The Petitioner seeks classification as an immigrant investor pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). 1 This fifth preference (EB-5) classification makes immigrant visas available to aliens who invest the requisite amount of qualifying capital in a new commercial enterprise that will benefit the U.S. economy and create at least 10 full-time positions for qualifying employees.
The Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program Office initially denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the funds invested into_l_________________ the new commercial enterprise (NCE), are from lawful sources and the required amount of the Petitioner's own capital has been invested or is actively in the process of being invested. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
Law
An alien may be classified as an EB-5 immigrant investor if they invest the requisite amount of qualifying capital in an NCE. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(2) provides that the alien investor must establish that they have invested or are actively in the process of investing the required amount of capital and must submit evidence verifying that they have placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose ofgenerating a return on the capital placed at risk. The alien must also demonstrate that they have placed their own capital at risk in the NCE. See Matter ofHo, 22 l&N Dec. 206, 213 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Matter ofSofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 n.3 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (stating 1 On March 15, 2022, the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 was signed into law, revising general eligibility requirements, substantially reforming and codifying the Regional Center Program in section 203(b)(5) of the Act, and adding significant new integrity provisions. See 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(5) (2022). As the Petitioner had filed the petition on April 18, 2019, the relevant law in existence on that date governs this appellate adjudication. p. 2 that "[a] petitioner must. .. establish, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), that funds invested are his [or her] own").
In addition, the alien must show that their invested capital did not derive, directly or indirectly, from unlawful means. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6( e). To show the lawful source ofthe funds, an investor must submit evidence such as foreign business and tax records or documentation identifying sources of the capital. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(3). Bank letters or statements corroborating the deposit offunds by themselves are insufficient to demonstrate their lawful source. Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 210 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 195 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). The record must trace the path of the funds back to a lawful source. Id.
Analysis
The Petitioner claimed that he invested 500 000 on October 30, 2018 in the NCE, associated with LI ,C The NCE orooosfd to pool $40 million
~fi_ro_m_8_0_1_· m-m-i-gr_a_n_t-in_v_e_s_t-or_s_a_n_d_l_e_n_d_t_h_e_e_n-ti_r_e_a_m_o_u_n~tto I JJ .T,C the ioh creating entity (JCE). The JCE intends to construct a 46-story building housing 238-roon1_ 121 condominium units, and retail space inj~-----~~ Florida.
As the Chief denied the petition on two independent bases, we review the record to determine whether: 1) the Petitioner's investment funds have been obtained through lawful means; and 2) the required amount of the Petitioner's own funds has been invested or is actively in the process of being invested. We conclude, as discussed below, that the Petitioner's appeal does not overcome the deficiencies noted in the Chief's decision on both grounds.
A. Lawful Source and Path of Funds
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that "all funds used in the investment for EB-5 are legitimate" and provides the same evidence already submitted in response to the Chief's request for evidence (RFE). Upon review, we conclude that the record does not sufficiently explain the sources ofthe Petitioner's claimed investment funds or contain corroborating evidence that the funds originate from lawful sources.No interest from users, customers or investors
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted letters from the NCE confirming the receipt of $50,000 on August 30, 2018, and $500,000 to the NCE on October 30, 2018. However, the Petitioner did not specifically name the source of the funds deposited in the NCE. Instead, the Petitioner claimed that "[e]xhibits 23-34 the financial documentation both personally and of my companies for the last 5 years" demonstrate lawful sources ofhis funds. These exhibits consist of the Petitioner's own bank records and business accounts from two companies, L-----------.---r---,__________J and.___~-~---~-~~-~~·3 However, neithe no a ear to be the source of the investment funds deposited to the NCE in October 2018 . ._________ ~bank statements with an account number ending in 1343 (BC 1343) showed a wire transfer of $500,000 to 2 The certificate of incorporation toJ Iindicates that the entity was formed on January 13, 2014 in Barbados and the Petitioner is listed as the sole director.
the NCE on October 10, 2018, but the NCE subsequently deposited the same amount back tq I a couple weeks later. The record did not include bank statements froml lbut only its 2016 financial statements.
The Petitioner also submitted his own personal! lbank statements with an account number ending inl l The Petitioner's bank statements showed a deposit froml I I I in the amount of $500,000 on October 9, 2018, and the Petitioner's transfer of $500,000 from the samel !account to the NCE on October 29, 2018. As this deposit from I Iappear to be the source of the investment funds, the Chief reqrested additional evidence, specifically asking the Petitioner to explain the source of money in his laccount and his relationship to I I. In addition, the Chief noted various derogatory information relating to I I: the law firm associated withl !incorporation was involved in the registration of numerous shell companies that engaged in money laundering in Venezuela; and thatl lwas implicated as an offshore entity involved in money laundering, providing $2.0 billion in bribes to Venezuela officials and for signing of contracts for fictitious services. 4 In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that his funds are "legal and legitimate" and that he created I Iin 2010 in order to receive payments for his consulting services in U.S. dollars. Although the Petitioner provided !business registration documents from Panama, these documents did not demonstrate that he was legally affiliated withl !or that he created~--~ in 2010. I I 2010 certificate of incorporation and 201 7 certificate of legal entity identified various individuals as corgorate officers but the Petitioner's name was not in these documents. The Petitioner claimed that I Iis an active corporation and provided printouts from www.opencorporate.com, alon wit~ Ifinancial statements from 2015 to 2023. But the Petitioner did not include bank records and thus did not demonstrate the source of$500,000 transferred to his own~--~ account. The Petitioner also did not submit a di~gram lor chart I
income and current net worth, or his income and net worth at the time of investment are all "0.00,"6 inconsistent with claims made in his subsequent statements and financial documents showing that he has earned income froml Iand other entities, such as I IandD. Although the Petitioner submitted his personal tax returns from Venezuela with certified translations, the tax records in Spanish and their English translations do not contain same numbers and the Petitioner does not explain any conversion rates and dates ofthe conversions to U.S. currency utilized in these translations, bringing into question the reliability and sufficiency of the records submitted. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Therefore, the record is insufficient and inconsistent in establishing the sources of the Petitioner's income, whether they are from specific employment, investment, or dividends from the various corporations he has mentioned in the petition.
B. Required Amount of Capital
The Chief also determined that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he invested his own funds in the NCE. Based on the discussion of the evidence above, the record indicates that the investment funds of $500,000 originated froml Ideposit into the Petitioner's I account in October 2018. However, the Petitioner has not provided corporate income taxes, shareholder information, or other corroborating evidence to establish that he is the legal owner of the funds derived from IWith the appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically contest this ground of denial identified by the Chief or present additional evidence that he invested the required amount of capital by placing his own capital at risk, i.e., that he has legal ownership of the invested capital. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish his eligibility for the immigration benefit. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has not overcome this ground of ineligibility.
Conclusion
As the evidence in the record does not sufficiently demonstrate the lawful source of funds invested in the NCE or that the Petitioner is the legal owner of the invested funds, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence his eligibility for the immigrant investor visa classification.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.