the EB-5 field: Nicolai Hinrichsen, partner at Miller Mayer; Rohit Turkhud, partner at CSG Law; and Niral Patel, partner at KLDP. They’re here to talk about the current state of the Indian market, where the Visa Bulletin stands, and what investors should be looking at as everyone works with real urgency to complete an EB-5 investment before the September 30 filing deadline. We’ll cover some do’s and don’ts and some actionable items. Nicolai, why don’t you give a quick introduction, and we’ll go around from there.
[01:03] Nicolai Hinrichsen: Thanks, Pete. Again, Nicolai Hinrichsen. I’m the Managing Partner of Miller Mayer’s EB-5 practice. Miller Mayer has been involved in the EB-5 program since it started, back in 1993, and I’ve personally been involved in EB-5 since 2007. We represent investors from all over the world, including India, and we have the expertise to help people through the process.
[01:26] Rohit Turkhud: Thanks, Pete, for inviting me. I’m Rohit Turkhud, partner at CSG Law, a full-service law firm. The firm has been involved in EB-5 for well more than a decade, and I’ve personally been involved for well over twelve years, representing investors principally from India, irrespective of their nationality. I travel a lot to India; I’ve already been there four times this year. Happy to help investors work through their challenges and issues.
[01:55] Niral Patel: Thanks, Pete, and CanAm, for organizing this during the busiest time for attorneys. Glad to be here with all of you. My name is Niral Patel. I’m a partner at KLDP, a full-service immigration firm specializing in EB-5. I’ve been involved with EB-5 for over a decade now. I used to be based in California; now I’m in New York.
[02:18] Peter Calabrese: Thank you. Niral, you nailed it that this is a tremendously busy time. When people get busy, it’s easy to get fractured and have your mind going in a million directions, so what we try to do is help people move efficiently. The first and most important step you can take right now is to hire an immigration attorney and get to work, because a lot of people are moving toward making an investment soon. There’s real urgency in the market, and that can sometimes lead to skipping steps or moving toward less-than-ideal outcomes. Nicolai, why don’t you kick us off on what you’re seeing right now, and some of the obstacles you’re seeing in the market in India.
03:16 Two Big Drivers: The September 30 Deadline and Retrogression
[03:16] Nicolai Hinrichsen: There are two big drivers for Indian nationals right now in the EB-5 market. The first, which you referred to, is the September 30 grandfathering deadline. Briefly, it’s a provision in the Reform and Integrity Act stating that as long as you submit your petition before September 30, 2026, even if the program isn’t extended, your petition will still be adjudicated by the government. The other big driver is the potential, or really the inevitability, of retrogression. At some point we expect a final action date for Indian nationals in both the rural and high-unemployment set-aside categories, and probably infrastructure as well. Once that final action date happens, an Indian national would no longer be able to concurrently file. There’s tremendous interest in EB-5 right now. Indian professionals in the United States have recognized the value proposition, and there’s a lot more internal dialogue in large companies about what EB-5 can offer. The difficulty is that we’re getting close to September 30, so the real question is: can we do an EB-5 petition before then, and is it worth considering waiting until after? I do think there’s a benefit to filing before September 30 if possible, and I think it’s still possible, depending on the complexity of the source of funds. That’s really what we’re seeing come in the door now: what’s my strategy, and how quickly can I execute on it?
04:58 Source of Funds: The New USCIS Scrutiny
[04:52] Peter Calabrese: Niral, maybe you could expand on that and speak to your experience as well.
[04:58] Niral Patel: Nicolai pretty much covered it. Getting your petition approved really comes down to two requirements: the project receiving I-956F approval, and source of funds. When you go with a solid project like CanAm’s, the I-956F approval is pretty much assured, so it all comes down to source of funds. We prepared source of funds very differently a year or two ago than we do now. USCIS doesn’t announce how it’s going to adjudicate cases; we only learn their standards and trends when they start issuing RFEs, NOIDs, and now even straight denials. What used to take us a week or two now takes closer to four to six weeks, simply because of the level of information and documentation USCIS is requesting. My advice to clients is: if you’re trying to make the September 30 deadline, great, let’s assess your source of funds and see realistically what we can get done in that timeframe. I don’t want to rush someone’s immigration for the sake of a deadline, because that might help in the short term but not the long term. If you have the financial means and the documentation to get started, get started. If not, there’s still a way forward.
[06:21] Peter Calabrese: Absolutely. Rohit, maybe you could touch on this as well.
[06:25] Rohit Turkhud: Thank you. Nicolai and Niral have pretty much exhaustively addressed the issue. Source of funds is critical, and as Niral said, you need to assess whether the person is in a position to file. Worth noting: we received guidance from the immigration service just yesterday indicating they may take even greater liberties issuing outright denials, as opposed to an RFE or NOID, however aggressive those may be. An RFE or NOID was at least a welcome alternative to an outright denial. So it’s important for individuals to engage an attorney if they haven’t yet, even as they explore the right regional center. There’s no question about the credibility and preference for working with a regional center like CanAm. But without an attorney, you’re not going to get far with your source of funds or with filing an application that’s as complete and approvable as possible, to avoid an RFE, a NOID, or worse, an outright denial.
07:33 Retrogression Reality and the India Unreserved Silver Lining
[07:33] Peter Calabrese: That’s a great point, and it sums up the approvability issue. What everyone is saying is: yes, there’s a September 30 grandfathering deadline, but no effort to get an investment done before then should supersede the approvability of the petition. It’s not helpful to anyone to lock in a priority date if it comes at the risk of a much higher likelihood of denial, especially in the current climate of USCIS adjudications. I want to circle back to a point Nicolai made about how investors should view the entirety of the process, especially retrogression. The reality is that retrogression is coming in these set-aside categories. That’s simply a function of the volume of investment being made. Recent USCIS data shows more than 8,000 petitions filed in high-unemployment and rural-area projects, the large majority from Indian and Chinese nationals. So you’re able to make an investment while the filing date is currently current, not because of a lack of interest or filing, but because of a lack of adjudication. There’s a tremendous opportunity in the ability to concurrently file because these categories are current, but understand there’s also a timeline for adjudication wait times. There are also some silver linings in recent bulletin movement, such as the unreserved category for India. All of the visas in that unreserved category from last year were used. Some might call those numbers used up, but this is actually a good thing, because it means pre-RIA investors are moving forward, and there’s a strong likelihood that entire backlog could be completed by next year. Rohit, maybe you could talk about how the Visa Bulletin and these movements factor into your conversations with clients.
09:37 Explaining the Visa Bulletin to Clients
[09:37] Rohit Turkhud: Thank you. I focus on the fact that, as you said, it’s a lack of adjudication, not a lack of interest, that’s keeping visa numbers available under the three targeted-employment categories of rural, high unemployment, and infrastructure. I also explain that there are 10,000 visas globally available, no country is allowed to use more than 7.1%, or roughly 700, and we break that down from there. We end up in conversations with clients who believe they can calculate and predict visa availability. I try to impress on them that people far better qualified than either of us have tried and failed for years to predict when visa numbers will become available. Clients who are accomplished in engineering, mathematics, or business like to think they can predict how long it will take to get a visa, and we all recognize that just isn’t possible. I also walk them through the Visa Bulletin and explain the difference between final action dates, which Nicolai mentioned earlier, and filing dates, which are different and may be of real advantage to them. All of this factors into explaining that September 30 is a real date, and they should take advantage of it if they can. Sometimes I’ll question a client who says, “We want to file the petition, we just don’t want to file the adjustment of status.” That’s a fine approach when the person isn’t India-born, but it carries a completely different significance when the individual was born in India.
11:24 Risk-Reward, Not Fortune-Telling: Setting Client Expectations
[11:22] Peter Calabrese: Niral, maybe you could expand on that.
[11:24] Niral Patel: I take a practical approach with clients. I explain that we’re attorneys, not fortune tellers. Our job is to take the information and knowledge we have today and give a risk-reward analysis based on whatever action you decide to take. Today, you control what you control, and you understand what the unknowns are. You can control the quality of the project you invest in, and the quality of your source of funds documentation. Today, we know the Visa Bulletin is current, so you can apply for adjustment of status, lock in an early priority date, and get a work permit and travel permit. At some point we know retrogression will happen, because the entire U.S. immigration system runs on demand and supply. When demand exceeds supply, that’s when you get retrogression and a backlog. We know that, given the sheer number of people applying, retrogression is coming, just as it has in EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. The key is that even once retrogression is announced, you don’t know which category will retrogress first, or for how long. A lot of people, once a backlog is announced, make a snap judgment that it’s automatically going to take five years. People need to remember you still need eight to twelve months of data to understand how priority dates move month to month, and to get a clear picture of what that backlog even looks like. And if you’re facing an EB-2 or EB-3 backlog, even a retrogressed EB-5 is still going to be better than EB-2 or EB-3.
13:19 The EB-5 Value Proposition vs. Other Immigration Pathways
[13:13] Peter Calabrese: That makes perfect sense. Nicolai, if you want to touch on that as well.
[13:19] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I think the value proposition is really the same. You assess what you get from EB-5 by looking at the long term. You’re in it for a green card, and you’re likely going to get that green card faster than you would through an EB-2-based path. So even though we can foresee a wait, most likely that wait will be shorter than other immigration processes people may have been pursuing before EB-5. And EB-5 is predictable. There’s more scrutiny from USCIS now, that’s certainly true, but everyone on this call has decades of EB-5 experience. We know what goes into an approvable petition. We can’t guarantee an outcome, but we can say with a high degree of confidence whether a petition is approvable. So while it may pend for a while, it will be approved, and then you’re waiting on the green card. That’s really the ultimate value proposition. There’s also a short-term value for people who file concurrently: you can get an EAD and advance parole. I generally tell clients that if possible they should keep their nonimmigrant status, particularly if they’re H-1B workers. These days advance parole is only granted for eighteen months; it used to be five years. So relying on an EAD with only eighteen months of validity is a little more problematic, and it’s generally good practice to maintain the underlying nonimmigrant status where possible. It’s a bit trickier for F-1 students, but it can be done. Some people think, “I can just get work and travel authorization instead.” Yes, you can, but I’d rather you avoid that and continue to use your current nonimmigrant status until you get the EB-5.
[15:13] Peter Calabrese: It’s always a question of choosing the best pathway for you, the individual investor. For so many people, EB-5 is the best pathway toward long-term stability and permanent residency. That doesn’t mean it comes quickly, but compared to the alternatives, there’s a lot to be said for it. The ability to concurrently file is a huge silver lining. Yes, retrogression and the backlog are growing, but frankly, we could have had this same discussion six or twelve months ago about the volume of investment coming in and how long adjudications take. The fact that this concurrent filing window has remained open is important. Niral, you touched on this in our pre-call: one of the benefits in place because of the sustainment period. The current interpretation means the sustainment period allows your funds to be returned at the completion of the project’s commercial loan term, rather than requiring you to wait for your conditional green card the way a pre-RIA investor would. I also think the movement in the unreserved category matters, because it should free up the flow of visas from the unreserved category into the reserved category. There’s a point of clarification needed, though, for people who have filed for adjustment of status and their ability to accept a visa from the unreserved category, similar to an overseas investor going through a consular interview. We all assume that would be the case, but it’s something that could use clarification. Would one of you like to touch on that?
16:56 Open Question: Choosing Between Reserved and Unreserved Visa Numbers
[16:56] Rohit Turkhud: Sure, I can start us off and let Nicolai and Niral take it from there. We’d all agree we need additional guidance from USCIS. It’s not so different from the ability of people in EB-2 or EB-3 to have approved petitions in both categories and then decide which adjustment of status benefits them, depending on visa availability. Here we’re drawing a parallel between the unreserved category and one of the targeted-employment categories. There’s also the possibility that a project may qualify under both rural and high unemployment, or a combination. The National Benefits Center currently seems to be taking the position that you have to select whether you want a number from the targeted-employment category or the unreserved category. People are going to be reluctant to make that choice, because we don’t have certainty on which category will get to the green card fastest. We’d like guidance from USCIS on how the selection works, at what point you get to pick, and what the logistical process is. These aren’t easy questions, but guidance would help us advise clients. Right now we’re doing our best in the dark.
[18:17] Niral Patel: I think guidance is going to come only once we actually have to go through it. Right now we don’t have to, but at some point we will. Once one of us, or someone in our industry, submits an inquiry to the service center or the Immigrant Investor Program Office, we’ll probably get some sort of response that gives us direction. I don’t trust USCIS to proactively say, “Here’s how you’re supposed to do this,” before then.
[18:52] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I agree. It’s going to come to a head. Arguably, if the State Department is giving investors a choice now, USCIS should too. You could very well choose an unreserved category or a set-aside category. I think USCIS just assumes you’ll choose the set-aside category because that’s what you invested in, but that’s not necessarily a correct assumption. To Niral’s point, if someone is investing in a project that qualifies under two set-asides, there’s a real choice to be made. I don’t see how USCIS can reasonably default to one of those without asking the petitioner which they prefer.
[19:32] Rohit Turkhud: I’m not sure if you’ve seen this, but I’ve seen an applicant issued a conditional green card for EB-5 even though they were entitled to, and had a pending, immediate-relative case that would have given them an unconditional green card. USCIS made that call without asking. We expected them to invite the applicant for an interview and offer that choice; they didn’t. Later, they denied the adjustment of status application pending under the immediate-relative petition, saying the applicant didn’t show up for an interview they were never even invited to. So I wouldn’t place too many bets on anything reliable coming out of USCIS, but I’m hopeful they’ll eventually give us guidance.
20:19 Partial Investment Strategies Before the Deadline
[20:19] Peter Calabrese: Interesting, and that’s exactly why this is something the industry needs to stay attentive to. It’s why we value your real-time insight as these interpretations evolve. Now, for investors who’ve decided they want to move forward, there are some strategies people have used in the past that are being interpreted differently now. Here’s one: an investor says, “I’d love to invest before September 30, but realistically I’ll need until October or November to finish funding. Can I file with a partial investment and lock in my priority date before the deadline?” Niral, I’ll let you start.
[21:09] Niral Patel: We’re big fans of partials, and our approach has changed along with adjudication trends. Previously, we could be more liberal: invest some now, provide documentation for the balance later. Through a number of RFEs, NOIDs, and denials, we’ve learned USCIS wants partials structured differently now. They want as much upfront documentation as possible. For example, if the balance of your investment is coming from a HELOC or personal loan, they want to see source of funds for that home in the initial application, and they absolutely want to see an approved loan agreement. It’s still viable, it just needs to be structured very differently. One thing I tell clients: your balance has to come from an asset you own today. It can’t come from future income, because you don’t know if you’ll still have that income. Be careful if the balance is coming from RSUs or stock; yes, you own that asset today, but stocks move, especially in this market. If the value drops below what you need for the balance, you can’t change your source of funds; USCIS has told us they don’t want to see substitutions. So it has to be structured carefully. Still viable, but we have to be far more careful about it.
[22:48] Peter Calabrese: Nicolai, maybe you could speak to that too, and what can happen if both structures aren’t in place.
[22:55] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I agree. The law contemplates that you can be in the process of investing, so it’s hard to see how, if you follow what Niral outlined, USCIS would have a basis to deny. That said, I’d much prefer a full investment. If someone can’t quite meet that standard, there’s a difference between a skeletal filing and a partial investment that fully complies, a distinction that’s only emerged because of USCIS RFEs and NOIDs. I’m always a little reluctant to treat that as gospel, because standards can tighten further. Referencing the memo Rohit mentioned that came out yesterday, about denying incomplete petitions without issuing an RFE or NOID, I agree partials can still be done, but I’ll have a direct conversation with the client so they understand the risk. This also ties into maintaining underlying status. An F-1 student who can’t maintain status and does a partial investment carries a very different risk profile than someone with status to fall back on. I’ve had clients whose I-526 was denied, and whose I-485 was denied shortly after, and without underlying status, they’re in a very difficult position. It’s complicated and nuanced, and anyone considering EB-5 needs to discuss these tradeoffs with their attorney before deciding whether to do a partial or wait.
24:40 Funding Timelines and the Regional Center’s Role
[24:40] Peter Calabrese: Nicolai and Niral both make the point that preparation is key. What about expectations for when the remainder of the funds needs to be remitted? What role does that play in the funding scenario?
[24:55] Rohit Turkhud: That’s equally important, and it’s where the regional center, like CanAm, comes into play. We’d expect the regional center’s support in accepting a partial payment and allowing the petition to be filed on that basis, with an agreement in place that clearly defines the time limit within which the investor must complete funding. I’m fairly sure that leash won’t be a long one, because it wouldn’t make sense from the regional center’s perspective or the investor’s. All of this has to come together to allow a partial filing and for the application to be submitted as complete, in line with the guidance USCIS issued yesterday. The regional center’s role here is just as important as the attorney’s, if not more so. Even if the investor wants to do a partial filing and the attorney is willing, it won’t happen without the regional center’s backing and support.
[26:06] Niral Patel: I’d add: it’s not just about completing the funding. We still have to prepare source of funds documentation for that balance too, and that takes its own time. It’s not just a funding deadline; we also need to file a supplemental report with USCIS as close to the funding deadline as possible.
26:34 The Real Risk of Denial, Not a Second Chance
[26:34] Peter Calabrese: The thread running through all of this is that you need advanced preparedness on your petition, and you need to meet the deadline set by the regional center you’re working with. What are the repercussions if USCIS doesn’t find a petition well prepared, or if you were given sixty days by a regional center and funded on day seventy-two?
[27:10] Niral Patel: I’ve seen straight denials.
[27:12] Rohit Turkhud: That’s the worst-case scenario. You’ll see a denial straight away. Or you’ll get an RFE, and if you’re given sixty days, seventy-five days, or thirty days for a NOID, and you don’t have the documents, you’re looking at a denial. Those days of getting a second bite of the apple, a second RFE or NOID, are largely gone. I haven’t seen that happen in a while. That’s the risk.
[27:43] Peter Calabrese: That’s the point. There’s sometimes an assumption that you’ll get the chance to correct things or explain further, when, as Niral pointed out, the response could simply be a denial. We raise this because people looking to move quickly sometimes treat that assumption as a strategy, and it can’t substitute for good preparation.
[28:06] Niral Patel: Part of our job as immigration counsel is to counsel clients on whatever strategy they’re proposing. Just because a client proposes something doesn’t make it viable. It’s on us to tell them, “You can’t do this, and here’s the most likely outcome if you try.” We have to prepare our clients properly.
28:31 Skeletal Filings and the “Approvable When Filed” Standard
[28:31] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I’d follow up on that, because it also touches placeholder filings. Many people want to file a skeletal petition before the deadline just to secure a good priority date. We’ve seen a real shift in the language used in NOIDs, RFEs, and denials around approvability at the time of filing, which is reflected in yesterday’s memo. I don’t think that language has much support in the law; what is an RFE for, if not to ask further questions about evidence already submitted? But the language we’re seeing almost presupposes that everything should have been submitted up front, and that issuing the RFE itself proves the case wasn’t approvable when filed. It’s a bit of a tortured argument, but it’s language we’re seeing more and more, and that’s what worries practitioners. Where is the line between a sufficiently fleshed-out partial filing and a truly skeletal one? That’s a matter of judgment, based on experience and on the feedback USCIS gives us, which again comes in the form of RFEs and NOIDs.
29:42 Looking Past September 30: The January 1 Investment Increase
[29:42] Peter Calabrese: That’s helpful, and it’s why, as a regional center, we defer to the work of you and the other attorneys we work with. We often hear, “my source of funds should be straightforward because it’s all in the U.S.,” or “I’m doing a partial funding just to lock in my priority date.” It always needs to be done well, especially now, sitting here in August looking at a September deadline. So for investors who know they want to do EB-5, and who may be looking at a partial funding that isn’t quite strong enough to be approved right away, meaning they’re realistically a candidate to file in October or November, what does that mean for them? There’s also an important deadline coming January 1, when there will be an inflation-indexed increase to the investment level, somewhere in the range of $130,000 to $140,000. Is that part of the conversation as you help clients make pragmatic, forward-looking decisions?
[31:10] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I can speak to that. The grandfathering provision in the RIA is great; we’ve never had a provision like it before, and it’s essentially what has manufactured the deadline we have. But we’ve been through many deadlines in the past without grandfathering provisions, where people filed petitions right up until the last date possible, before the program’s expiration. There have been lapses, and times we wondered whether the program would be re-extended, but historically it has been. There’s confidence on both sides of the aisle, and across the industry, that EB-5 will be extended, and I’m one of the people who believes that. So while September 30 is a real, legally meaningful deadline, the period between September 30, 2026 and September 30, 2027 isn’t no man’s land. There’s still a viable immigration strategy for people depending on their circumstances, and we’ll have more of those conversations after September 30. Even now, when we talk with applicants who simply can’t make it, maybe their RSUs or stock are still in a lockup period, it’s not the end of the world. Their next real deadline to plan around is January 1.
[32:45] Niral Patel: I’d say that, as unpredictable as immigration feels right now, we actually have far more certainty today than we’ve ever had in this program. We used to go through roller coasters when EB-5 was attached to spending bills, with sunsets and rushes every three or four months. We’ve had a relatively stable last three or four years, and we’re approaching this deadline with the program not set to expire for another year after that. So I’m cautiously optimistic USCIS will keep accepting cases, and I’m genuinely optimistic about reauthorization. This is a bit of an artificial deadline, as Nicolai said. I don’t blame people for wanting to get in now, but anyone who files afterward is still going to be fine.
[33:40] Rohit Turkhud: The only thing I’d add is the open question of what happens after October 1. We’re all cautiously, even very, optimistic about reauthorization, because there are so many reasons for it and really none against. But I still wouldn’t tell a client with total certainty that a filing after October 1 will be accepted. USCIS has a way of surprising us, and not always pleasantly, so I’d stay cautious there.
34:14 Closing Advice: Engage an Attorney and Don’t Rush
[34:14] Peter Calabrese: I share that optimism. The program has shown real benefit to the overall economy, it has bipartisan support, and it functions as an economic stimulus program. The main takeaway for a client is this: if you’re prepared, your funds are available, and you’ve sourced them, or you’re close to it with your immigration attorney, you should be looking to invest before September 30, whether through full or partial funding. And if your timeframe runs past September 30 because you need more time to build a strong petition, the sky hasn’t fallen. As we close, gentlemen, any last thoughts? Rohit, why don’t you start.
[35:08] Rohit Turkhud: Sure. I’ll go back to where we started: if you’re ready to move ahead, engage your immigration attorney. Choosing your attorney and choosing your regional center are parallel processes, not sequential ones. The attorney work is usually going to take the longest, since it determines your source of funds, and regional centers are more comfortable working with investors who’ve already engaged an experienced EB-5 attorney, because that leads to a smoother filing.
[35:44] Niral Patel: I’d say: don’t rush for the sake of rushing. This is a major financial commitment, and immigration is stressful enough already. A lot of people here are on F-1 or H-1B status, and there’s already a lot of uncertainty. Take a real look at your finances, figure out what you can document well, and plan according to that.
[36:12] Nicolai Hinrichsen: I’d echo that. Everyone’s situation is nuanced and individual. If you’ve had an interest in EB-5 for a long time and you’ve done your homework, you may well be ready to move now. But if you’re just starting out, rushing to conclude something you might later regret isn’t the right call, given how significant a commitment and investment this is. Either way, schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney, this week if possible, next week at the latest, if you want to move forward. We’re getting close, so there’s only so much we can do at this point. If you want to file by September 30, you really need to be calling one of the three of us in the next week or two.
[37:11] Peter Calabrese: Good advice all around. Thank you, gentlemen. This has been tremendously helpful insight into the current state of the market for Indian investors. For everyone listening, if you have questions for CanAm, project-related or program-related, please reach out. And if you have questions for Nicolai, Rohit, or Niral, reach out to them directly; they’re great resources. I appreciate your time. Let’s all make good EB-5 decisions out there. Thank you so much.
[37:44] Rohit Turkhud: Thank you.
[37:45] Niral Patel: Thank you.
[37:46] Nicolai Hinrichsen: Thank you.
Episode Chapters with Timestamps
00:00 Welcome, Panel Introductions & Program Disclaimer
03:16 Two Big Drivers: The September 30 Deadline and Retrogression
04:58 Source of Funds: The New USCIS Scrutiny
07:33 Retrogression Reality and the India Unreserved Silver Lining
09:37 Explaining the Visa Bulletin to Clients
11:24 Risk-Reward, Not Fortune-Telling: Setting Client Expectations
13:19 The EB-5 Value Proposition vs. Other Immigration Pathways
16:56 Open Question: Choosing Between Reserved and Unreserved Visa Numbers
20:19 Partial Investment Strategies Before the Deadline
24:40 Funding Timelines and the Regional Center’s Role
26:34 The Real Risk of Denial, Not a Second Chance
28:31 Skeletal Filings and the “Approvable When Filed” Standard
29:42 Looking Past September 30: The January 1 Investment Increase
34:14 Closing Advice: Engage an Attorney and Don’t Rush
Speaker Bios
Peter Calabrese
Chief Executive Officer, CanAm Investor Services, LLC
Peter Calabrese is the Chief Executive Officer of CanAm Investor Services, LLC, the FINRA-registered broker-dealer affiliate of CanAm Enterprises. He runs the firm’s U.S. division, which is responsible for the sale of private placement funds to domestic-based foreign investors. Calabrese first joined CanAm Investor Services in 2015 and previously served as the firm’s Chief Compliance Officer before being named CEO in 2021. Prior to joining CanAm, he spent more than fifteen years in institutional sales and trading with a focus on equity derivatives and volatility products at firms including ICAP and WallachBeth Capital, working with a diverse client base of buy- and sell-side traders, structured products desks, and liquidity providers. Calabrese holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Economics from Brown University and carries FINRA Series 7, 24, 63, and 66 licenses.
Nicolai Hinrichsen
Managing Partner, EB-5 Practice, Miller Mayer, LLP
Nicolai Hinrichsen is the Managing Partner of Miller Mayer’s EB-5 practice, one of the longest-standing and largest EB-5 law practices by volume, active in the program since its inception in 1993. Hinrichsen has personally practiced in the EB-5 space since 2007 and represents EB-5 immigrant investors, regional centers, and developers, with deep experience structuring deals across hotel, infrastructure, and mixed-use development projects. Before focusing on immigration law, he worked as an associate at Sidley Austin advising on registered and private securities offerings and other corporate matters, and as counsel at Case New Holland overseeing legal affairs related to mergers, acquisitions, and compliance across Europe and the Middle East. He has been recognized as a Top 25 immigration attorney by EB5 Investors Magazine and is a frequent speaker at EB-5 industry conferences, including engagements in Vietnam and India.
Rohit Turkhud
Member, Immigration Law Group, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (CSG Law)
Rohit Turkhud is a Member of the Immigration Law Group at Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (CSG Law), where his practice focuses on employment-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB-5, and L-1 cases. He is regularly engaged by HR directors and business leaders for counsel on immigration policy and procedure, and in his EB-5 practice he helps ensure regulatory compliance related to investment structuring and source of funds. Turkhud has practiced immigration law for more than 30 years, with close to 13 years focused specifically on EB-5, representing investors principally from India. Before turning to immigration law, he worked as a senior executive at several IT companies. He was named a Top 25 Immigration Attorney by EB5 Investors Magazine and is a frequent speaker and commentator on EB-5 matters, cited by outlets including CNBC-TV18 and Al Jazeera.
Niral Patel
Partner, KLDP LLP
Niral Patel is a Partner at KLDP LLP, based in the firm’s New York office, where he leads the Indian and Middle Eastern practice group and represents U.S. and international corporate clients on EB-5, employment-based, and family-based immigration matters. He has been practicing in the EB-5 space for over a decade, advising investors on source of funds strategy, project selection, and long-term immigration planning, and has successfully litigated I-526 and I-829 writ of mandamus actions in federal court. Patel regularly travels to India and the UAE to meet directly with investors and migration partners. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of California and a Juris Doctor from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, and is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). He was named a Top 10 Rising Star by EB5 Investors Magazine in 2024 and a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2022.
