Phone & whatsapp (949) 677-0063


Clear Answers to Confusing Immigration-Related Situations

Posted by Ramona Kennedy | Sep 26, 2020 | 0 Comments

What Would Happen to Children Born Abroad to a Current Green Card Holder?

Children born to a US parents with Green Card do not need to apply for a Visa to Immigrate to the US if

1-Parent is accompanying entering child 2-Parent holds a valid immigrant visa 3-Parent is otherwise not inadmissible to come to the US 3-child was born during mother's permanent residency abroad 4-admission is within 2 years of the child's birth 5-the child has valid passport and/or travel document –8 CFR, 211.1(b)(1).

What Would Happen If Defrauded Investors in Eb5 File a lawsuit to the Bank Holding Investment Funds?

Because there was no contractual agreement between the bank and investor as to the cause of action, and for other reasons the court denied to hold the bank as the responsible party for payments and settlements. Here is some more information.

CHEN JUN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant. Case No. 1:19-CV-01524-KOB,



Motion denied. “ The facts underlying this case, unfortunately like too many others, involve an alleged fraud on investors. But unlike most fraud cases, the plaintiffs in this case have not joined the alleged fraudsters as defendants. Instead, the plaintiffs here seek to recover from the bank that held the account from which the fraudsters stole their funds. And as the court explains in the context of defendant Regions Bank's motion to dismiss (doc. 12) the plaintiffs' amended complaint (doc. 9), this case does not implicate complex securities law issues or murky elements of fraud. Rather, this case boils down to basic questions of state contract and tort law….”

What Would Happen if an Investor in an Eb5-related contract signs a contract but fails to pay?

The foreign investor is most likely contractually obligated to fulfill the contract and US courts have jurisdiction over him. Please see the following relevant case of July 2019, Minnesota District Court.

EB5 Disputes, Patrick's Restaurant, LLC, Plaintiff v. Sujit Kumar Singh, Defendant. File No. 18-cv-00764 (ECT/KMM), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, July 3, 2019

“…This is a breach-of-contract case. Patrick's Restaurant, a Minnesota citizen, alleges that Sujit Kumar Singh, a citizen of India, agreed to invest $1.3 million in Patrick's in consideration for part ownership of the business but then paid nothing and walked away. Patrick's seeks recovery of an amount close to the $1.3 million it alleges Singh contracted to invest, plus consequential and incidental damages. Singh has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, he has moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Patrick's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted…”.

Both motions will be denied. Patrick's has demonstrated that Singh's contract-related contacts with Minnesota coalesce to form prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, and Patrick's pleads a prima facie case on the merits.”

When city and state officials were subpoenaed in an Eb5-investment case what were the results?

In an Eb5-fraud related case against Vermont state and city officials, the court denied their subpoena by the plaintiff. Here are some facts on this case.

“WEI WANG, GUANGYI XIONG, XIOFENG FENG Plaintiffs, v. JIANMING SHEN, SHENLAW, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00153, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT August 8, 2019…” Wei Wang v. Jianming Shen (D. Vt. 2019.

“…Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' March 22, 2019 motion to compel previously subpoenaed depositions of third-party witnesses, to compel the continuation of the deposition of former Vermont EB-5 Regional Center (“VRC”) Executive Director Brent Raymond, and to prohibit the State of Vermont from interfering with a subpoena duces tecum issued to another third party. (Doc. 92.) On behalf of former Governor Peter Shumlin, former Agency of Commerce and Community Development (“ACCD”)…”

“Secretary Lawrence Miller, former ACCD Secretary Patricia Moulton, former ACCD Capital Investment Coordinator James Candido, ACCD General Counsel John Kessler, and former Director Raymond, the State of Vermont opposed the motion to compel depositions, to continue former Director Raymond's deposition, and to prohibit interference with a third-party subpoena on April 5, 2019. The State of Vermont also moved for a protective order with regard to former Director Raymond's continued deposition. (Doc. 98.) Plaintiffs replied and opposed the protective order on April 29, 2019, at which time the court took the pending motions under advisement…”“

What happens to a gay marriage, USCIS Immigration family petition when couple want to live in Alabama?

A gay marriage petition will be denied if the couple states the intention to live in a state which does not recognize “gay marriage”.

What happens to a USCIS immigration family petition when couple are first cousins and they want to live in Texas?

A first cousin marriage” petition will be denied if the couple states the intention to live in a state which does not recognize “marriage between first cousins”.

What is an interesting case and the underlying allegations on Fraud and Civil Forfeiture?

US Court ruled against Chinese Nationals (Visa Applicants) whose assets were seized due allegation of Visa Fraud. Court denied “motion for judgment as a matter of law” and “motion for new trial”. Visa applicants have most likely lost at least “$300,000” Here are facts:

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. “APPROXIMATELY $299,873.70, SEIZED FROM BANK OF AMERICA ACCOUNT, et al.”,Defendants.CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00545-KD-N. January 22,2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION…” “United States v. Approximately $299,873.70, Seized from Bank of Am. Account (S.D. Ala. 2020).

“…The United States filed a Verified Complaint for Civil Forfeiture in rem to forfeit certain Defendant funds held in bank accounts in the United States based on their connection to an EB1-C visa fraud scheme. The United States alleged that the funds were subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) because they “constitute monetary instruments or funds transmitted to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity, that is visa fraud.” (doc. 1, p. 17) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) (money laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (visa fraud)). The United States alleged that the Defendant funds were deposited in bank accounts to create the appearance of a joint venture between the Chinese nationals who owned the bank accounts and a business in the United States in order to facilitate their immigration to the United States under the EB1-C visa program….”.

The Chinese nationals filed claims to the Defendant funds. As Claimants, they admitted that they applied for EB1-C visas. However, they asserted that they were “innocent owners” because they lacked knowledge of the conduct – the visa fraud scheme and the money laundering to promote the visa fraud scheme – that resulted in the forfeiture.

The Court presided over a four-day trial. After hearing the evidence, the jury found that the United States had shown that there was a substantial connection between the Defendant funds and the facilitation or commission of a criminal offense and that Claimants Wei, Ze, Zai, Chen, Guo, Dong, Dong and Yang had not shown that they were innocent owners of the seized defendant funds (doc. 267, Order on Jury Trial and Verdict). The Claimants filed their renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motions for new trial.”

This is a legal blog. It is not intended to be used as legal advice. This blog does not create Attorney-Client Relationship. For further information please contact the law offices of attorney Ramona Kennedy.

Ramona Kennedy (Attorney) received her Jurisprudence Doctorate in America and is a licensed attorney in California, licensed by California Supreme Court (USA). Ramona Kennedy is a lifetime, honorary member of Bar Association of United States Supreme Court, and a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA).

Ramona Kennedy is fluent in English and Farsi (Persian). Website: Email: [email protected] Phones: +19496770063 & +13106230080 Telegram & WhatsApp: 1949677006 Website: Immigration Law Blog in English: Immigration Law Blog in Farsi: Business Law Blog in English: Telegram Channel in Farsi: Office Locations: Los Angeles (Westwood) Location -Oppenheimer tower 10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101 Los Angeles CA 90024 Phone: 13106230080 Orange County Locations: Irvine: -7700 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618 Newport Beach: -5000 Birch St, Suite 3000 Newport Beach CA 92660

About the Author

Ramona Kennedy

Attorney Ramona Kennedy is a Compassionate attorney who cares and will fight for you A vivid reader, attorney Kennedy was inspired by her father who passionately attributed to her academic & personal growth. Her Father was a very kind, highly intelligent, disciplined & dedicated family man in un...


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today

Ramona Kennedy Law Offices (Kennedy Law L.C.) is committed to answering your questions about Personal Injury, Civil Litigation, Immigration (including Criminal ) Law in California.

We offer a Free Consultation and we'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.