Executive Producers: Sir Dwayne Melancon ArchDuke of the Pacific NW, Sir John Donovan Baron of Sili-con Valley, Chris Wilson, Shane Kirk, Duke Sir Thomas Nussbaum
Associate Executive Producers: Duke Sir Thomas Nussbaum, Sir Mark "Small" Wandering Knight, Sir Vlad of the Midlands, Marvin Brittain, Tim Lange, John W Kus
897 Club Member: Sir Dwayne Melancon, ArchDuke of the Pacific NW
Become a member of the 898 Club, support the show here
Knights & Dames: Mark Lapiccola -> Sir Mark, The Small Wandering Knight, Vladimir Landman -> Sir Vlad of the Midlands
A few months ago, I took a leave of absence from Google to do a stint with the US Digital Service. A lot of people know about the US Digital Service because they helped rescue the healthcare.gov website. But you might not realize that the US Digital Service has helped veterans get their health benefits, brought bug bounties to the federal government, and helped the IRS protect taxpayer info.
When I joined the US Digital Service, I only planned to stay for three months. That quickly turned into six months after I saw the impact of the USDS. In the last month, I made a big decision. On December 31, 2016, I resigned from Google. I'm currently serving as director of engineering for the USDS. Mikey Dickerson, the first administrator of the USDS, is a political appointee, so he'll step down on Inauguration Day. When that happens, I'll serve as acting administrator of the USDS. The work that the USDS does is critical to the American people, and I'm honored to continue that tradition.
If you're reading this blog post, odds are that you might be a tech geek yourself. I'd like to ask you to review what the US Digital Service has accomplished in just a few years. If you're a more visual person, you might enjoy this short video:
Working for the government doesn't pay as well as a big company in Silicon Valley. We don't get any free lunches. Many days are incredibly frustrating. All I can tell you is that the work is deeply important and inspiring, and you have a chance to work on things that genuinely make peoples' lives better. A friend who started working in this space several years ago told me ''These last five years have been the hardest and worst and best and most rewarding I think I will ever have.''
If you have experience in the tech industry, there's a decent chance that you have skills that can benefit the American people. If you're considering joining the US Digital Service, please fill out an application.
David Gelernter, fiercely anti-intellectual computer scientist, is being eyed for Trump's science adviser - The Washington Post
Computer scientist David Gelernter, a Yale University professor who has decried the influence of liberal intellectuals on college campuses, is being considered for the role of the Donald Trump's science adviser. Gelernter met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York City on Tuesday, according to press secretary Sean Spicer.
Gelernter is a pioneer in the field of parallel computation, a type of computing in which many calculations are carried out simultaneously. The programming language he developed in the 1980s, Linda, made it possible to link together several small computers into a supercomputer, significantly increasing the amount and complexity of data that computers can process. Since then he has written extensively about artificial intelligence, critiquing the field's slow progress and warning of AI's potential dangers.
In 1993, Gelernter was seriously injured by a letter bomb sent by Ted Kaczynski, the anti-technology terrorist known as the Unabomber.
Beyond computer science circles, Gelernter has made a name for himself as a vehement critic of modern academia. In his 2013 book, ''America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats),'' he condemned ''belligerent leftists'' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values. He attributed the decline in American culture to ''an increasing Jewish presence at top colleges.'' (Gelernter himself is Jewish.)
[This group wants to fight 'anti-science' rhetoric by getting scientists to run for office]
In some ways, Gelernter is a characteristic Trump appointee. He shares the president-elect's bombastic rhetorical style and disdain for elites. In an October op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he reluctantly endorsed Trump, Gelernter compared President Obama to a ''third-rate tyrant'' and called Hillary Clinton a ''phony.''
But he would be an unusual choice for the role of science adviser. If appointed, he would be the first computer scientist to take the job, and the first adviser who is not a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has expressed doubt about the reality of man-made climate change '-- something that 97 percent of active researchers agree is a problem. And his anti-intellectualism makes him an outlier among scientists.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he hadn't heard of Gelernter until Tuesday.
''He's certainly not mainstream in the science community or particularly well known,'' Rosenberg said. ''His views even on most of the key science questions aren't known. Considering the huge range of issues the White House needs to consider, I don't know if he has that kind of capability.''
Neither Gelernter nor the Trump transition team responded to requests for comment.
[Scientists are really, really worried about Donald Trump]
Traditionally, the president's science adviser is also the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which works with agencies and the private sector on scientific issues. He or she '-- though no woman has held the post '-- serves as the link between the White House and experts in the scientific community during natural disasters, industrial crises and disease outbreaks.
Unlike past science advisers, who were members of the major scientific societies, including the National Academy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union, Gelernter won't have established relationships with big names in that community. If a crisis arose, Rosenberg noted, he would have to build connections from scratch.
Shortly after the presidential election, the leaders of some two-dozen scientific societies sent a letter to the president-elect urging him to quickly appoint a science adviser and offering to meet with him to discuss science in the new administration. Rush Holt, chief executive of the AAAS, told The Washington Post that the letter was ''noted'' by Trump's transition team, but the group never received any other response.
Trump Asks Some 50 Senior Obama Appointees to Stay On - ABC News
President-elect Donald Trump has asked roughly 50 senior Obama administration appointees to remain in their posts after his inauguration to ensure continuity in government, his incoming White House press secretary said Thursday.
The officials include the highest-ranking career officials at key national security agencies like the Pentagon and State Department.
Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work and America's third-ranking diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon, will serve as acting chiefs of their agencies until successors for the top jobs are confirmed by the Senate, Trump's spokesman Sean Spicer said.
Thursday's announcement comes after weeks of questions about how Trump's team is managing the presidential transition, although it may not address broader concerns about what officials at many federal agencies have said is a lack of communication with the incoming team.
Such concerns are natural in presidential transitions. But the confusion among officials at national security agencies could have consequences, given their international engagements. The rest of the world doesn't pause while Washington determines its chains of command.
Work will likely helm the Defense Department for only a matter of hours. Trump's selection for the Pentagon, retired Gen. James Mattis, is expected to be confirmed on Friday shortly after the inauguration ceremony, along with retired Gen. John Kelly for Secretary of Homeland Security.
Senate debate on Trump's choice for CIA boss, former Rep. Mike Pompeo, is expected to start Friday. It is unclear if Pompeo will receive an immediate confirmation vote.
At the State Department, Shannon will be in charge until at least until next week as a Senate vote on Trump's choice for secretary of state, former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, isn't expected until Monday or Tuesday.
Also staying will be Brett McGurk, the Obama administration's point-man for fighting the Islamic State group, Nicholas Rasmussen, the National Counterterrorism Center director, and Adam Szubin, the Treasury Department's top official for terrorism and financial intelligence.
Spicer said Chuck Rosenberg, the Drug Enforcement Agency administrator, and Susan Coppedge, the State Department's ambassador-at-large to combat human trafficking, would be left in place for the transition.
The National Institutes of Health said its director, Dr. Francis Collins, was asked to stay on at least temporarily.
A full list of Obama appointees asked to remain was not immediately available.
It also wasn't clear if the Trump administration would accept an invitation to attend Russian-supported Syria peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, on Monday.
Trump has made a great point about seeking closer cooperation with Moscow on counterterrorism and security matters. Obama's special envoy for Syria, Michael Ratney, has indicated he is willing to attend, but the transition team hadn't instructed him to make the trip. Spicer said an announcement was expected soon.
As in previous transitions, U.S. embassies and consulates abroad headed by noncareer, presidential appointee ambassadors will transfer to the most senior career diplomat present until the new administration fills the top posts.
The transition team has largely yielded on matters of national security to retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser, and Jared Kushner, the president-elect's son-in-law. But the circle will have to be expanded once the new administration assumes the full responsibility of government.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the Senate confirmed seven Cabinet members on Inauguration Day. Republicans and Democrats are still negotiating over Trump's picks, and Mattis and Kelly may be the only ones to make it through Friday.
Visitors to the newly revamped White House website get more than a simple rundown of first lady Melania Trump's charitable works and interests '-- they also get a list of her magazine cover appearances and details on her jewelry line at QVC.
Her biography starts with traditional details, such as her date of birth in her native country of Slovenia and information about her background as a model. That's when the brief backgrounder takes a promotional turn. The website includes a lengthy list of brands that hired her as a model and several of the magazines in which she appeared, including the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
It is not uncommon for the White House to note the accomplishments of the first lady in her official biography, but Trump's decision to include a detailed list of her media appearances and branded retail goods is unusual.
Early on Friday, the website listed the brand names of Trump's jewelry lines sold on QVC. But the website was updated after the publication of this story to remove any mention of QVC.
The original passage read: ''Melania is also a successful entrepreneur. In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection, 'Melania' Timepieces & Jewelry,' on QVC,'' the site read.
The updated version of the site now says: ''Melania is also a successful entrepreneur. In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection.''
The televised sales company does not currently sell Trump's jewelry, according to a statement from a QVC spokeswoman.
''At QVC, we pride ourselves on curating an ever-changing mix of products from thousands of brands for our customers to discover,'' a spokeswoman said in an email. ''As part of this, QVC has offered items from Melania Trump's brand. At this time, QVC does not have an active relationship with the brand.''
The changes come at a time when questions have been raised by critics about the ethical implications of the family's business entanglements. A spokesperson for the First Lady said the reference to her jewelry line was intended as a factual statement, not an endorsement and the website was updated out of an abundance of caution.
President Trump has been criticized for failing to fully sever ties with his famous business empire. He announced this month that he would turn over control of his businesses to his two adult sons, but critics say he has not gone far enough. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington tweeted Friday that Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which bars elected officials from profiting from the office they hold.
The site also touches on the previously controversial subject of Melania Trump's university background.
''She would pursue a degree at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, but pause her studies to advance her modeling career in Milan and Paris before moving to New York in 1996,'' the site reads.
Melania Trump's college education was a sensitive point during the campaign. A biography of Trump distributed in a program at the Republican National Convention, which mimicked her biography posted on the Trump Organization, had indicated she had begun modeling ''after obtaining a degree in design and architecture at university in Slovenia.'' Reporters then learned that she had attended the university but did not graduate, prompting the Trump Organization to remove her biography from the company website altogether.
President-elect Donald Trump and his wife Melania left St. John's Episcopal Church after a pre-inauguration church service. (The Washington Post)
Rosalind Helderman and Drew Harwell contributed to this report.
Read more:
On day one, reminders of potential Trump business conflicts
Airplanes, golf courses, trademarks and more: Trump's government will oversee his businesses
powerpost
powerpost
false
endOfArticle
true
Please provide a valid email address.
Sign up
Kelsey Snell covers Congress with a focus on budget and fiscal issues for the Washington Post. She previously covered tax, trade and budget policy.
Back in 2014, when it was clear that Congress was not going to pass bipartisan immigration reform, President Obama vowed to take whatever steps he could, short of legislation, to advance his immigration agenda, including making it easier for foreign entrepreneurs to work in the U.S.
On Tuesday, he made good on that promise: The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a final regulation that expands the use of the government's ''parole'' authority to authorize an immigration benefit for foreign entrepreneurs who can demonstrate they will provide a significant public benefit to the United States as a result of economic growth and/or job creation. This new immigration program, called the International Entrepreneur Rule, is scheduled to go into effect on July 16, 2017.
This expansion of the government's parole authority is a welcome development for foreign entrepreneurs, who have been frustrated by the lack of options available through the existing U.S. visa categories, which generally are not oriented to companies in startup mode.
To qualify, an applicant must be an entrepreneur who owns at least 10 percent of a startup venture (formed within the prior five years), is well positioned to advance the business, and can prove that the venture has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. They can prove this by demonstrating any one of the following:
1. receipt of investments of capital totaling at least $250,000 from U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or startup accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful startup entities
2. awards or grants of at least $100,000 from federal, state, or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation
3. other reliable evidence that s/he would provide a significant public benefit to the U.S.
The initial grant of parole will be 30 months, and parole beneficiaries will be able to apply for an additional 30-month renewal. Parole cannot be accomplished without making a physical entry into the United States. Accordingly, if someone in the U.S. on a visa applies for and receives approval of a parole application, s/he must exit the U.S. and re-enter with parole in order to assume this new status.
International entrepreneurs outside the U.S. may also apply, but as a practical matter, it may be difficult for them to meet the required criteria if they have not yet worked for a startup entity in the U.S. or if they have not worked lawfully for a startup entity.
In contrast to the very strict minimum wage requirements associated with the H-1B temporary work visa, there is no required wage obligation for the parole beneficiary, but to maintain parolee status the parole beneficiary must maintain a household income that is greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty line for his or her household size as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In order to maintain parole status, parole beneficiaries will be required to update USCIS regarding any material changes.
The parolee's spouse and dependent children (under 21) are entitled to apply for parole status and, if it is granted, to remain in the U.S. for the same period of time as the principal parole beneficiary.
Upon arrival in the U.S. on parole status, the spouse of the approved entrepreneur may apply for employment authorization.
The threshold investment and revenue amounts will be automatically adjusted every three years by the Consumer Price Index and the required amounts will be posted on the USCIS website.
As with any regulation, the incoming administration could take steps to rescind it. Hopefully, though, this rule will remain in place. The meager and strict U.S. immigration options for foreign entrepreneurs already drive a lot of talent to other countries that have more enlightened immigration options for entrepreneurs whose startups are driving growth and employment, not to mention solving important, real-world problems. While a legislative solution for a proper startup work visa or green card pathway would be preferable, this creative approach by the Obama administration to helping foreign entrepreneurs is a most welcome development.
Susan Cohen is founder and Chair of the Immigration Practice at the law firm Mintz Levin. She contributed to the U.S .Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, the Department of Labor regulations implementing changes to the H-1B visa category, and the Department of Labor PERM labor certification regulations issued in 2004. She also helped draft the legislation which resulted in the Massachusetts Global Entrepreneur in Residence (GEIR) program. She has won awards for her political asylum work from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project, and the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Federal Register :: International Entrepreneur Rule
Start PreambleStart Printed Page 5238U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to implement the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretionary parole authority in order to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. The final rule adds new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case-by-case basis with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up entities who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. If granted, parole would provide a temporary initial stay of up to 30 months (which may be extended by up to an additional 30 months) to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States.
This final rule is effective July 17, 2017.
Start Further InfoSteven Viger, Adjudications Officer, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2140; Telephone (202) 272-1470.
End Further InfoEnd PreambleStart Supplemental InformationTable of ContentsI. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Legal Authority
C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions
D. Summary of Changes From the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
E. Summary of Costs and Benefits
F. Effective Date
II. Background
A. Current Framework
B. Final Rule
III. Public Comments on Proposed Rule
A. Summary of Public Comments
B. Legal Authority
C. Significant Public Benefit
D. Definitions
E. Application Requirements
F. Parole Criteria and Conditions
G. Employment Authorization
H. Comments on Parole Process
I. Appeals and Motions To Reopen
J. Termination of Parole
K. Opposition to the Overall Rule
L. Miscellaneous Comments on the Rule
M. Public Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
1. Summary
2. Purpose of the Rule
3. Volume Estimate
4. Costs
5. Benefits
6. Alternatives Considered
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Executive Order 13132
F. Executive Order 12988
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Executive SummaryA. Purpose of the Regulatory ActionSection 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), confers upon the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretionary authority to parole individuals into the United States temporarily, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. DHS is amending its regulations implementing this authority to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. As described in more detail below, the final rule would establish general criteria for the use of parole with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up entities who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. In all cases, whether to parole a particular individual under this rule is a discretionary determination that would be made on a case-by-case basis.
Given the complexities involved in adjudicating applications in this context, DHS has decided to establish by regulation the criteria for the case-by-case evaluation of parole applications filed by entrepreneurs of start-up entities. By including such criteria in regulation, as well as establishing application requirements that are specifically tailored to capture the necessary information for processing parole requests on this basis, DHS expects to facilitate the use of parole in this area.
Under this final rule, an applicant would need to demonstrate that his or her parole would provide a significant public benefit because he or she is the entrepreneur of a new start-up entity in the United States that has significant potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS believes that such potential would be indicated by, among other things, the receipt of (1) significant capital investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments or (2) significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State, or local government entities. The final rule also includes alternative criteria for applicants who partially meet the thresholds for capital investment or government awards or grants and can provide additional reliable and compelling evidence of their entities' significant potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant must also show that he or she has a substantial ownership interest in such an entity, has an active and central role in the entity's operations, and would substantially further the entity's ability to engage in research and development or otherwise conduct and grow its business in the United States. The grant of parole is intended to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow the start-up entity.
DHS believes that this final rule will encourage foreign entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities with high growth potential in the United States, which are expected to facilitate research and development in the country, create jobs for U.S. workers, and otherwise benefit the U.S. economy through increased business activity, innovation, and dynamism. Particularly in light of the complex considerations involved in entrepreneur-based parole requests, DHS also believes that this final rule will provide a transparent framework by which DHS will exercise its discretion to adjudicate such requests on a case-by-case basis under section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
B. Legal AuthorityThe Secretary of Homeland Security's authority for the proposed regulatory amendments can be found in various provisions of the immigration laws. Sections 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), provides the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. Section 402(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 202(4), expressly authorizes the Start Printed Page 5239Secretary to establish rules and regulations governing parole. Section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), vests in the Secretary the discretionary authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit to applicants for admission temporarily on a case-by-case basis.[] Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the Secretary's general authority to extend employment authorization to noncitizens in the United States. And section 101(b)(1)(F) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), establishes as a primary mission of DHS the duty to ''ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''
C. Summary of the Final Rule ProvisionsThis final rule adds a new section 8 CFR 212.19 to provide guidance with respect to the use of parole for entrepreneurs of start-up entities based upon significant public benefit. An individual seeking to operate and grow his or her start-up entity in the United States would generally need to demonstrate the following to be considered for a discretionary grant of parole under this final rule:
1. Formation of New Start-Up Entity. The applicant has recently formed a new entity in the United States that has lawfully done business since its creation and has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the initial parole application. See8 CFR 219.12(a)(2), 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7).
2. Applicant is an Entrepreneur. The applicant is an entrepreneur of the start-up entity who is well-positioned to advance the entity's business. An applicant may meet this standard by providing evidence that he or she: (1) Possesses a significant (at least 10 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole; and (2) has an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and growing its business in the United States. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Such an applicant cannot be a mere investor.
3. Significant U.S. Capital Investment or Government Funding. The applicant can further validate, through reliable supporting evidence, the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant may be able to satisfy this criterion in one of several ways:
a. Investments from established U.S. investors. The applicant may show that the entity has received significant investment of capital from certain qualified U.S. investors with established records of successful investments. An applicant would generally be able to meet this standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received investments of capital totaling $250,000 or more from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities.
b. Government grants. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has received significant awards or grants from Federal, State or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. An applicant would generally be able to meet this standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received monetary awards or grants totaling $100,000 or more from government entities that typically provide such funding to U.S. businesses for economic, research and development, or job creation purposes.
c. Alternative criteria. The final rule provides alternative criteria under which an applicant who partially meets one or more of the above criteria related to capital investment or government funding may be considered for parole under this rule if he or she provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such evidence must serve as a compelling validation of the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
This final rule states that an applicant who meets the above criteria (and his or her spouse and minor, unmarried children,[] if any) generally may be considered under this rule for a discretionary grant of parole lasting up to 30 months (2.5 years) based on the significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant's (or family's) parole into the United States. An applicant will be required to file a new application specifically tailored for entrepreneurs to demonstrate eligibility for parole based upon significant public benefit under this rule, along with applicable fees. Applicants will also be required to appear for collection of biometric information. No more than three entrepreneurs may receive parole with respect to any one qualifying start-up entity.
USCIS adjudicators will consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence obtained by USCIS through background checks and other means, to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the above criteria, whether the specific applicant's parole would provide a significant public benefit, and whether negative factors exist that warrant denial of parole as a matter of discretion. To grant parole, adjudicators will be required to conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, that both: (1) The applicant's parole would provide a significant public benefit, and (2) the applicant merits a grant of parole as a matter of discretion.
If parole is granted, the entrepreneur will be authorized for employment incident to the grant of parole, but only with respect to the entrepreneur's start-up entity. The entrepreneur's spouse and children, if any, will not be authorized for employment incident to the grant of parole, but the entrepreneur's spouse, if paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 CFR 212.19, will be permitted to apply for employment authorization consistent with new 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34). DHS retains the authority to revoke any such grant of parole at any time as a matter of discretion or if DHS determines that parole no longer provides a significant public benefit, such as when the entity has ceased operations in the United States or DHS has reason to believe that the approved application involves fraud or misrepresentation. See new 8 CFR 212.19(k).
As noted, the purpose of this parole process is to provide qualified entrepreneurs of high-potential start-up entities in the United States with the improved ability to conduct research and development and expand the entities' operations in the United States so that our nation's economy may Start Printed Page 5240benefit from such development and expansion, including through increased capital expenditures, innovation, and job creation. The final rule allows individuals granted parole under this rule to be considered for re-parole for an additional period of up to 30 months (2.5 years) if, and only if, they can demonstrate that their entities have shown signs of significant growth since the initial grant of parole and such entities continue to have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
An applicant under this rule will generally need to demonstrate the following to be considered for a discretionary grant of an additional period of parole:
1. Continuation of Start-Up Entity. The entity continues to be a start-up entity as defined by the proposed rule. For purposes of seeking re-parole, an applicant may be able to meet this standard by showing that the entity: (a) Has been lawfully operating in the United States during the period of parole; and (b) continues to have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
2. Applicant Continues to Be an Entrepreneur. The applicant continues to be an entrepreneur of the start-up entity who is well-positioned to advance the entity's business. An applicant may meet this standard by providing evidence that he or she: (a) Continues to possess a significant (at least 5 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the grant of re-parole; and (b) continues to have an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and continuing to grow its business in the United States. This reduced ownership amount takes into account the need of some successful start-up entities to raise additional venture capital investment by selling ownership interest during their initial years of operation.
3. Significant U.S. Investment/Revenue/Job Creation. The applicant further validates, through reliable supporting evidence, the start-up entity's continued potential for rapid growth and job creation. An applicant may be able to satisfy this criterion in one of several ways:
a. Additional Investments or Grants. The applicant may show that during the initial period of parole the start-up entity received additional substantial investments of capital, including through qualified investments from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments; significant awards or grants from U.S. government entities that regularly provide such funding to start-up entities; or a combination of both. An applicant would generally be expected to demonstrate that the entity received at least $500,000 in additional qualifying funding during the initial parole period. As noted previously, any private investment that the applicant is relying upon as evidence that the investment criterion has been met must be made by qualified U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities. Government awards or grants must be from U.S. federal, state or local government entities with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation.
b. Revenue generation. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has generated substantial and rapidly increasing revenue in the United States during the initial parole period. To satisfy this criterion, an applicant will need to demonstrate that the entity reached at least $500,000 in annual revenue, with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent, during the initial parole period.
c. Job creation. The applicant may show that the start-up entity has demonstrated substantial job creation in the United States during the initial parole period. To satisfy this criterion, an applicant will need to demonstrate that the entity created at least 5 full-time jobs for U.S. workers during the initial parole period.
d. Alternative criteria. As with initial parole, the final rule includes alternative criteria under which an applicant who partially meets one or more of the above criteria related to capital investment, revenue generation, or job creation may be considered for re-parole under this rule if he or she provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that his or her parole will continue to provide a significant public benefit. As discussed above, such evidence must serve as a compelling validation of the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
As indicated above, an applicant who generally meets the above criteria and merits a favorable exercise of discretion may be granted an additional 30-month period of re-parole, for a total maximum period of 5 years of parole under 8 CFR 212.19, to work with the same start-up entity based on the significant public benefit that would be served by his or her continued parole in the United States. No more than three entrepreneurs (and their spouses and children) may receive such additional periods of parole with respect to any one qualifying entity.
As with initial parole applications, USCIS adjudicators will consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence obtained by USCIS through verification methods, to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the above criteria and whether his or her continued parole would provide a significant public benefit. To be re-paroled, adjudicators will be required to conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, both: (1) That the applicant's continued parole would provide a significant public benefit, and (2) that the applicant continues to merit parole as a matter of discretion. If the applicant is re-paroled, DHS retains the authority to revoke parole at any time as a matter of discretion or if DHS determines that parole no longer provides a significant public benefit, such as when the entity has ceased operations in the United States or DHS believes that the application involved fraud or made material misrepresentations.
The entrepreneur and any dependents granted parole under this program will be required to depart the United States when their parole periods have expired or have otherwise been terminated, unless such individuals are otherwise eligible to lawfully remain in the United States. At any time prior to reaching the 5-year limit for parole under this final rule, such individuals may apply for any immigrant or nonimmigrant classification for which they may be eligible (such as classification as an O-1 nonimmigrant or as a lawful permanent resident pursuant to an EB-2 National Interest Waiver). Because parole is not considered an admission to the United States, parolees are ineligible to adjust or change their status in the United States under many immigrant or nonimmigrant visa classifications. For example, if such individuals are approved for a nonimmigrant or employment-based immigrant visa classification, they would generally need to depart the United States and apply for a visa with the Department of State (DOS) for admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant or lawful permanent resident.
Finally, DHS is making conforming changes to the employment authorization regulations at 8 CFR 274a.12(b) and (c), the employment eligibility verification regulations at 8 CFR 274a.2(b), and fee regulations at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i). The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.12(b) by: (1) Adding entrepreneur parolees to the classes of Start Printed Page 5241aliens authorized for employment incident to their immigration status or parole, and (2) providing temporary employment authorization for those applying for re-parole. The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.12(c) by extending eligibility for employment authorization to the spouse of an entrepreneur paroled into the United States under 8 CFR 212.19. The final rule amends 8 CFR 274a.2(b) by designating the entrepreneur's foreign passport and Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) indicating entrepreneur parole as acceptable evidence for employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) purposes.[] The final rule also amends 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i) by including the fee for the new Application for Entrepreneur Parole form.
D. Summary of Changes From the Notice of Proposed RulemakingFollowing careful consideration of public comments received, including relevant data provided by stakeholders, DHS has made several modifications to the regulatory text proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2016. See81 FR 60129. Those changes include the following:
Minimum Investment Amount. In the final rule, DHS is responding to public comment by revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1), a provision that identifies the qualifying investment amount required from one or more qualified investors. In the NPRM, DHS proposed a minimum investment amount of $345,000. Based on data provided by the public, DHS is revising this figure to $250,000. Thus, under the final rule, an applicant would generally be able to meet the investment standard by demonstrating that the start-up entity has received investments of capital totaling $250,000 or more from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities. In addition, DHS has increased the timeframe during which the qualifying investments must be received from 365 days to 18 months immediately preceding the filing of an application for initial parole.Definition of Entrepreneur: Ownership Criteria. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1), a provision that defines the term ''entrepreneur,'' and establishes a minimum ownership percentage necessary to meet the definition. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that the entrepreneur must have an ownership interest of at least 15 percent for initial parole, and 10 percent for re-parole. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this requirement to allow individuals who have an ownership interest of at least 10 percent in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole, and at least a 5 percent ownership interest at the time of adjudication of a subsequent period of re-parole, to qualify under this definition.Qualified Investment Definition. DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(4), which establishes the definition of a qualified investment. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that the term ''qualified investment'' means an investment made in good faith, and that is not an attempt to circumvent any limitations imposed on investments under this section, of lawfully derived capital in a start-up entity that is a purchase from such entity of equity or convertible debt issued by such entity. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this definition to include other securities that are convertible into equity issued by such an entity and that are commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry.Qualified Investor Definition. DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5), which establishes the definition of a qualified investor. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an individual or organization may be considered a qualified investor if, during the preceding 5 years: (i) The individual or organization made investments in start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt in at least 3 separate calendar years comprising a total within such 5-year period of no less than $1,000,000; and (ii) subsequent to such investment by such individual or organization, at least 2 such entities each created at least 5 qualified jobs or generated at least $500,000 in revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent. In this final rule, the minimum investment amount has been decreased from the originally proposed $1,000,000 to $600,000. The requirement that investments be made in at least 3 separate calendar years has also been removed from this final rule. DHS is also making revisions to the form of investment made by the individual or organization consistent with the change to the qualified investment definition by adding ''or other security convertible into equity commonly used in financing transactions within their respective industries.''Start-up Entity Definition. In the final rule, DHS is revising the definition of a start-up entity as proposed in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2). In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 3 years preceding the date of filing of the initial parole request. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this provision so that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the initial parole request. Additionally, for purposes of paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section, which pertain to the definitional requirements to be a qualified investor or qualified government award or grant, respectively, DHS made corresponding changes in this final rule such that an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the receipt of the relevant grant(s), award(s), or investment(s).Job Creation Requirement. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2), a provision that identifies the minimum job creation requirement under the general re-parole criteria. In the NPRM, DHS proposed that an entrepreneur may be eligible for an additional period of parole by establishing that his or her start-up entity has created at least 10 qualified jobs during the initial parole period. In response to public comment, DHS is modifying this provision so that an entrepreneur may qualify for re-parole if the start-up entity created at least 5 qualified jobs with the start-up entity during the initial parole period.Revenue Generation. In the final rule, DHS is clarifying proposed 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(3), a provision that identifies the minimum annual revenue requirement under the general re-parole criteria. DHS has clarified that for the revenue to be considered for purposes of re-parole, it must be generated in the United States.Parole Validity Periods. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) and (3), which are provisions that identify the length of the initial and re-parole periods. In the NPRM, DHS proposed (1) a potential initial period of parole of up to 2 years beginning on the date the request is approved by USCIS and (2) a potential period of re-parole of up to 3 years beginning on the date of the expiration Start Printed Page 5242of the initial parole period. First, DHS revised 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) to correct that the initial parole period would begin running on the date the individual is initially paroled into the United States. Second, in response to public comment, DHS revised 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) and (3) to provide 2 potential parole periods of up to 30 months each, rather than an initial 2-year period followed by a potential 3-year period of re-parole. Specifically, 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2) now provides that an applicant who meets the eligibility criteria (and his or her spouse and minor, unmarried children, if any) may be considered under this rule for a discretionary grant of an initial parole period of up to 30 months (2.5 years) based on the significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant's (or family's) parole into the United States. DHS also revised in this final rule the period of re-parole in 8 CFR 212.19(d)(3) to reduce the period of re-parole from 3 years to 30 months in order to extend the initial parole period, while still maintaining the overall 5-year period of parole limitation.Material Changes. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(10), a provision that defines material changes. The final rule adds the following to the definition of material changes: ''a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity.'' This reflects a change from the originally proposed language of any significant change to the entrepreneur's role in or ownership and control in the start-up entity or any other significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity. Additionally, the final rule at 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) adds language that permits the entrepreneur during the initial parole period to reduce his or her ownership interest, as long as at least 5 percent ownership is maintained. This provision was revised in response to a number of public comments that requested that DHS reconsider how and when material changes should be reported.Reporting of Material Changes. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(j), a provision that describes reporting of material changes. DHS is revising 8 CFR 212.19(j) to allow DHS to provide additional flexibility in the future with respect to the manner in which material changes are reported to DHS. The final rule also makes conforming changes based on changes to the definition of entrepreneur.Termination of Parole. In the final rule, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(k)(2), a provision that describes automatic termination of parole. The final rule makes conforming revisions to this provision based on changes to the definition of entrepreneur and to the material change provisions.E. Summary of Costs and BenefitsDHS does not anticipate that this rule will generate significant costs and burdens to private or public entities. Costs of the rule stem from filing fees and opportunity costs associated with applying for parole, and the requirement that the entrepreneur notify DHS of any material changes.
DHS estimates that 2,940 entrepreneurs will be eligible for parole annually and can apply using the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941). Each applicant for parole will face a total filing cost'--including the application form fee, biometric filing fee, travel costs, and associated opportunity costs'--of $1,591, resulting in a total cost of $4,678,336 (undiscounted) for the first full year the rule will take effect and any subsequent year. Additionally, dependent family members (spouses and children) seeking parole with the principal applicant will be required to file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131) and submit biographical information and biometrics. DHS estimates approximately 3,234 dependent spouses and children could seek parole based on the estimate of 2,940 principal applicants. Each spouse and child 14 years of age and older seeking parole will face a total cost of $765 per applicant,[] for a total aggregate cost of $2,474,914.[] Additionally, spouses who apply for work authorization via an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) will incur a total additional cost of $446 each. Based on the same number of entrepreneurs, the estimated 2,940 spouses'[] will incur total costs of $1,311,830 (undiscounted). The total cost of the rule to include direct filing costs and monetized non-filing costs is estimated to be $8,136,571 annually.
DHS anticipates that establishing a parole process for those entrepreneurs who stand to provide a significant public benefit will advance the U.S. economy by enhancing innovation, generating capital investments, and creating jobs. DHS does not expect significant negative consequences or labor market impacts from this rule; indeed, DHS believes this rule will encourage entrepreneurs to pursue business opportunities in the United States rather than abroad, which can be expected to generate significant scientific, research and development, and technological impacts that could create new products and produce positive spillover effects to other businesses and sectors. The impacts stand to benefit the economy by supporting and strengthening high-growth, job-creating businesses in the United States.
F. Effective DateThis final rule will be effective on July 17, 2017, 180 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. DHS has determined that this 180-day period is necessary to provide USCIS with a reasonable period to ensure resources are in place to process and adjudicate Applications for Entrepreneur Parole filed by eligible entrepreneurs and related applications filed by eligible dependents under this rule without sacrificing the quality of customer service for all USCIS stakeholders. USCIS believes it will thus be able to implement this rule in a manner that will avoid delays of processing these and other applications.
II. BackgroundA. Discretionary Parole AuthorityThe Secretary of Homeland Security has discretionary authority to parole into the United States temporarily ''under conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any individual applying for admission to the United States,'' regardless of whether the alien is inadmissible. INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).[] The Secretary's parole authority is expansive. Congress did not define the phrase ''urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,'' entrusting interpretation and application of those Start Printed Page 5243standards to the Secretary. Aside from requiring case-by-case determinations, Congress limited the parole authority by restricting its use with respect to two classes of applicants for admissions: (1) Aliens who are refugees (unless the Secretary determines that ''compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled . . . rather than be admitted as a refugee'' under INA section 207, 8 U.S.C. 1157), see INA section 212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B); and (2) certain alien crewmen during a labor dispute in specified circumstances (unless the Secretary ''determines that the parole of such alien is necessary to protect the national security of the United States''), INA section 214(f)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(f)(2)(A).
Parole decisions are discretionary determinations and must be made on a case-by-case basis consistent with the INA. To exercise its parole authority, DHS must determine that an individual's parole into the United States is justified by urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Even when one of those standards would be met, DHS may nevertheless deny parole as a matter of discretion based on other factors.[] In making such discretionary determinations, USCIS considers all relevant information, including any criminal history or other serious adverse factors that would weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion.
Parole is not an admission to the United States. See INA sections 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A); see also8 CFR 1.2 (''An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.''). Parole may also be terminated at any time in DHS's discretion, consistent with existing regulations; in those cases, the individual is ''restored to the status that he or she had at the time of parole.'' 8 CFR 212.5(e); see also INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).[]
DHS regulations at 8 CFR 212.5 generally describe DHS's discretionary parole authority, including the authority to set the terms and conditions of parole. Some conditions are described in the regulations, including requiring reasonable assurances that the parolee will appear at all hearings and will depart from the United States when required to do so. See8 CFR 212.5(d).
Each of the DHS immigration components'--USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'--has been delegated the authority to parole applicants for admission in accordance with section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). See8 CFR 212.5(a). The parole authority is often utilized to permit an individual who is outside the United States to travel to and come into the United States without a visa. USCIS, however, also accepts requests for ''advance parole'' by individuals who seek authorization to depart the United States and return to the country pursuant to parole in the future. See8 CFR 212.5(f); Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). Aliens who seek parole as entrepreneurs under this rule may need to apply for advance parole if at the time of application they are present in the United States after admission in, for example, a nonimmigrant classification, as USCIS is unable to grant parole to aliens who are not ''applicants for admission.'' See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also INA section 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (describing ''applicants for admission''). Advance authorization of parole by USCIS does not guarantee that the individual will be paroled by CBP upon his or her appearance at a port of entry.[] Rather, with a grant of advance parole, the individual is issued a document authorizing travel (in lieu of a visa) indicating ''that, so long as circumstances do not meaningfully change and the DHS does not discover material information that was previously unavailable, . . . DHS's discretion to parole him at the time of his return to a port of entry will likely be exercised favorably.'''[]
Currently, upon an individual's arrival at a U.S. port of entry with a parole travel document (e.g., a Department of State (DOS) foil, Authorization for Parole of an Alien into the United States (Form I-512L), or an Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766)), a CBP officer at a port of entry inspects the prospective parolee. If parole is authorized, the CBP officer issues an Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) documenting the grant of parole and the length of the parolee's authorized parole period. See8 CFR 235.1(h)(2). CBP retains the authority to deny parole to a parole applicant or to modify the length of advance parole authorized by USCIS. See8 CFR 212.5(c).
Because parole does not constitute an admission, individuals may be paroled into the United States even if they are inadmissible under section 212(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). Further, parole does not provide a parolee with nonimmigrant status or lawful permanent resident status. Nor does it provide the parolee with a basis for changing status to that of a nonimmigrant or adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident, unless the parolee is otherwise eligible.
Under current regulations, once paroled into the United States, a parolee is eligible to request employment authorization from USCIS by filing a Form I-765 application with USCIS. See8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). If employment authorization is granted, USCIS issues the parolee an employment authorization document (EAD) with an expiration date that is commensurate with the period of parole on the parolee's Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94). The parolee may use this EAD to demonstrate identity and employment authorization to an employer for Form I-9 verification purposes as required by section 274A(a) and (b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a) and (b). Under current regulations, the parolee is not employment authorized by virtue of being paroled, but instead only after receiving a discretionary grant of employment authorization from USCIS based on the Application for Employment Authorization.
Parole will terminate automatically upon the expiration of the authorized parole period or upon the departure of the individual from the United States. See8 CFR 212.5(e)(1). Parole also may be terminated on written notice when DHS determines that the individual no longer warrants parole or through the service of a Notice to Appear (NTA). See8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i).
B. Final RuleFollowing careful consideration of public comments received, DHS has made several modifications to the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM (as described above in Section I.C.). The rationale for the proposed rule and the reasoning provided in the background section of that rule remain valid with respect to these regulatory amendments. Section III of this final rule includes a detailed summary and analysis of public comments that are pertinent to the proposed rule and DHS's role in Start Printed Page 5244administering the International Entrepreneur Rule. A brief summary of comments deemed by DHS to be out of scope or unrelated to this rulemaking, making a detailed substantive response unnecessary, is provided in Section III.K. Comments may be reviewed at the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number USCIS-2015-0006.
III. Public Comments on the Proposed RuleA. Summary of Public CommentsIn response to the proposed rule, DHS received 763 comments during the 45-day public comment period. Of these, 43 comments were duplicate submissions and approximately 242 were letters submitted through mass mailing campaigns. As those letters were sufficiently unique, DHS considered all of these comment submissions. Commenters consisted primarily of individuals but also included startup incubators, companies, venture capital firms, law firms and representatives from State and local governments. Approximately 51 percent of commenters expressed support for the rule and/or offered suggestions for improvement. Nearly 46 percent of commenters expressed general opposition to the rule without suggestions for improvement. For approximately 3 percent of the public comments, DHS could not ascertain whether the commenter supported or opposed the proposed rule.
DHS has reviewed all of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule and addresses relevant comments in this final rule. DHS's responses are grouped by subject area, with a focus on the most common issues and suggestions raised by commenters.
B. Legal AuthorityComments. One commenter supported DHS's stated authority for promulgating this regulation and said that the INA grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish policies governing parole and that efforts to reduce barriers to entrepreneurship via regulatory reform directly addresses DHS's mandate, ''to ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.'' On the other hand, some commenters questioned DHS's authority to implement this rule. A commenter asserted that the rule created a new visa category which is under the exclusive purview of Congress, and therefore an illegal extension of authority by the executive branch. Another commenter indicated that the proposed rule is too vague regarding whether ''the agency intends to grant parole to aliens already present in the United States,'' and questioned whether the proposed exercise of parole authority is supported by legislative history, is consistent with the INA's overall statutory scheme, and whether ''significant public benefit parole'' as outlined in this rule is ''arbitrary and capricious.''
Response. DHS agrees with the commenter that contended that the Secretary has authority to promulgate this rule. As noted above, DHS's authority to promulgate this rule arises primarily from sections 101(b)(1)(F) and 402(4) of the HSA; sections 103(a)(1) and (3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3); section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5); and section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B). The Secretary retains broad statutory authority to exercise his discretionary parole authority based upon ''significant public benefit.''
DHS disagrees with the comment asserting that the proposed rule would effectively create a new visa category, which only Congress has the authority to do. See INA section 101(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (identifying nonimmigrant categories). Congress expressly empowered DHS to grant parole on a case-by-case basis, and nothing in this rule uses that authority to establish a new nonimmigrant classification. Among other things, individuals who are granted parole'--which can be terminated at any time in the Secretary's discretion'--are not considered to have been ''admitted'' to the United States, see INA sections 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A); and cannot change to a nonimmigrant category as a parolee, see INA section 248(a), 8 U.S.C. 1258(a). Nor does parole confer lawful permanent resident status. To adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident, individuals generally must, among other things, be admissible to the United States, have a family or employment-based immigrant visa immediately available to them, and not be subject to the various bars to adjustment of status. See INA section 245(a), (c), (k); 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), (c), (k); 8 CFR 245.1.
DHS further disagrees with the comment that this rule is inconsistent with the legislative history on parole. Under current law, Congress has expressly authorized the Secretary to grant parole on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The statutory language in place today is somewhat more restrictive than earlier versions of the parole authority, which did not always require case-by-case review and now includes additional limits on the use of parole for refugees and certain alien crewmen. See INA section 212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B) (refugees); INA section 214(f)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(f)(2)(A) (alien crewmen); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, div. C, sec. 602(a)-(b), 110 Stat. 3009-689 (1996) (changing the standard for parole). But the statute clearly continues to authorize the granting of parole. Across Administrations, moreover, it has been accepted that the Secretary can identify classes of individuals to consider for parole so long as each individual decision is made on a case-by-case basis according to the statutory criteria. See, e.g.,8 CFR 212.5(b) (as amended in 1997); Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 72 FR 65,588 (Nov. 21, 2007). This rule implements the parole authority in that way.
In addition to the concerns described above, one commenter argued that the proposed rule did not clearly explain whether ''the agency intends to grant parole to aliens already present in the United States.'' DHS believes it is clear under this rule that an individual who is present in the United States as a nonimmigrant based on an inspection and admission is not eligible for parole without first departing the United States and appearing at a U.S. port of entry to be paroled into United States. See INA sections 212(d)(5)(A), 235(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), 1225(a)(1). As further discussed in section III.H. of this rule, moreover, DHS does not contemplate using this rule to grant requests for parole in place for initial requests for parole.
Comment: A commenter objected to the extension of employment authorization by this rule to entrepreneur parolees for the sole purpose of engaging in entrepreneurial employment, stating that DHS is barred from doing so given the comprehensive legislative scheme for employment-based temporary and permanent immigration.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter. Under a plain reading of INA section 103(a), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), the Secretary is provided with broad discretion to administer and enforce the Nation's immigration laws and broad authority to ''establish such regulations . . . and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the [INA],'' see INA section 103(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). Further, the specific definitional Start Printed Page 5245provision at section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), which was raised by the commenter, presumes that employment may be authorized by the Secretary and not just by statute. See Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (''Congress has given the Executive Branch broad discretion to determine when noncitizens may work in the United States.''); Perales v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1048, 1050 (5th Cir. 1990) (describing the authority recognized by INA 274A(h)(3) as ''permissive'' and largely ''unfettered''). The fact that Congress has directed the Secretary to authorize employment to specific classes of foreign nationals in certain statutory provisions does not diminish the Secretary's broad authority under other statutory provisions to administer the immigration laws, including through the extension of employment authorization. See generally8 CFR 274a.12 (identifying, by regulation, numerous ''classes of aliens authorized to accept employment'').
C. Significant Public BenefitComment: One commenter stated that the quality of the jobs created should be a factor in determining whether the entrepreneur's parole will provide a significant public benefit. The commenter suggested formalizing some form of priority criteria.
Response: Under this final rule, evidence regarding job creation may be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for ''significant public benefit.'' An entrepreneur may be considered for an initial period of parole if the entrepreneur's start-up entity has received a qualifying investment or grant. Alternatively, if the entity has received a lesser investment or grant amount, the entrepreneur may still be considered for parole by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Evidence pertaining to the creation of jobs, as well as the characteristics of the jobs created (e.g., occupational classification and wage level) may be considered by DHS in determining whether the evidence, when combined with the amount of investment, grant or award, establishes that the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. As with initial parole determinations, evidence pertaining to the creation of jobs, as well as the characteristics of the jobs created (e.g., occupational classification and wage level) may be considered by DHS to determine whether the entrepreneur should be granted re-parole.
Given the way job creation will already be considered, DHS believes it is unnecessary to make ''job quality'' its own separate criterion in determining whether to grant parole or re-parole. It is also unclear how the commenter believes DHS should apply any such criterion. Under this final rule, DHS will evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence about job creation, in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for significant public benefit.
D. Definitions1. Entrepreneur'--Ownership CriteriaComments: Several commenters expressed concern with the 15 percent ''substantial ownership interest'' requirement in the definition of ''entrepreneur'' in the proposed rule. One such commenter said the 15 percent ''substantial ownership interest'' requirement is only reasonable for smaller startups and proposed that the rule also separately include a dollar amount to satisfy the ''substantial ownership interest'' requirement (e.g., 15 percent ownership interest or ownership interest valued at $150,000 or more). Several commenters recommended that the final rule reduce the initial parole threshold from 15 to 10 percent and reduce the re-parole threshold from 10 to 5 percent. Other commenters suggested that 10 percent ownership per individual would be a more appropriate threshold because some start-ups may be founded by teams of founders that need to split equity and requiring more than 15 percent ownership might be too restrictive and limit business creativity and growth.
Response: Consistent with the commenters' concerns and suggestions, DHS is revising the definition of entrepreneur in this final rule to reduce the ownership percentage that the individual must possess. See8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Based on further analysis, DHS believes that the thresholds from the proposed rule could have unnecessarily impacted an entrepreneur's ability to dilute his or her ownership interest to raise additional funds and grow the start-up entity. In this final rule, an individual may be considered to possess a substantial ownership interest if he or she possesses at least a 10 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole and possesses at least a 5 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of a subsequent period of re-parole. DHS believes that the revised ownership percentage requirements in this final rule adequately account for the possibility of equity dilution, while ensuring that the individual continues to have a substantial ownership interest in, and assumes more than a nominal financial risk related to, the start-up entity.
Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS declines to adopt a separate option of establishing substantial ownership interest based on a valuation of the entrepreneur's ownership interest. DHS believes that the percentages provided within the final rule offer clear guidance to stakeholders and adjudicators as to what constitutes a substantial ownership interest regardless of the industry involved. Reliance upon valuations of an owner's interest would unnecessarily complicate the adjudicative review process, could potentially increase fraud and abuse, and may be burdensome for the applicant to obtain from an independent and reliable source. DHS, therefore, believes that the best indicator of an entrepreneur's ownership interest is the individual's ownership percentage since that is easy for an applicant to establish and provides an objective indicator for DHS to assess. DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
2. Other Comments on Entrepreneur DefinitionComment: One commenter stated that, in defining who counts as an ''entrepreneur,'' the rule should take into account whether an individual has been successful in the past, including by having previously owned and developed businesses, generated more than a certain amount of revenue, created more than a certain number of jobs, or earned at least a certain amount.
Response: Under this final rule, evidence regarding an entrepreneur's track record may be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States for ''significant public benefit.'' The final rule's definition of entrepreneur requires the applicant to show that he or she both: (1) Possesses a substantial ownership interest in the start-up entity, and (2) has a central and active role in the operations of that entity, such that the alien is well-positioned, due to his or her knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. See new 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Some of the factors suggested by the commenter are Start Printed Page 5246relevant evidence that the applicant can submit to show that he or she is well-positioned to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. DHS will also evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine whether an applicant's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit and that he or she otherwise merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Given the way an entrepreneur's track record may already be considered on a case-by-case basis, DHS believes it is unnecessary to make the specific factors identified by the commenter their own separate criteria in determining whether to grant parole or re-parole.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that DHS clarify the term ''well-positioned'' as used in the definition of ''entrepreneur.'' See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) (requiring an international entrepreneur to prove that he or she ''is well-positioned, due to his or her knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business''). The commenters believe that the proposed rule did not explain how an applicant would demonstrate that he or she is ''well-positioned.'' The commenters recommend that the ''substantial ownership interest'' test in the same provision should provide a rebuttable presumption that the entrepreneur is ''well-positioned'' and that the ''significant capital financing'' requirements reflect the market demand for the entrepreneur to grow the business.
Response: DHS believes that both the proposed rule and this final rule sufficiently explain how an applicant may establish that he or she is ''well-positioned'' to grow the start-up entity. An applicant may generally establish that he or she is well-positioned to advance the entity's business by providing evidence that he or she: (1) Possesses a significant (at least 10 percent) ownership interest in the entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole, and (2) has an active and central role in the operations and future growth of the entity, such that his or her knowledge, skills, or experience would substantially assist the entity in conducting and growing its business in the United States. Such an applicant cannot be a mere investor. The applicant must be central to the entity's business and well-positioned to actively assist in the growth of that business, such that his or her presence would help the entity create jobs, spur research and development, or provide other benefits to the United States. Whether an applicant has an ''active and central role,'' and therefore is well-positioned to advance the entity's business, will be determined based on the totality of the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. Such evidence may include:
Letters from relevant government agencies, qualified investors, or established business associations with an understanding of the applicant's knowledge, skills or experience that would advance the entity's business;news articles or other similar evidence indicating that the applicant has received significant attention and recognition;documentation showing that the applicant or entity has been recently invited to participate in, is currently participating in, or has graduated from one or more established and reputable start-up accelerators;documentation showing that the applicant has played an active and central role in the success of prior start-up or other relevant business entities;degrees or other documentation indicating that the applicant has knowledge, skills, or experience that would significantly advance the entity's business;documentation pertaining to intellectual property of the start-up entity, such as a patent, that was obtained by the applicant or as a result of the applicant's efforts and expertise;a position description of the applicant's role in the operations of the company; andany other relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the applicant's ability to advance the entity's business in the United States.Particularly given the way this evidence will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the need to ensure parole is justified by significant public benefit, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion of adopting a rebuttable presumption that certain applicants meet the ''well-positioned'' requirement. The burden of proof remains with the applicant.
Comment: One commenter representing a group of technology companies recommended that DHS add the term ''intellectual property'' as a metric that an adjudicator would take into consideration when determining the ''active and central role'' that the international entrepreneur performs in the organization. The commenter noted that it had several member companies that have non-citizen inventors on a key patent application, and have had core intellectual property developed by non-citizens, often within the university environment. In many of these situations, the non-citizen inventors were unable to obtain work authorization and join the emerging startup company, resulting in loss of key technical ability, delay, and additional cost for the startup company to achieve market success. The commenter believes this rule could alleviate this investment risk.
Response: As discussed above, an applicant for parole under this rule may provide any relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the applicant's ability to advance the entity's business in the United States. Such evidence includes documentation pertaining to intellectual property of the start-up entity, such as a patent, that was obtained by the applicant or as a result of the applicant's efforts and expertise. DHS will consider such evidence to determine whether the applicant performs, or will perform, an active and central role in the start-up entity.
Given the breadth of evidence that can already be considered in these determinations, DHS declines to amend the definition of ''entrepreneur'' in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) to include some consideration of ''intellectual property'' as a specific metric to determine if the applicant will have an active and central role in the start-up entity. DHS believes it is appropriate to allow for sufficient flexibility in the definition for adjudicators to evaluate each case on its own merits. Given the considerable range of entrepreneurial ventures that might form the basis for an application for parole under this rule, DHS believes that such flexibility is important to ensure that cutting edge industries or groundbreaking ventures are not precluded from consideration simply because of an overly rigid or narrow definition of ''entrepreneur.''
Comment: One commenter noted that DHS's inclusion of criteria in section IV.B.1. of the NPRM, ''Recent Formation of a Start-Up Entity,'' is reminiscent of criteria used in the O-1 nonimmigrant classification for individuals with extraordinary ability, except for the focus on entrepreneurial endeavors. The commenter especially welcomed the final ''catch-all'' that referenced ''any other relevant, probative, and credible evidence indicating the entity's potential for growth.'' The commenter asserted that as it pertains to ''newspaper articles,'' one of the major difficulties of the O-1 petition process is the lack of awareness by adjudicators of tech-press publications, such as Recode or TechCrunch. The commenter explained that coverage in these publications is very valuable to startups, and forcing startups to garner traditional media coverage in publications like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Start Printed Page 5247Times is often counterproductive towards the entrepreneur's success.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter that the list of evidence provided in the preamble to the NPRM and this final rule provides an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of the types of evidence that might be submitted by an applicant to establish that he or she meets the definition of entrepreneur in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1). Applicants may submit any relevant, probative and credible evidence that demonstrates the entity's potential for growth, including tech-press publications.
Comment: One commenter recommended broadening the proposed requirement that the parolee play a central role in operations. The commenter noted that the DHS November 2014 memorandum,[] which initially directed USCIS to develop a proposed rule under the Secretary's parole authority, refers to researchers, not just managers or founders. The commenter stated that in the technology world, ''technical founders'' are key employees who lead the research and development phase, and recommended that these technical founders be included even if they are not managing overall operations. To keep this expansion targeted, the commenter recommended requiring a technical founder to have an advanced degree in a STEM field from a U.S. institution of higher education.
Response: DHS agrees that ''technical founders'' are often key employees who play an important role in the development and success of a start-up entity. DHS disagrees, however, with the commenter's assertion that the definition of entrepreneur in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(1) does not sufficiently encompass technical founders. Technical founders can perform a central and active role in the operations of their start-up entity, and may be well-positioned, due to their knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. The definition of ''entrepreneur'' is not limited to those individuals who manage the overall operations of the start-up entity. Thus, DHS believes it is unnecessary to broaden the definition of ''entrepreneur'' in the way the commenter suggests.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should provide a clear-cut definition of a typical entrepreneur. This commenter asserted that the draft rule does not adequately account for situations where a typical entrepreneur partially qualifies or does not qualify for parole, but nevertheless seeks to start a business in the United States. The commenter stated that USCIS and the White House should plan to have a separate case study team to evaluate each application.
Response: DHS believes that the rule provides a reasonable and clear definition of an entrepreneur. This rule is not designed or intended to provide parole to everyone who seeks to be an entrepreneur, but will instead provide a framework for case-by-case determinations based upon specified criteria for determining that a grant of parole in this context provides a significant public benefit. The framework in this rule is consistent with DHS's parole authority under INA section 212(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5), and is based on the statutory authorization to provide parole for significant public benefit. Each application for parole under this rule will be adjudicated by an Immigration Services Officer trained on the requirements for significant public benefit parole under 8 CFR 212.19. DHS believes that a separate case-study team could unnecessarily complicate and delay adjudications and declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.
3. Definition of Start-Up Entity'--''Recently-Formed'' and the 3-year LimitationComment: Several commenters expressed concern with the definition of ''start-up entity'' and the requirement that an entity, in order to satisfy that definition, must have been created within the 3 years immediately preceding the parole request filing date. A few individual commenters said that the 3-year limitation could be inadequate in certain situations, such as when investing in an inactive business with other co-founders to initiate the start-up, or when investing in high-priority areas like healthcare, biotechnology, and clean energy that have long gestation times. A couple of individual commenters said that the 3-year limitation may not be necessary given the other, more stringent requirements in the proposed rule. Some commenters provided the following recommendations relating to the 3-year limitation: Eliminate the limitation, lengthen the period to 5 years, lengthen the period to 10 years, or include a case-by-case provision allowing for submissions that may satisfy the definition of ''start-up entity.'' One commenter recommended that ''recently formed'' should include entities formed within the last 10 years, and also requested that where applicable, DHS accept alternative evidence to determine and establish that the company is a ''start-up'' entity, such as letters of attestation from investors, industry experts within a particular niche field, and government agencies that speak to the average growth cycle of a new company within a particular area. A few commenters stated that the 3-year limitation was appropriate.
Response: In response to these comments, DHS revised proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) and the definition of ''start-up entity'' in this final rule to require that the entity must have been formed within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing of the initial parole application, rather than 3 years as proposed. DHS believes that this definition appropriately reflects that some entities, particularly given the industry in which the entity operates, may require a longer gestation time before receiving substantial investment, grants, or awards. This 5-year limitation continues to reflect the Department's intention for parole under this final rule: To incentivize and support the creation and growth of new businesses in the United States, so that the country may benefit from their substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS recognizes that the term ''start-up'' is usually used to refer to entities in early stages of development, including various financing rounds used to raise capital and expand the new business, but the term ''goes beyond a company just getting off the ground.'''[] Limiting the definition of ''start-up'' in this proposed rule to entities that are less than 5 years old at the time the parole application is filed is a reasonable way to help ensure that the entrepreneur's entity is the type of new business likely to experience rapid growth and job creation, while still allowing a reasonable amount of time for the entrepreneur to form the business and obtain qualifying levels of investor financing (which may occur in several rounds) or government grants or awards.
4. Other Comments on the Definition of Start-up EntityComment: One commenter said that formation should be defined to be either the creation of a legal entity under which the activities of the business Start Printed Page 5248would be conducted or the effective date of an agreement between the entrepreneur and an existing business to launch the business activities as a start-up, branch, department, subsidiary, or other activity of an existing business entity. Another commenter suggested that DHS consider restructuring (e.g., use successor-in-interest rules) and other pivots (in terms of changes in the service or product, as well as markets) during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the parole application and at time of application for re-parole.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions and notes that recent formation within the definition of ''start-up entity'' in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) is already limited to the creation of the entity within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the alien's initial parole request. DHS further declines to amend 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) to broaden what may be considered ''recently formed'' to include the effective date of an agreement between the entrepreneur and an existing business to launch new business activities, restructurings and other pivots. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
Comment: One commenter suggested that start-up entities under this rule should be limited to businesses that fill a need that is currently not being fulfilled in the United States.
Response: One of the goals of this final rule is to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States; and, under this rule, evidence regarding the expected contributions of a start-up entity will be considered in determining whether to parole an individual into the United States. A successful start-up entity, particularly one with high-growth potential, will fulfill an identified business need. For example, the entrepreneur may be starting the business to alter an existing industry through innovative products or processes, innovative and more efficient methods of production, or cutting-edge research and development to expand an existing market or industry. It is also unclear from the commenter's suggestion how ''business need'' would be defined, and DHS believes that attempting to do so in this rule could result in an overly restrictive definition that fails to account for future innovation, would be unnecessarily rigid, and would lessen the rule's ability to retain and attract international entrepreneurs who will provide a significant public benefit to the United States.
Comment: An individual commenter requested that staffing companies be included as a type of startup.
Response: In this final rule, and for purposes of parole under this program, DHS defines a ''start-up entity'' as a U.S. business entity that was recently formed, has lawfully done business during any period of operation since its date of formation, and has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. See8 CFR 212.19(a)(2). The rule requires that entities meet certain specified criteria for obtaining parole, but the rule does not specifically exclude staffing companies from participating if they otherwise meet these criteria. DHS therefore will not revise the definition of start-up entity in this rule as requested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the rule fails to specify how a start-up entity can demonstrate that it has ''lawfully done business'' or ''has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.'' The commenter recommended revising the definition to more closely align with 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)(2) and (l)(1)(ii)(H) by instead requiring evidence that the entity is or will be engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. This commenter suggested that the submission of expert witness testimony by a reputable third party, such as a recognized professor or leader in the start-up entity's proposed field, should be given deference and treated under the final rule as a rebuttable presumption establishing that the start-up ''has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.''
Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenter's suggested changes in this final rule. DHS believes that an applicant can demonstrate the start-up entity's lawful business activities through many different means and will keep this requirement flexible to account for the many differences among start-up entities. Such evidence might include, but is not limited to, business permits, equipment purchased or rented, contracts for products or services, invoices, licensing agreements, federal tax returns, sales tax filings, and evidence of marketing efforts.
DHS believes that the rule provides a clear framework for establishing that a start-up entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. See8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). An applicant generally must satisfy the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) to be considered for parole under this rule. An applicant who only partially meets one or both of the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii) may still be eligible for consideration for parole under this rule if the applicant provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that the start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS recognizes that the rule does not provide specific evidence that must be submitted in order to satisfy the alternative criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii). DHS believes that providing a specific set of evidence would have the unintended effect of narrowing a provision that was designed to allow for the submission of any evidence that the applicant believes may establish the substantial potential of his or her start-up entity, recognizing that such evidence may vary depending on the nature of the business and the industry in which it operates. DHS believes that it is important to retain criteria that provide flexibility to the applicant and DHS. Such flexibility is consistent with DHS's parole authority and the case-by-case nature of each parole determination as required by statute. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
DHS does not believe that the rule should be revised to align with 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)(2) and (l)(1)(ii)(H). The requirements set forth in 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)(2) and (l)(1)(ii)(H) relate specifically to eligibility for classification as an L-1 nonimmigrant and are not necessarily relevant to the requirements set forth in this rule, which are specifically designed to provide the framework by which USCIS will determine whether to grant parole to certain individuals for significant public benefit. Particularly given the way this evidence will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the need to ensure parole is justified by significant public benefit, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion of adopting a rebuttable presumption that certain entities have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. The burden of proof remains with the applicant.
5. Qualified Government Award or GrantComment: One commenter stated that the rule's grant-based criteria for consideration focused too narrowly on awards made by government entities The commenter noted that entrepreneurs seek grants from a variety of sources and that funding from non-profits or not-for-profit entities (such as U.S. universities) can be significant sources of start-up capital. The Start Printed Page 5249commenter requested that the rule be revised to allow entrepreneurs of non-profit start-up entities to qualify for parole under this program based on the receipt of charitable grants.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's suggestion, but declines to adopt the suggestion in this final rule to include charitable grants as a type of qualifying grant or award under 8 CFR 212.19(a)(3). DHS believes, given the nature of charitable grants, that they would not present the same level of validation regarding the entity's high-growth potential as would a grant or award from a Federal, State, or local government entity with expertise in economic development, research and development, or job creation. Since the validating quality of a substantial government grant or award is an important factor DHS will rely upon to determine if the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States, and since that same validating quality does not necessarily extend to charitable grants or awards, DHS declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. DHS notes, however, that nothing in this final rule prohibits entrepreneurs from accepting charitable grants or pointing to such funding as evidence that parole would be justified and that they merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Moreover, given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
Comment: One commenter noted that the definition of qualified government award or grant and the phrase ''federal, state, or local government entity,'' are ambiguous as to whether an entrepreneur may qualify under the rule based on a grant by a foreign government. According to the commenter, the rule does not explicitly state that the ''federal, state, or local government entity'' needs to be restricted to entities in the United States. The commenter encouraged USCIS to adopt a broad approach in determining which kinds of grants may qualify and to allow entrepreneurs to qualify if their start-up entity attracts substantial foreign government financing. The commenter also suggested that USCIS and CBP should again emphasize that parole may be discretionarily denied in cases that could risk national security or impair international relations.
Response: While DHS always maintains the ability to deny parole in its discretion, including in those cases where there may be a national security or foreign relations concerns, DHS declines to expand the definition of qualified government grant or award to include grants or awards from a foreign governmental entity. To eliminate potential confusion, DHS is revising the definition as proposed to specifically exclude foreign government entities. The receipt of significant funding from certain U.S. federal, state or local government entities is an important factor that DHS will weigh in determining if the entrepreneur will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. DHS believes that significant funding from certain U.S. federal, state or local governmental entities is a strong indicator of a start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth, including through enhancing innovation, generating revenue, obtaining significant additional investments of capital, and creating jobs. Such government entities regularly evaluate the potential of U.S. businesses, so the choice to provide a significant award or grant to a particular start-up entity can be a compelling indicator of that start-up's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Because these government entities are formed to serve the U.S. public, their choice to fund a particular business may be more indicative than that of a foreign government as to whether the business's operations would provide a significant public benefit in the United States. DHS believes that the reliability and weight of the independent assessment performed by certain U.S. federal, state or local governmental entities before issuing a grant or award does not necessarily extend to grants or awards made by foreign governmental entities. DHS therefore declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion to revise the rule to include funding from foreign governmental entities as one of the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(3).
6. Qualified InvestmentComment: Some commenters suggested that DHS define ''capital'' broadly to include cash, cash equivalents, secured or unsecured loan proceeds, payments for or obligations under binding leases, the value of goods, equipment, and intangible property such as patent rights, trademarks, trade secrets, and distinctive ''know how.''
Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions. ''Qualified investment'' as a general criterion for parole is limited to a specific monetary investment in the form of equity or convertible debt, to ensure that the investment is easily valued as well as significant in nature. This promotes fair and efficient administration of the process under this rule, while also ensuring the integrity of that process. In addition, equity investments and convertible debt investments both involve a distinctive level of expert review, due diligence, and oversight. For example, according to the Small Business Administration, venture capital firms and angel investors typically review a business plan and evaluate a start-up's management team, market, products and services, operating history, corporate governance documents, and financial statements before making an equity investment.[] Such investment generally also involves active monitoring via board participation, strategic marketing, governance, and capital structure.[] While non-monetary contributions made to a start-up entity may not be considered as a qualified investment for purposes of the general criteria of a parole determination under this rule, the rule does not prohibit such contributions and they may be considered as evidence under the alternative criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(iii) to establish that the start-up entity has, or continues to have, substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement that start-up capital must be equity or convertible debt may be too limiting given the venture finance markets today. The commenter said that other investment instruments are commonly used by sophisticated market participants, and that such investments might not technically be considered equity or convertible debt even though they are bona fide capital investments. The commenter recommended that the definition be made ''future-proof'' by creating a catch-all for other investment instruments that are convertible, exchangeable, or exercisable for equity in the start-up, regardless of the name of the investment instrument.
Response: DHS understands that the regulatory text may not capture all possible future investment instruments and has amended the regulatory text to capture other commonly used convertible securities now and in the future. The final rule defines ''qualified investment'' as an investment made in good faith, and that is not an attempt to circumvent any limitations imposed on investments under this section, of lawfully derived capital in a start-up Start Printed Page 5250entity that is a purchase from such entity of its equity, convertible debt or other security convertible into its equity commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry. DHS believes that this definition, in practice, will apply to other securities convertible into equity (other than convertible debt) that are or become commonly used within the start-up entity's industry, and DHS may issue additional guidance in the future regarding such securities as necessary. Given that this program is new and complex, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it is able to assess implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
7. Qualified InvestorComment: Several commenters, including associations and individual commenters, stated that the proposed ''qualified investor'' definition is more stringent than the ''accredited investor'' definition adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Several commenters stated that many angel investors, especially newer investment firms and angels, would not be considered ''qualified investors'' under this rule. One of these commenters suggested revising the definition of a qualified investor using the guidelines set forth by AngelList, which requires all syndicate leads on their site to have registered as accredited investors, to have made at least two direct investments in technology start-ups, and to have attracted additional funding beyond the syndicate lead. Some commenters generally stated that many potentially high-growth firms started by international entrepreneurs will not qualify for parole or re-parole because the business did not receive an investment from a qualified U.S. investor, and encouraged the rule to be more flexible to allow for additional sources of capital.
Response: In response to comments received, DHS is revising proposed 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5), which provides the definition of a qualified investor. For purposes of this section, such an individual or organization may be considered a qualified investor if, during the preceding 5 years, the individual or organization made investments in start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt or other security convertible into equity commonly used in financing transactions within their respective industries comprising a total in such 5-year period of no less than $600,000. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(i). DHS has removed the proposed requirement that the total investment amount be made in 3 separate calendar years and, consistent with its analysis of relevant investment data, reduced the amount from $1,000,000 to $600,000.[] DHS is also making revisions consistent with the change to the qualified investment definition by adding ''other securities that are convertible into equity issued by such an entity and that are commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry.'' DHS agrees with commenters that the qualified investor requirement is more stringent than the SEC ''accredited investor'' definition, but believes the additional parameters for qualified investors under the rule are appropriate. The ''accredited investor'' definition for SEC purposes is focused on the investing entity's assets or the individual investor's net worth or annual income,[] not on the investor's track record of successfully investing in start-up entities. An investor's successful track record of investing in start-up entities provides an important measure of objective validation that DHS will rely upon as part of evaluating whether granting parole to a particular individual would provide a significant public benefit.
DHS also declines to adopt the investor track record criteria associated with AngelList's requirements, as DHS believes that the past success of qualified investors can be demonstrated sufficiently by utilizing the criteria set forth in the final rule. DHS has maintained the requirements under 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii) as evidence that the investor has had previous successful investments, which are similar to certain criteria for a start-up entity to demonstrate eligibility for re-parole under this rule. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii).
Comment: A joint submission from an advocacy group and a non-profit organization proposed that DHS create a ''whitelist'' of qualified investors and modify the rule such that any start-up receiving an investment from a whitelisted investor proceed through an expedited review process. The commenter said that this would both streamline the parole process and diminish the burden on adjudicators to analyze the merits of often complicated technology companies. The commenter said that the qualification process for such an investor whitelist could be significantly more robust than the rule's proposed definition of ''qualified investor'' and should be updated on an annual or biannual basis. Another joint submission suggested the creation of a ''Known Qualified Investor'' program, similar to the ''Known Employer'' pilot program recently created by DHS in a different context, to assist the overall adjudication process.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions. The Known Employer program referenced by the commenter remains in a pilot stage. DHS will assess the effectiveness of the Known Employer program after the pilot is complete, and then determine whether the program should be made permanent. If the program is successful, DHS will assess whether it may be expanded to other adjudication contexts. Committing to use a similar program in the context of this rulemaking would thus be premature. DHS also declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to create a ''whitelist of qualified investors'' and an expedited process for applications based on investment from such investors at this time. Given that this is a new and Start Printed Page 5251complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after the Department has assessed the implementation the process and its impact on operational resources.
8. Evidence Required To Establish Qualified InvestorComment: Several commenters expressed concern about the burden of proving that investors have met the revenue and job creation criteria in the definition of qualified investor, which the commenters said could prevent investors from participating. One commenter stated that early-stage investors usually do not keep records of employees or the revenues of their portfolio companies, and that those companies would not be inclined to respond to paperwork requests from their investors that do not relate to their own success. Another commenter said that some investors do not make their investments known publicly and the vast majority of investors do not make public their returns (let alone the number of jobs created). Another commenter said that the rule should only require evidence of publicly available information, concluding that it would be too invasive to require disclosure of confidential employee data or other confidential financial information of third-party companies that have no ties to the start-up entity related to the parole applicant. A few commenters requested that DHS allow venture capitalists, accelerators, and incubators to register so that they would not be required to produce the evidence of their qualifications with each parole application.
Response: DHS does not believe that providing evidence of revenues generated or jobs created by entities in which the investor previously invested is overly burdensome or would require the investor to publicly reveal otherwise sensitive information. DHS believes, given the significance of an investor's track record of successful investment in start-ups to the determination of significant public benefit, that the need for this evidence outweighs the potential burden on the applicant and investor to compile and submit it. However, as DHS continues to assess the implementation of the process once the rule is final, the Department will consider potential ways to modify the process given the kinds of issues raised by these comments.
9. Foreign Funding/InvestmentComment: Several commenters provided input on the proposed requirement that ''qualified investor'' funds must come from either U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or entities that are majority owned and controlled by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Nearly all commenters on this topic expressed concerns about this requirement as a major limiting factor of the rule. Some commenters focused on the potential economic benefits of broadening the definition of ''qualified investor'' to include foreign investment. These commenters asserted that it would be economically beneficial to allow non-U.S. investments, as there are many experienced investors from outside the United States that could bring direct foreign investment into the country and create jobs. Another commenter stated that, by limiting qualification to domestic investors, DHS is foregoing a critical opportunity to attract foreign entrepreneurs and their investments.
Response: DHS disagrees with the assertion that this rule precludes or otherwise discourages foreign investment. This rule does not preclude entrepreneurs from seeking and obtaining investment from any number of sources, whether that is foreign investment, personal funds, or funds from friends and family. This rule, however, does limit the types of investment that will be considered by DHS as a qualifying investment for purpose of determining if the entrepreneur and his or her start-up entity meet the requirements for consideration for parole set out in 8 CFR 212.19. DHS believes it is important to limit the type and source of investment that will be considered a qualifying investment, since the investment is meant to serve in part as an objective way to help ensure and validate that the start-up entity's activities will benefit the United States. DHS does not believe investments from foreign sources'--which are significantly more difficult for DHS to evaluate for legitimacy and screen for indicators of fraud and abuse'--would provide the same measure of objective validation.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that eligibility criteria should focus exclusively on the location of the start-up entity and its related growth and job creation, not on the citizenship and residence of the investor. Some commenters stated that excluding foreign investors from the definition of ''qualified investors'' is unduly limiting, because many high-potential international entrepreneurs might not have a pre-existing relationship with a U.S.-based investor. Commenters state that such entrepreneurs, especially if living in other countries, would have difficulty attracting investment from U.S. investors and becoming eligible for parole under this rule. Another commenter cited data concluding that foreign entrepreneurs currently outside of the United States are at a particular disadvantage, as they lack access to U.S.-based angel and venture funding.
Response: DHS agrees that the U.S. location of the start-up entity and its related growth and job creation should be a critical component of eligibility under this rule in order to help ensure the exercise of parole is justified by significant public benefit to the United States. DHS believes, however, that the ''qualifying investor'' must also be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident or an entity that is majority owned or controlled by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. DHS can evaluate more rapidly, precisely, and effectively whether these investors have an established track record of prior investments, in part due to greater access to relevant and reliable records. Such investors will also be subject to the laws of the United States, which provides some additional assurance that the entrepreneurs they back will provide a significant public benefit to the United States.
DHS is not prohibiting foreign investors from investing in the entrepreneur's start-up entity, but rather is simply limiting those investors that can serve as ''qualified investors'' for purposes of establishing the entrepreneur's eligibility for parole under this rule. DHS anticipates that entrepreneurs living outside the United States will be able to demonstrate eligibility for parole consideration under this rule, whether based on investment from U.S. investors, grants or awards from certain U.S. Government entities, or a mixture of alternative criteria. For all the reasons above, the definition of ''qualified investor'' will help DHS manage an efficient process for adjudicating requests under this rule while appropriately screening for potential fraud or abuse and ensuring that each grant of parole is justified by significant public benefit to the United States.
Comment: Other commenters focused on specific ways that DHS might allow applicants to use foreign investment to establish their eligibility for parole consideration, including by limiting such investment to the entrepreneur's country of origin, or to only those foreign investors who do not present a national security concern. A few commenters asserted that DHS has the capability to verify the bona fides of foreign investors through, for example, the following mechanisms: Making inquiries through U.S. embassy officials, Start Printed Page 5252requesting resumes and the investment history for foreign angel investors, requesting similar documentation used by EB-5 petitioners to establish their lawful source of funds, and consulting publicly available data on reputable foreign investors with a history of successful investments in various countries. Some commenters provided suggestions for alternative or revised definitions relating to foreign investors that could remain easily verifiable by DHS, with the burden being on the investor, including (1) professionally managed funds with at least $10 million under management and registered with the local jurisdiction, and (2) angel investors that have made credible investments in U.S. companies under the same standards as U.S. ''qualified investors.'' Finally, an individual commenter expressed concerns that even investments from U.S. sources could be suspect, and could serve as a pass-through for ineligible investors such as the entrepreneur's family or foreign nationals.
Response: While DHS understands that international entrepreneurs can attract legitimate investment capital from non-U.S. sources, DHS believes'--as explained at greater length above'--that it is appropriate and important to require that a ''qualified investment'' come from a U.S. source as one of the general criteria to establish that the start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS is prepared to monitor the bona fide nature of such U.S.-based investments, as described in greater detail above. Moreover, the rule neither precludes an applicant from securing funding from non-U.S. sources nor precludes such funding from being considered, non-exclusively, under the alternative criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iii). Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
10. Self-Funding/''Bootstrapping''Comment: Several commenters argued that entrepreneurs should be able to demonstrate eligibility for parole under this rule not only through funding from U.S. investors or U.S. Government entities, but also through self-financing (known as ''bootstrapping''). One commenter noted that many highly successful start-up founders initially grew their companies through bootstrapping, not by raising capital from external investors.
Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of ''qualified investment'' to include self-funding by the entrepreneur applicant. DHS believes that this definition should include only those investors who have a history of making similar investments over a 5-year period and who can demonstrate that at least two of the entities receiving such investments have subsequently experienced significant growth in revenue or job creation. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5). DHS believes that the investment of a substantial amount of capital by qualified investors in an entrepreneur's start-up entity can serve as a strong indication of the entity's substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation. Self-funding, while a rational financing strategy for many entrepreneurs, does not provide the same objective and external validation that DHS requires in assessing whether granting parole to an individual is justified based on significant public benefit.
11. Other Comments on Qualified Investorsa. CrowdfundingComment: Several commenters stated that the rule should allow crowdfunding as a qualified investment. These commenters noted that entrepreneurs have raised over a billion dollars in investments through various types of crowdfunding platforms, which serve to broaden the base of available investors and demonstrate a venture's potential growth. Commenters also cited the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) of 2012, which created a national regulatory framework for securities-based crowdfunding platforms in particular, along with public statements suggesting that securities-based crowdfunding is recognized by Congress and the Administration as a valuable and increasingly-used investment tool. One commenter also stated that allowing the use of crowdfunding platforms would increase the pool of potential applicants for entrepreneurial parole and could provide a workable intermediary for foreign investment in eligible start-up entities. One commenter suggested potential requirements that would facilitate the use of crowdfunding investment sources, such as setting a threshold amount for eligible crowdfunding investments and confirming that such investments have been deposited in the start-up entity's bank account after the end of the crowdfunding campaign.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions. Investments made in a start-up entity through an SEC-compliant intermediary, such as an SEC-compliant crowdfunding platform, will be treated no differently for purposes of this rule than had the investments been made directly. In order to promote the integrity of adjudications under this rule, DHS declines to make changes to the definition of ''qualified investor'' that would effectively treat funds generated through crowdfunding platforms as a different class of eligible investment. DHS notes, however, that evidence of a successful donation-based or securities-based crowdfunding campaign could be provided under the rule's alternative eligibility criteria.
b. Established U.S. InvestorsComment: One commenter questioned the requirement that capital be received ''from established U.S. investors (such as venture capital firms, angel investors, or start-up accelerators) with a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities.'' The commenter stated that the requirement increases the relative bargaining power of established investors working with entrepreneurs seeking parole under this rule, while diminishing that of new venture capital firms, new angel investors, and new start-up accelerators. The commenter stated that if it is kept in its current form, the rule is not clear whether an investment from a non-established investor would jeopardize the parole eligibility of an entrepreneur whose start-up entity is also funded by established investors.
Response: The definition of ''qualified investor, including the requirement that an investor have a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities, is intended to help ensure that such investors are bona fide and not concealing fraud or other illicit activity'--and thus protect the integrity of the parole process under this rule. The definition is also intended to ensure that a qualifying investment serves as a strong and reliable indicator of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, which is relevant to assessing whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit.
DHS emphasizes that the rule does not prohibit investment from U.S. investors who do not have an established track record of substantial investment in start-up entities under the rule's definition of ''qualified investor.'' Any investment from an investor who is not a qualified investor, however, will not count toward the minimum investment criteria associated with the initial parole period or re-parole period. DHS will, of course, monitor all Start Printed Page 5253elements of an application for evidence of fraud or other illegal or illicit activities. It will also assess the totality of the evidence in evaluating whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit.
c. Approved Regional CentersComment: One commenter requested that USCIS-approved Regional Centers (based on an approved Form I-924) be allowed to qualify as established U.S. investors. The commenter stated that investment by a Regional Center in a U.S. start-up entity would be a natural extension of what Regional Centers already do, since Regional Centers pool investment for qualified EB-5 visa projects.
Response: DHS believes it is important to limit qualifying investors to those who have an established record of successful investments in start-up entities. DHS believes that such a record would include, during the 5-year period immediately preceding the filing of the parole application, one or more investments in other start-up entities in exchange for equity or convertible debt comprising a total of no less than $600,000. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(i). DHS will require monetary commitments, rather than non-monetary commitments such as credit for in-kind value (e.g., credit for services), given the difficulty of valuing such commitments and the potential for fraud and abuse. The applicant would also need to show that, subsequent to such investment by the investor, at least 2 such entities each created at least 5 qualified jobs or achieved at least $500,000 in revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(5)(ii).
As described in greater detail above, these criteria are intended to ensure that investors are bona fide and thus protect the integrity of the parole process under this rule. They are also intended to ensure that a qualifying investment serves as a strong and reliable indicator of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, which is relevant to assessing whether granting parole to an entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit. DHS declines to adopt a special provision for regional centers approved to participate in the EB-5 visa program. Although such centers are not categorically excluded from the definition of ''qualified investor'' under this rule, they would need to meet all the same criteria as any other qualified investor.
12. Qualified Jobsa. Qualifying EmployeeComments: Two commenters recommended that DHS broaden the definition of the term ''qualifying employee.'' One commenter stated that the term should include any individual authorized to work in the United States, regardless of immigration status, to avoid creating a conflict for employers who are prohibited from discriminating based on an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Another commenter advocated for the inclusion of independent contractors in the definition of qualifying employee.
Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of qualifying employee, which already includes a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or other immigrant lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States, who is not an entrepreneur of the relevant start-up entity or the parent, spouse, brother, sister, son, or daughter of such an entrepreneur. See final 8 CFR 212.12(a)(7). DHS believes that creating jobs for these individuals is more likely to provide a significant public benefit given their stronger ties to the United States. Similarly, DHS believes that entrepreneurs and start-up entities that create positions for employees are more likely to provide a significant public benefit than those who rely only on arrangements with independent contractors. Such arrangements would generally have a weaker nexus to the start-up entity, may not have been created as a direct result of the start-up entity's activities, and could be more difficult to validate. Nothing in this rule either supersedes or conflicts with nondiscrimination laws enacted under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).[] Under existing law, it would generally be an unfair immigration-related employment practice for an entity to discriminate against someone authorized to work in the United States because of that person's national origin or, in the case of a ''protected individual,'' citizenship status. See8 U.S.C. 1324b(a) (generally prohibiting such practices, subject to specific exceptions, and defining ''protected individual'' to include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain other immigrants). This rule does not permit any such otherwise prohibited practices. Instead, it uses the creation of jobs for U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and other authorized immigrants as one indication of the benefit created by an entrepreneur's start-up entity.[]
b. Full-Time EmploymentComments: Several commenters said that the rule should have a more flexible definition of ''full-time employment.'' One commenter said that the definition of the term should not require the job to be filled for at least a year and should include job-sharing arrangements. Another commenter recommended that the definition of full-time employment include combinations of part-time positions.
Response: DHS declines to expand the definition of full-time employment to include jobs filled for less than a year by a qualifying employee, job-sharing arrangements, and combinations of part-time jobs. DHS believes that the creation of long-term and full-time positions is a more reliable indicator that an entrepreneur's start-up entity is continuing to yield significant public benefit. Jobs filled for less than a year could be temporary or seasonal, thus limiting the duration and impact of the benefit. Additionally, including job-sharing or combinations of part-time positions could significantly complicate adjudications. The final rule, moreover, already reduces by half the threshold number of jobs to qualify for a re-parole period, making it all the more reasonable to require that each of such jobs be full-time positions as part of the criteria for ensuring that granting parole to an international entrepreneur is justified by significant public benefit.[]
13. Material ChangeComment: One commenter recommended that the final rule expressly exempt from the definition of ''material change'' transitions that are typical within start-ups, such as a company's (1) pivoting its products or services; (2) bringing on board a significant round of funding that could dilute the entrepreneur's ownership interest; (3) changing the role of a founder to meet the needs of the growing company; or (4) by virtue of a foreseeable stock or asset acquisition, executing a merger into or with a related or unrelated entity, or some other form of corporate restructuring. A few Start Printed Page 5254commenters recommended that DHS clarify what constitutes a ''material change'' given the rapidly evolving nature of start-ups.
Response: DHS appreciates the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the material change definition in the NPRM. This final rule reflects changes that help clarify what constitutes a material change, with the understanding that start-up entities are likely to experience a variety of transitions as part of their legitimate development and growth. DHS disagrees, however, that all of the events listed by commenters should be specifically exempted from the definition of material change. Some changes to the start-up entity can clearly impact the determination of whether the entrepreneur provides, or will continue to provide, a significant public benefit to the United States. It is essential to the rule's integrity that such material changes are clearly defined and reported to DHS. In the final rule, DHS has outlined those changes that DHS believes are critical to the continuing eligibility of the entrepreneur to be granted parole based on a significant public benefit to the United States. Specifically, the final rule maintains that the following changes are material: Any criminal charge, conviction, plea of no contest, or other judicial determination in a criminal case concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity; any complaint, settlement, judgment, or other judicial or administrative determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal or administrative proceeding brought by a government entity; any settlement, judgment, or other legal determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal proceeding brought by a private individual or organization other than proceedings primarily involving claims for damages not exceeding 10 percent of the current assets of the entrepreneur or start-up entity; a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the start-up entity's assets; the liquidation, dissolution, or cessation of operations of the start-up entity; and the voluntary or involuntary filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the start-up entity. DHS has revised the definition of ''material change'' to include the cessation of the entrepreneur's qualifying ownership interest in the start-up entity.
DHS recognizes that not all changes to the ownership structure of a start-up entity constitute a change of such significance that it would reasonably affect the outcome of the determination of whether the entrepreneur provides, or continues to provide, a significant public benefit to the United States. DHS has revised the final rule to limit material change regarding ownership changes only to ''a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity.'' For example, a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity may include a transfer of equity in the start-up entity that results in an owner or owners not previously identified on the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) collectively acquiring a controlling stake in the entity. DHS recognizes that achieving a significant round of funding for the start-up entity during the initial parole period may often constitute the very qualifying investment that renders the entrepreneur eligible for a re-parole period under this rule's significant public benefit test, despite diluting the entrepreneur's ownership interest. While DHS will make these determinations on a case-by-case basis, DHS does not anticipate that such significant changes with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity will often result in termination of parole. A full vetting of new investors with a significant ownership interest, however, can provide DHS with additional insights into the start-up entity's activities in the United States and will help DHS ensure the entrepreneur is continuing to provide a significant public benefit to the United States. In the future, DHS may issue additional guidance on the scope of such significant changes in ownership interest if deemed necessary.
DHS believes these changes are sufficient to clarify the definition of ''material change'' in regulation and to provide entrepreneurs with sufficient detail about the kinds of changes that could impact their eligibility and must be reported. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
E. Application Requirements1. Application for Entrepreneur ParoleComments: One commenter supported the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941), and called it ''ideal'' because without the form applicants must attempt to list information on existing application forms that do not specifically relate to entrepreneurs. Another commenter requested that the application process resemble the Canadian express entry immigration system and be simplified so that the assistance of an attorney is not required.
Response: DHS agrees with the comment that the Form I-941 is beneficial for capturing information specific to parole requests filed under this rule. DHS declines to model the application process for parole under this rule after the Canadian express entry program as that program is a points system designed to manage applications for permanent residence under certain Canadian federal economic immigration programs.[] DHS has attempted to develop the Form I-941 to be as simple as possible for applicants while capturing sufficient information to enable adjudicators to make appropriate case-by-case decisions under the statutory and regulatory requirements for parole.
2. Submissions of Documentary/Supporting EvidenceComment: Two commenters expressed concern that the evidentiary requirements were excessive and that start-up entities operating in ''stealth-mode'' would not be able to provide letters or media articles. Both commenters suggested that evidence of a significant capital investment from a qualified investor should be sufficient to demonstrate the potential for rapid growth and job creation.
Response: As an initial matter, DHS recognizes there may be legitimate reasons for operating a start-up in a manner that does not attract significant public attention. In part for this reason, this final rule extends the definition of start-up entity to include entities formed within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the applicant's initial parole request. DHS believes that start-up entities that are seeking to operate without significant public attention will generally have sufficient time to emerge from that status prior to the parole application.
DHS agrees with the commenters that evidence of having received substantial investment from a qualified investor may be sufficient to establish that the start-up entity has the potential for rapid growth and job creation (one factor in making parole determinations under this rule). See 8 final CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1). DHS understands that other evidence that may be required to establish eligibility for parole consideration under this rule, including whether the applicant is well-positioned to advance the entity's business, may not be a matter of public record. DHS believes, however, that even an entrepreneur operating a company in Start Printed Page 5255''stealth mode'' should generally be able to provide such evidence for purposes of satisfying the requirements of this rule. Indeed, for entrepreneurs to be paroled under this rule, they must persuade adjudicators, based on the totality of the evidence, that they will provide a significant public benefit.
3. Application Requirements of Spouses and Minor ChildrenComment: DHS received a few comments supporting the provision in the proposed rule allowing the spouse and children of an entrepreneur granted parole under this rule to also apply for and be granted parole in the United States in order to accompany or ultimately join the entrepreneur. One commenter also supported the proposal to allow the spouse, if granted parole, to obtain employment authorization in the United States in order to work and help support the entrepreneur's family.
Response: DHS agrees with these comments. Each spouse or child seeking parole must independently establish eligibility for parole based on significant public benefit (or, alternatively, for urgent humanitarian reasons), and that the individual merits a favorable exercise of discretion. In a case in which an entrepreneur has been granted parole based on significant public benefit under this rule, DHS may consider granting parole to the entrepreneur's spouse and children who provide a significant public benefit by maintaining family unity and thereby further encouraging the entrepreneur to operate and grow his or her business in the United States'--and to provide the benefits of such growth to the United States.
Under this final rule, spouses of entrepreneur parolees who wish to obtain employment authorization must apply for an EAD pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34), consistent with current parole policy that allows parolees to apply for employment authorization. DHS agrees with the commenter that allowing spouses of entrepreneurs to apply for work authorization may alleviate a significant portion of the potential economic burdens that entrepreneurs and their families may face, such as paying for education expenses for their children, and to ensure that they satisfy the condition on their parole that they maintain household income that is greater than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line, as they grow and develop their start-up entities. Moreover, extending employment authorization to the spouse may further incentivize an international entrepreneur to bring a start-up entity to the United States'--along with new jobs, innovation, and growth'--rather than create it in another country.
4. Other Comments on Application RequirementsComment: One commenter asked that DHS clarify the application procedures for Canadians and whether they may apply at the border or whether they must visit a U.S. consulate prior to requesting to be paroled at a U.S. port of entry.
Response: Canadians and applicants from other countries may apply for parole under this rule while inside or outside of the United States. If the applicant's parole request is approved, the applicant would request to be paroled by Customs and Border Protection at a U.S. port of entry after arriving from outside the United States. Canadian nationals who will be appearing at a U.S. port of entry directly from Canada will not have to visit a U.S. consulate prior to appearing at the port of entry and requesting that CBP grant parole. Canadian nationals who will not be appearing at a U.S. port of entry directly from Canada, and will instead be travelling to the United States from another country abroad to request a grant of parole may, similar to other applicants, have to visit a U.S. consulate first in order to obtain travel documentation (e.g., a boarding foil) that allows the individual to travel to a U.S. port of entry. In all cases, however, the individual must have an approved Form I-941 before the individual may appear at the port-of-entry to request a grant of parole.
F. Parole Criteria and Conditions1. Minimum InvestmentComment: Numerous commenters'--including advocacy groups, law firms, associations, and individual commenters'--argued that the proposed rule's minimum investment criterion for the initial parole period would set too high an eligibility bar for many high-potential entrepreneurs. Citing a range of different kinds of evidence, several commenters argued that the proposed $345,000 threshold represented significantly more capital than is actually needed by most start-ups initially and would unnecessarily exclude from consideration some entrepreneurs whose entities would create significant public benefit in the United States.
Response: In response to public comments, DHS is reducing the proposed minimum investment of $345,000 to $250,000 in the final rule. See 8 final CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1). Multiple public comments recommended setting the threshold at $250,000, and DHS's further analysis of seed and angel investment data indicates that this level is reasonable. As is described more fully in the ''Volume Projections'' subsection of the ''Statutory and Regulatory Requirements'' section of this final rule, DHS's analysis of investments received by a set of new firms that graduated from startup accelerator programs revealed that the median seed investment was $250,000.[] Following the intent of this final rule to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States, DHS determined that investment amounts that entrepreneurs would need to meet to be considered for parole under this rule should be more in line with typical early investment rounds, rather than the higher investment levels typical of later rounds. In each individual case, DHS must be persuaded that granting parole would provide a significant public benefit and that the person requesting parole merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
Comment: One commenter stated that there should not be a minimum investment amount and suggested that the rule instead establish minimum revenue amounts. Several other commenters suggested that evidence of rapid revenue growth should be a standalone eligibility criterion for the initial parole period under 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii).
Response: DHS disagrees with the suggestion that there should not be a minimum investment amount. Establishing a minimum investment amount based on available data provides a clear and predictable benchmark for how an applicant may demonstrate that a start-up entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation (one factor in making parole determinations under this rule). If international entrepreneurs are unable to meet the threshold investment amount but have received some qualified investments or qualified government awards or grants, they may alternatively qualify for parole consideration under this rule if they partially meet the threshold criteria and provide ''other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.'' See final 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii).Start Printed Page 5256
DHS disagrees with the suggestion that evidence of rapid revenue growth or generation of a certain amount of revenue should be a separate criterion under 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii). In setting threshold criteria, DHS intends to identify reliable indicators of a start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation and, ultimately, of the significant public benefit that a grant of parole would provide in an individual case. DHS does not believe that revenue should be the sole external validation factor as compared to substantial funding from qualified U.S. investors and government entities for initial parole applications. DHS reiterates, however, that a start-up entity's revenue may be taken under consideration, both under the ''alternative criteria'' test and as part of the totality of evidence relevant to whether the grant of parole in an individual case would be justified by significant public benefit and the person requesting parole deserves a favorable exercise of discretion. See8 CFR 219.2(b)(2)(iii), 219.2(c)(2)(B)(iii).
Comment: Several individual commenters recommended that the investment threshold be based upon the type of business activity.
Response: In an effort to provide a reasonable level of simplicity and predictability in the final rule, DHS decided to utilize a single investment threshold rather than several amounts based on the type of business activity. DHS believes that determining multiple investment thresholds based on business activity or industry would be unduly complicated, making adjudications more labor-intensive and increasing processing times. DHS believes that using a single investment threshold, backed by available data, is a reasonable approach and provides a clearer benchmark for applicants, investors, and adjudicators.
Comment: Some commenters provided input on the requirement that funding be received within the preceding 365 days. A CEO roundtable agreed that the $345,000 threshold was an appropriate amount, but questioned the 365-day requirement, recommending that the rule be changed to require that only 65 percent of the investment to have occurred within the last 365 days. A trade association and a joint submission from a professional association and a non-profit organization recommended that the investment occur within a 3-year window. As an alternative, the trade association stated that some of a start-up entity's capital that would otherwise count toward the qualified investment amount should do so even if its ultimate receipt by the start-up entity is contingent upon the approval of parole.
Response: DHS is revising the proposed requirement that the substantial investment be received within the 365 days immediately preceding the filing of the application for initial parole. The final rule increases this period from 12 months (365 days) to 18 months. DHS made this change based on feedback that it often takes longer than 12 months for a start-up to secure and receive investment funding. This revised requirement still ensures that a qualified investor or government entity has recently validated (within 18 months) the start-up entity's potential for rapid growth and job creation. With respect to the comment suggesting that DHS accept funding contingent upon approval of parole toward the qualified investment amount, DHS believes that funds contingent on the occurrence of a future event, such as a grant of parole to the entrepreneur, would not satisfy the general criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii). DHS notes, however, that such funds may be considered under the alternative criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) if the entrepreneur partially meets one or both of the criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B), since DHS may consider such contingent funds as other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Given that this process is a new and complex one, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider the suggested modification in the future after assessing the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
2. Minimum Government Grants or AwardsComment: Several commenters argued that DHS should require less than $100,000 to meet the eligibility criteria based on a start-up entity's receipt of government grants and awards. An individual commenter said that most government grants were well beneath the $100,000 minimum threshold in the proposed rule. Another individual commenter recommended a $50,000 government grant threshold. By contrast, one commenter stated that the $100,000 minimum investment for government grants and awards is too low to start a meaningful business and suggested increasing the amount to $500,000 or more. Several commenters stated that the $100,000 grant threshold aligns with the timing of the Federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)'[] and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards and dollar amounts.
Response: DHS declines to make the suggested changes to the minimum government grant or award threshold. In light of the range of comments received on increasing or decreasing the minimum grant amount, DHS believes its proposed minimum grant amount is reasonable. Because government entities regularly evaluate the potential of U.S. businesses, the choice to provide a significant award or grant to a particular start-up entity will often be a strong indicator of that start-up's substantial potential for growth and job creation. Additionally, because government entities are by definition formed to serve the public, the choice by such an entity to fund a particular business generally indicates the government entity's independent assessment that the business's operations would provide a significant public benefit'--and can be a strong indicator of a start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. The specific $100,000 minimum government funding threshold identified in this final rule is based in part on the fact that seed funding awards (''Phase I'' awards) from the Federal SBIR/STTR program are generally below $150,000.
3. Initial Parole Alternative CriteriaComment: Several commenters offered suggestions for the factors to be considered by DHS under the rule's alternative criteria for the initial parole period, such as adding a metric for number of users or customers of the entrepreneur's start-up entity, the start-up entity's social impact, and the start-up entity's national scope or location in a low- or middle-class neighborhood. Other commenters proposed the following factors: The applicant's academic degree; participation in or training from a start-up accelerator; prior success as demonstrated by market share from patented innovations, annual sales volume, or job creation; and Start Printed Page 5257demonstrated success using alternative funding platforms.
Response: DHS agrees with these suggestions. DHS may consider the following additional types of evidence, among others, as factors under the alternative criteria for those applicants who partially satisfy 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii):
number of users or customers;revenue generated by the start-up entity;social impact of the start-up entity;national scope of the start-up entity;positive effects on the start-up entity's locality or region;success using alternative funding platforms, including crowdfunding platforms;the applicant's academic degrees;the applicant's prior success in operating start-up entities as demonstrated by patented innovations, annual revenue, job creation, or other factors; andselection of the start-up entity to participate in one or more established and reputable start-up accelerators or incubators.With respect to start-up accelerators and incubators, DHS expects to evaluate them on several relevant factors, including years in existence, graduation rates, significant exits by portfolio start-ups, significant investment or fundraising by portfolio start-ups, and valuation of portfolio start-ups.
DHS understands that some applicants will be able to establish that their start-up entity is likely to grow rapidly and create jobs based on other factors beyond only the amount of capital investment or government funding received, which is why DHS has not limited the types of evidence that may be considered under the alternative criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) for those who only partially meet the initial threshold criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B).
Comment: One commenter suggested linking the rule's application to applications for other initiatives, such as National Minority Supplier Development Council Certification and, when applicable, Minority Women Based Entrepreneur Certification.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' suggestions but declines to adopt these factors as evidence of substantial potential for rapid business growth or job creation. Nothing in this rule prohibits or discourages entrepreneurs from participating in initiatives or certification processes designed to help promote more diverse and inclusive entrepreneurship. DHS does not believe, however, that such initiatives and certifications independently provide sufficient external validation that a start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth or job creation and meets the ''significant public benefit'' requirement under this rule. Evidence that the start-up is involved with certain initiatives in the public interest can, however, be considered a positive factor in determining whether an entrepreneur merits a grant of parole as a matter of discretion. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
Comment: One commenter said the term ''reliable and compelling evidence'' in proposed 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii), with respect to the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, is too vague and should be elaborated on further in the regulatory text.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to elaborate further in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(iii) on the type of evidence that may be submitted and considered as reliable and compelling. DHS believes that this alternative criterion should be flexible so as not to restrict the types of evidence that may be submitted and relied upon to determine if the start-up entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS believes that such flexibility is important given the case-by-case nature of these discretionary parole determinations. An applicant for parole under this rule who does not meet the threshold capital investment or government funding criteria in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B) may submit any evidence that the applicant believes is reliable and compelling to support the claim that the applicant's start-up entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS, after reviewing the application and all of the evidence submitted in support of the application, will make a determination as to whether the applicant is eligible for parole consideration under the relevant statutory and regulatory standards, and as to whether the person seeking parole merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
Comment: One commenter asserted that securing an investment from a U.S. investor or obtaining a U.S. government grant or award is not a viable option for most people.
Response: DHS believes that qualified investments or government funding are appropriate factors to consider when assessing the ability of a start-up entity to achieve rapid growth and job creation (one factor in making parole determinations under this rule). DHS, however, understands that some start-up entities with the potential to yield significant public benefit may have legitimate economic or strategic reasons to not pursue or accept capital investment or government funding at the levels set forth in 8 CFR 212.19(b)(2)(ii)(B). Therefore, DHS has provided in the rule an alternative criterion for further consideration of those applications where the applicant only partially satisfies the capital investment or government funding thresholds, but provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that establishes the substantial potential of the start-up entity for rapid growth and job creation.
Comment: A commenter suggested that, instead of focusing on capital investment and job creation criteria, DHS should focus on whether the start-up entity would be in industries in traded sectors. The commenter proposed that the following industries would qualify: Manufacturing, software publishers, Internet publishing, and research and development services.
Response: While DHS recognizes the benefits of increased exports to the U.S economy, it declines to limit eligible start-up entities to traded sectors, since start-up entities in a much wider set of industries can yield significant public benefit to the United States through rapid growth and job creation.
Comment: A commenter requested that DHS form an advisory group of industry experts to recommend alternative criteria.
Response: DHS afforded an opportunity for notice and comment on the NPRM and expressly sought proposals for alternative criteria from the public. DHS does not believe that forming a new advisory group is necessary at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the term ''rapid growth'' should be determined based on factors pertaining to the start-up entity's industry, normal business growth in the industry, geographic area, and the amount of investment in the entity. The commenter also recommended that the term ''substantial potential'' take into account the start-up entity's particular geographic area rather than a national scale.
Response: While the industry- and geography-specific factors suggested by the commenter may be taken into consideration by DHS as part of the totality of the circumstances for a given application, DHS believes that the general and alternative eligibility criteria provided in the final rule are Start Printed Page 5258sufficient to determine if a start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, and provide a more predictable framework by which these parole applications will be adjudicated than would a more mechanical and unduly rigid consideration of the variables suggested by the commenter.
4. Re-parole Criteriaa. Minimum Investment or Grants/AwardsComment: Several commenters discussed the proposed re-parole eligibility criteria at 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1), namely that the applicant's start-up entity has received at least $500,000 in qualifying investments, qualified government grants or awards, or a combination of such funding, during the initial parole period. Most commenters argued that this funding level was unduly high, especially given the duration of the initial parole period.
Response: DHS declines to adjust the $500,000 funding threshold. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1). DHS believes that $500,000 is a reasonable level for re-parole. An industry report on startups shows the median seed investment round for the first half of 2016 was $625,000, which rose from $425,000 in 2015. This figure is valuable because it includes seed rounds for firms that participate with accelerators and that often start out with investment rounds below $100,000.[] The median for angel group seed investments is reported at $620,000 as the annual average over 2013-2015, which rose sharply to $850,000 in 2015 from a median of $505,000 from the previous two years. Venture capital round sizes are even larger, as the 2014 median round size for both seed and startup stage venture rounds was $1,000,000.
DHS has also increased the length of the initial parole period from 24 months to 30 months. This change will allow entrepreneurs additional time to seek and receive qualified investments or government funding, to meet the re-parole criteria. If an entrepreneur is unable to meet the minimum funding criterion, moreover, he or she may still be eligible for re-parole based on revenue generated or jobs created. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2) and (3). Under the final rule, entrepreneurs partially meeting the threshold re-parole criteria may alternatively qualify ''by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.'' Final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(iii).
b. Minimum Annual RevenueComment: Several commenters discussed the proposed re-parole criterion at 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(3), which establishes an eligibility threshold when the applicant's start-up entity has reached at least $500,000 in annual revenue and averaged 20 percent in annual revenue growth during the initial parole period. Most commenters suggested alternative approaches, arguing that start-ups are often legitimately focused on the development of an innovative product or service, and not on generating early revenue. Another commenter stated that the revenue criterion is reasonable.
Response: DHS declines to adjust these criteria. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1). DHS chose $500,000 in revenue and 20 percent annual revenue growth as threshold criteria because, after consulting with SBA, DHS determined these criteria: (1) Would be reasonable as applied across start-up entities regardless of industry or location; and (2) would serve as strong indications of an entity's potential for rapid growth and job creation (and that such entity is not, for example, a small business created for the sole or primary purpose to provide income to the owner and his or her family). As noted, DHS has also increased the length of the initial parole period from 24 months to 30 months. This change will allow entrepreneurs additional time to meet the minimum revenue threshold for re-parole. If an entrepreneur is unable to meet the minimum revenue requirement, he or she may still be eligible under the minimum investment or job creation criteria. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(1) and (2). Under the final rule, entrepreneurs partially meeting the threshold re-parole criteria may alternatively qualify ''by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.'' Final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(iii).
Comment: An individual commenter suggested that DHS should include in the rule a criterion for user growth, rather than revenue growth, as many start-ups focus more on growing their number of users in their early years.
Response: DHS declines to include user growth as a stand-alone criterion for establishing eligibility for re-parole. DHS, however, may consider user growth as a factor when evaluating an entrepreneur's eligibility under the alternative criteria provision. The list of factors provided in the preamble to the proposed rule was intended only to illustrate the kinds of factors that DHS may consider as reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
As noted in the NPRM, DHS is not defining in regulation the specific types of evidence that may be deemed ''reliable and compelling'' at this time, because DHS seeks to retain flexibility as to the kinds of supporting evidence that may warrant the Secretary's exercise of discretion in granting parole based on significant public benefit. DHS believes, however, that such evidence would need to be compelling to demonstrate that the entrepreneur's presence in the United States would provide a significant public benefit. DHS will evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether such evidence'--in conjunction with the entity's substantial funding, revenue generation, or job creation'--establishes that the applicant's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit during a re-parole period.
Comment: An individual commenter suggested that the minimum annual revenue threshold for re-parole be set as just enough to sustain the entrepreneur's salary and continue business operations.
Response: The final rule states that the start-up entity must be of a type that has the substantial potential to experience rapid growth and job creation, including through significant levels of capital investment, government awards or grants, revenue generation, or job creation during the re-parole period. These factors are intended to help DHS identify the types of start-up entities that are most likely to provide a significant public benefit, while excluding entities without such potential'--such as a business with limited growth potential created by an entrepreneur for the sole or primary purpose of providing income to the entrepreneur and his or her family.[] Because this latter type of business is less likely to experience rapid growth Start Printed Page 5259and job creation, DHS believes it is unlikely that the entrepreneur of such a business would be able to meet the significant public benefit requirement for a grant of parole. Establishing a minimum annual revenue threshold for re-parole that would, by definition, cover only an entrepreneur's salary and continue business operations would not likely help identify whether an entrepreneur's activity in the United States would provide a significant public benefit. DHS therefore declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.
c. Minimum Jobs CreatedComment: Several commenters discussed the proposed re-parole criterion at 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2), which establishes an eligibility threshold for applicants whose start-up entities have created at least 10 qualified jobs within the start-up entities during the initial parole period. Most commenters argued that this job creation requirement was unduly high or that the time period for compliance was too short.
Response: Based on comments received, DHS has lowered the job creation criterion for re-parole from 10 to 5 qualified jobs. See final 8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2). DHS agrees with commenters that requiring 10 jobs to satisfy this criterion may be unduly high for many start-ups, even those with demonstrated substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS believes that the creation of 5 qualifying jobs during the initial period of parole is sufficient to determine that the start-up entity continues to have substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, particularly in light of the substantial capital investment, government funding, or other reliable and compelling evidence that supported the initial parole determination. In each case, DHS must be persuaded that re-parole is justified by significant public benefit and that the person seeking re-parole merits a favorable exercise of discretion. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, DHS has also extended the initial period of parole from 2 years to 30 months, in order to allow additional time for start-up entities to grow, obtain additional substantial funding, generate substantial revenue, or create jobs. See8 CFR 212.19(c)(2)(iii).
d. Re-Parole Alternative CriteriaComment: One commenter suggested that DHS should consider taxes paid by a start-up entity as a criterion for re-parole, leaving the task to DHS to define the threshold of the amount and type of taxes paid.
Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. DHS believes that a start-up entity would have to generate a significant level of revenue or job creation (which are already criteria under this rule) to meet any separate, standalone tax-based threshold. Any such additional criterion would therefore be unlikely to be particularly probative in determining whether re-parole is justified by significant public benefit or the person seeking re-parole merits a favorable exercise of discretion. DHS therefore declines to include the payment of taxes as a stand-alone eligibility criterion.
Comment: A commenter suggested that if DHS lowers the funding and job creation thresholds for re-parole, there should be no need for alternative criteria.
Response: While DHS did reduce the job creation threshold for re-parole in the final rule, DHS believes that parolees should have the flexibility to present other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Examples of such evidence are provided above, in the discussion on alternative criteria for the initial parole period. DHS believes that it is important to retain such flexibility in the final rule, consistent with the case-by-case nature of these parole determinations. DHS, therefore, has not adopted the commenter's suggestions.
5. Authorized Periods of ParoleComment: Several commenters discussed the initial 2-year parole period at 8 CFR 212.19(d)(2). Most commenters argued that the 2-year period was unduly short, as start-ups with significant potential for rapid growth and job creation may require more time to meet re-parole eligibility requirements. Some commenters suggested having a 3-year initial period of parole and a 2-year period of re-parole. Other commenters suggested a range for initial parole from 3 to 5 years. A number of comments discussed the overall duration of the parole periods, the majority of which advocated for longer periods ranging from 6 to 10 years in total. Some of these commenters based the need for an extended parole period on the typical duration of the start-up growth path from seed funding to venture capital financing to exit (through an initial public offering or a merger or acquisition).
Response: Based on the comments received, DHS is changing the maximum periods for initial parole and re-parole to 30 months (2.5 years) each, for a total maximum parole period under this rule of up to 5 years. The additional time for the initial parole period will provide entrepreneurs with more time to receive additional qualified investments or government funding, increase revenue, or create qualified jobs sufficient to meet the eligibility criteria for an additional period of parole. While this change does reduce the length of the re-parole period, DHS believes that this approach is necessary to provide additional time during the initial period of parole while maintaining the same maximum overall parole period of 5 years. DHS further believes that a 5-year total maximum parole period is consistent with the amount of time successful start-up entities generally require to realize rapid growth and job creation potential. Moreover, an entrepreneur of a start-up entity that is almost 5 years old when the parole application is filed would have the possibility to obtain up to 5 years of parole, which would allow the entity to realize its rapid growth and job creation potential by the time it is 10 years old'--and to provide those benefits in the United States.[] DHS retains the discretion to provide any length of parole to an applicant, including a period shorter than 30 months where appropriate. DHS also notes that although USCIS would designate an appropriate initial parole period upon approval of the Application for Entrepreneur Parole, CBP would retain its authority to deny parole to an applicant or to modify the length of parole authorized by USCIS upon issuing parole at the port of entry, consistent with CBP's discretion with respect to any advance authorization of parole by USCIS.
Start Printed Page 52606. Limitation on Number of EntrepreneursComment: Several commenters addressed 8 CFR 212.19(f) in the proposed rule, which states that no more than three entrepreneurs may be granted parole based on the same start-up entity. Most commenters on this provision recommended that DHS increase the number of entrepreneurs, with suggestions to increase the maximum number to 4 or 5. Several other commenters, including a trade association and a professional association, supported the proposed rule's limit of 3 entrepreneurs obtaining parole under this rule based on the same start-up entity. An individual commenter stated that DHS should allow for additional entrepreneurs to qualify for parole based on the same start-up entity, not only at the time of application but also at a later date, asserting that it is very common for technology companies to introduce multiple co-owners over time that are key personnel vital to the operations of the start-up entity.
Response: DHS appreciates the comments regarding this limitation and recognizes that some start-ups may initially have more than 3 founders or owners. After reviewing all comments, DHS declines to increase the number of entrepreneurs permitted to request parole related to the same start-up entity, and will retain the current limit of no more than 3 eligible entrepreneur applicants per start-up entity. See final 8 CFR 212.19(f). As an initial matter, DHS believes it would be difficult for a larger number of entrepreneurs associated with the same start-up entity to each meet the eligibility criteria and comply with the conditions on parole while ultimately developing a successful business in the United States. A higher number of entrepreneurs associated with the same start-up entity may affect the start-up's ability to grow and succeed, and may even result in the startup's failure, thus preventing the goals of the parole process under this rule from being realized.[] Imposing a limit on the number of entrepreneurs who may be granted parole based on the same start-up entity is thus consistent with ensuring that each entrepreneur's parole will provide a significant public benefit.
The limitation, moreover, will help strengthen the integrity of the international entrepreneur parole process in various ways. Among other things, limiting the number of individuals who may be granted parole under this rule in connection with the same start-up entity will provide an additional safeguard against an entity being used as a means to fraudulently allow individuals to come to the United States. Such a limit diminishes, for example, the incentive to dilute equity in the start-up entity as a means to apply for parole for individuals who are not bona fide entrepreneurs. Finally, DHS clarifies that the rule does not require that additional entrepreneurs, up to 3 entrepreneurs per start-up entity, apply for parole based on the same start-up entity at the same time.
7. Income-Related Conditions on ParoleComment: Several commenters discussed the proposed rule's provision requiring that entrepreneurs paroled into the United States must maintain a household income that is greater than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for their household size, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. Many of these commenters discussed the financial difficulties faced by start-ups and argued that the income requirements were unduly high or suggested other alternatives. The majority of commenters on this issue stated that entrepreneurs in start-up endeavors typically do not take a salary or take a minimal salary in the early years. Several commenters recommended lowering this income threshold, with many suggesting lowering it to 100 percent, while others suggested alternatives of 125 percent, 200 percent, or 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. An individual commenter recommended that DHS institute a minimum yearly income requirement of $80,000, while another individual commenter stated that DHS should adopt a more nuanced approach that takes into account factors like standard of living, unemployment rates, and economic growth by state. Other commenters recommended that DHS allow for other types of compensation, in the form of benefits or rewards, in addition to salary to satisfy the income-related conditions on parole. Another individual commenter stated that DHS should use the income threshold already established by the Affidavit of Support,[] which is set at 125 percent above the poverty guidelines. Lastly, one commenter said the ''significant public benefit'' determination should not just be applied to entrepreneurs who meet a particular income or wealth criterion, but should be liberally applied to all entrepreneurs who are seeking to build and grow a business.
Response: DHS appreciates the concerns raised by these commenters, but declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion to eliminate or alter the income-related condition on parole. Establishing this income-related condition on parole is consistent with the Secretary's discretionary authority to grant parole ''under conditions as he may prescribe.'' INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). As stated in the NPRM, DHS established this income threshold to ensure that applicants seeking parole under this rule will have sufficient personal economic stability to make significant economic and related contributions to the United States. Those policy goals remain valid and are appropriate in guiding the decision to retain the requirement that the household income of an entrepreneur requesting parole under this rule be greater than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line.
Under this rule, DHS will take steps to ensure that each grant of parole will provide a positive net benefit to the economy of the United States, consistent with the statutory framework authorizing parole only for significant public benefit absent urgent humanitarian issues. In addition to considering all the other positive evidence'--from job creation to investment to growth'--DHS includes the income threshold as an additional safeguard that the entrepreneur and his or her family will not be eligible to draw upon Federal public benefits or premium tax credits under the Health Insurance Marketplace of the Affordable Care Act. Furthermore, Secretary Johnson indicated in his memorandum titled ''Policies Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Business and Workers'' that such thresholds would be created so that individuals would not be eligible for these public benefits or premium tax credits in light of the purpose of the policy.[]
DHS emphasizes that the funding amounts received by a start-up entity from governmental sources or from Start Printed Page 5261qualified investors in order to meet the rule's eligibility thresholds are distinct from the possible sources of salary payments to the individual entrepreneur. Nothing in this rule prevents a start-up entity from raising higher funding levels than the minimum parole eligibility thresholds, and from a wider set of funders than those in the rule's definitions of qualified investors and government entities. DHS intends for the eligibility criteria for parole to be useful independent validation tools for assessing the significant growth and job creation potential of the start-up entity. While there is certainly validity to the arguments made by some of the commenters that many entrepreneurs do not take large salaries, choosing instead to re-invest available funds back into the start-up entity or to take other forms of non-cash compensation, DHS must establish criteria that protect the overall policy goals of this rule in accordance with the requirements of the INA. The income-related requirements offer a clear and predictable mechanism for DHS to have a strong measure of confidence that the entrepreneur and his or her family, while paroled into the United States under this rule, will be net positive contributors to the American economy.
8. Reporting of Material ChangesComment: Several commenters discussed the proposed requirement that entrepreneurs report any material changes during a parole period to DHS by submitting a new application for parole. Most commenters argued that such a requirement would be onerous given the constantly changing nature of start-ups. A law firm argued that requiring entrepreneurs to report and reapply when there are pending actions against the start-up entity or entrepreneur would be unfair, as both are entitled to due process, and suggested a reporting requirement only if an adverse judgment were issued. An individual commenter stressed that a $1,200 fee to report every material change would create a major financial burden for entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS recognizes that the nature of start-up entities involves constant change. DHS also appreciates the concerns regarding the administrative and financial burden placed on entrepreneurs by additional filings. DHS believes, however, that the revised definition of material change in the final rule will help to clarify the situations in which the entrepreneur must notify the agency of material changes, and thus limit the administrative and financial burdens on the entrepreneur. Specifically, DHS understands that start-ups may have frequent ownership changes over the course of successive funding rounds, and thus has revised the definition of ''material change'' regarding ownership changes to cover only those that are ''significant'' in nature. Clarifying the scope of the material change definition also limits the reporting requirement, which should help reduce the anticipated burden on entrepreneurs. DHS also emphasizes that the rule requires notification of pending actions only in the context of a criminal case or other action brought by a government entity, while actions brought by private individuals or entities are not considered ''material changes'' until a settlement, judgment, or other final determination is reached. DHS does not believe that the material change reporting requirement under this rule will impact an individual's due process or would otherwise be unfair. DHS believes, however, that it is important for an entrepreneur granted parole under this rule to immediately inform USCIS if certain actions are brought against the entrepreneur or his or her start-up entity.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the process of addressing material changes would be improved if DHS were to implement a policy similar to the ''deference'' policy it applies in the EB-5 investor program. Such a policy provides that DHS will defer to prior determinations regarding certain documentary evidence used to establishing program eligibility requirements absent fraud, misrepresentation, a mistake of law or fact, or a material change.
Response: As discussed above, DHS decided to narrow and clarify the definition of ''material change'' in order to address commenters' concerns about reporting burdens. In the absence of specific suggestions, DHS could not ascertain from this comment what aspect of the EB-5 deference policy could be applied under this rule. DHS believes it is important for this rule to provide mechanisms, including the requirement to report material changes, to ensure that parole continues to be justified by significant public benefit in each particular case.
Comment: A joint submission from a professional association and a non-profit organization stated that, where a material change filing is mandated by the rule, the entrepreneur should only be required to file an update with USCIS, instead of being required to re-file an entire parole or re-parole application.
Response: As explained above, while DHS appreciates that a new filing may appear burdensome to the entrepreneur, DHS believes that a new filing is necessary in order to re-evaluate the entrepreneur's eligibility when such material changes occur. Material changes, by their definition, may affect the entrepreneur's ability to demonstrate that the start-up entity has potential for rapid growth and job creation, and whether the entrepreneur will continue to provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Therefore, at present, the entrepreneur must file a new application to allow DHS the opportunity to determine the entrepreneur's continued eligibility for parole. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after it has assessed the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
9. Other Comments on Parole Criteria and ConditionsComment: Several comments expressed concern that the rule did not require that the entrepreneur receive prevailing wages for their work, with some commenters expressing concern that the only wage requirements relate to the Federal Poverty Level.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' concerns regarding prevailing wages. Unlike some employment-based visa classifications, however, the intention of this parole process is not to address labor shortages in the United States. Rather, it is to encourage international entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities with high growth potential in the United States. DHS believes that requiring the parolee to maintain a household income of greater than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level adequately ensures that he or she will have sufficient personal economic stability to provide a significant public benefit to the United States through entrepreneurial activities.
Comment: One commenter recommended that DHS should not require an applicant's start-up entity to receive investment prior to the initial application for parole; that DHS should recognize cash infusions during the growth period of a start-up entity as eligibility criteria for re-parole; and that at the end of the initial parole period, if the venture is deemed successful, no additional funding milestones should be required for re-parole eligibility.
Response: DHS appreciates the comment but declines to revise the rule as suggested. DHS believes that the alternative criteria provided in this rule to determine if the start-up entity has Start Printed Page 5262substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation provide sufficient flexibility for those entrepreneurs who may have received amounts of qualified investments or government funding that are less than those required to satisfy the general criteria for parole consideration under this rule. The determination that the entity has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation will be made based on the evidence in the record at the time the parole application is adjudicated, rather than the possibility that the entity may receive cash infusions at some point in the future. If cash infusions from various sources are received by the start-up entity during the period of initial parole, evidence of such cash infusions may be taken into consideration if the entrepreneur applies for re-parole. DHS, however, does not believe that cash infusions into the start-up entity during the initial parole period will independently suffice to establish that the entity continues to have the significant potential for rapid growth and job creation. Infusions of cash, as a general matter, do not have the same validating qualities as do evidence of additional investment from qualifying investors, grants or awards from qualifying government entities, significant revenue growth, or job creation.
Comment: One commenter asserted that entrepreneurs who have left their start-up entity should not have their parole status immediately revoked. The commenter suggested that DHS issue guidance and options for entrepreneurs who leave their start-up entity but have contributed to the significant public benefit of the United States. A similar comment recommended that individuals be able to remain in the United States under parole and qualify for re-parole if a second start-up meets the requirements of the rule. Another related comment argued that entrepreneurs whose start-up entities fail should be given a second chance, in order to account for the dynamism and uncertainty inherent in new businesses.
Response: DHS appreciates the comments but declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions. As a matter of statutory authority, once, in the opinion of DHS, the purpose of parole has been served, parole should be terminated. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). DHS emphasizes that the purpose of granting parole under this rule is to allow an entrepreneur to grow a start-up entity in the United States with substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation, by working in an active and central role for the entity. Accordingly, DHS will not continue parole for entrepreneurs who are no longer actively working in a central role with the start-up entity that served as the basis for the initial parole application. The individual's activity through a new start-up entity, however, could serve as a basis for a new grant of parole if all requirements for such parole are met.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS should utilize the same methodology for granting parole for entrepreneurs as defined in a proposed nonimmigrant visa classification in a Senate bill, S. 744, 113 Cong. section 4801(2013).
Response: DHS appreciates the comment but declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. Under this rule, DHS has identified a process for implementing the Secretary's existing statutory authority to grant parole consistent with section 212(d)(5) of the INA. DHS does not believe it is advisable to import in this rule the standards from unenacted legislation focused on nonimmigrant visas rather than discretionary grants of parole.
G. Employment Authorization1. Automatic Employment Authorization Upon ParoleComment: One commenter suggested that if employment authorization were deemed incident to parole, rather than through a follow-up application, then the regulations governing employment verification would need to be amended to permit employment by the parolee and spouse without an EAD.
Response: DHS agrees that the employment verification provisions of the regulations should be appropriately revised. In this final rule, and as proposed, DHS is revising the employment eligibility verification regulations by expanding the foreign passport and Form I-94 document combination described at 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(5) to include Forms I-94A containing an endorsement that an individual is authorized to work incident to parole. This document combination was previously acceptable only for certain nonimmigrants authorized to work for a specific employer incident to status pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(b), which the final rule amends to include those paroled into the United States as entrepreneurs under this rule. See final 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(37).
However, in this final rule, and as proposed, only the entrepreneur parolee is accorded employment authorization incident to his or her parole. See final 8 CFR 274a.12(b). Given the basis for parole, it is essential to limit any delays in the entrepreneur's own employment authorization. Such delays could create difficulties for the entrepreneur's operation of the start-up entity, as he or she would be prohibited from working until work authorization was approved, and would frustrate the very purpose for paroling the entrepreneur into the United States. As an entrepreneur's spouse would not be coming for the same kind of specific employment purpose, DHS does not believe there is a similar need to provide him or her work authorization incident to parole. Instead, this rule adds a new provision making the spouse of an entrepreneur parolee eligible to seek employment authorization. See final 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34). Based on this provision and 8 CFR 274a.13(a), an entrepreneur's spouse seeking employment authorization under this rule would need to file an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) with USCIS in accordance with the relevant form instructions.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed employment authorization provision is too narrow in scope. The commenter stated that DHS should clarify that employment with an entity that is under common control as the start-up entity, such as a subsidiary or affiliate, would be permissible.
Response: Under the final rule, the entrepreneur parolee's employment authorization is limited to the specific start-up entity listed on the Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941. This limitation helps ensure that the entrepreneur's work is consistent with the purposes for which parole was granted, especially since parole applications will be evaluated based in part on the activities and performance of that particular start-up entity. DHS appreciates that there are certain circumstances in which some flexibility could further the purpose of encouraging entrepreneurship, innovation, economic growth, and job creation in the United States. Given that this is a new process however, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after assessing the implementation of the rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that difficulties obtaining a work visa have caused many entrepreneurs to move out of the United States.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter's statement. While this rule does not address all of the difficulties that entrepreneurs may face, or make legislative changes that only Congress can make, DHS believes it will encourage international entrepreneurs Start Printed Page 5263to develop and grow their start-up entities'--and provide the benefits of such growth'--in the United States. Entrepreneurs paroled into the United States under this rule will be authorized to work for the start-up entity for the duration of the parole (and any re-parole) period.
2. Spousal EmploymentComment: Several commenters, including a business incubator, asserted that spouses should be granted employment authorization and argued that spouse employment authorization will entice more entrepreneurs to come to the United States. Several other commenters stated that, in order to attract the best entrepreneurial talent, spouses of entrepreneur parolees should automatically receive work authorization incident to status without the need to apply separately.
Response: DHS agrees with commenters that extending employment authorization to spouses of entrepreneur parolees is important to help attract entrepreneurs to establish and grow start-up entities in the United States. For reasons provided above, however, DHS disagrees that these spouses must be provided with employment authorization incident to their parole. Instead, these spouses may seek employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(34).
Comment: A few commenters stated opposition to permitting employment authorization for the spouses of international entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' opposition to allowing an entrepreneur's spouse to apply for employment authorization. Permitting spouses to seek employment authorization is an important aspect of the rule's intent to attract international entrepreneurs who may provide a significant public benefit by growing their start-up entities in the United States.
Comment: One commenter objected to spousal employment authorization unless it is restricted to the same new high-potential start-up entity that served as the basis for the parole.
Response: DHS disagrees with the suggestion that spousal employment should be authorized only for employment with the start-up entity that served as the basis of parole for the entrepreneur. Nothing in this rule prevents people married to each other from applying for parole associated with the same start-up entity. But DHS believes that it is not appropriate or necessary to limit the employment of an entrepreneur's spouse to that entity. Making those spouses eligible to seek employment from a broader range of employers can further the central purpose of the rulemaking'--encouraging international entrepreneurs to develop and grow their start-up entities within the United States and provide the benefits of such growth to the United States. It may also encourage entrepreneurs to create more jobs outside the family through the start-up entity, furthering the benefits provided to others in the United States. DHS therefore declines to revise the rule as suggested.
H. Comments on the Parole Process1. Ability of Individuals To Qualify for Parole Under This RuleComment: Two individual commenters asked what kind of immigration status or visa an international entrepreneur should maintain in order to be eligible to apply for parole under this rule. The commenters expressed concern about the types of activities that would need to be conducted in the United States prior to a parole application in order to establish a business, obtain funds from investors, and otherwise qualify for the parole under this rule. These commenters also expressed concern about requiring prior investment as a condition for parole, and that investors would be hesitant to make such an investment in a start-up entity if the entrepreneur lacked an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. A professional association stated that, since parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States, it will likely be very difficult for international entrepreneurs without formal immigration status to enter into long-term contracts, raise significant investment capital, and employ people.
Response: This final rule aims to encourage international entrepreneurs to create and develop start-up entities with high growth potential in the United States, which are in turn expected to facilitate research and development in the country, create jobs for U.S. workers, and otherwise benefit the U.S. economy. Under this final rule, an international entrepreneur may request parole in accordance with the form instructions. The final rule provides that individuals seeking initial parole under this program must present themselves at a U.S. port of entry to be paroled into the United States; there is no requirement that an international entrepreneur currently be in the United States or maintain any prior immigration status. DHS notes, however, that under the statute governing parole authority, individuals who have already been admitted to the United States are ineligible to be considered for parole inside the United States because only applicants for admission are eligible to be considered for parole. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also INA section 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (describing ''applicants for admission''). Individuals who have been admitted in a nonimmigrant classification, and are currently in the United States pursuant to that admission, may not be paroled, even if they have overstayed their admission, unless they first depart the United States.
DHS appreciates that international entrepreneurs may face many challenges in starting and growing a business in the United States, including attracting investment capital or government grants or awards. DHS disagrees with the premise, however, that qualifying investors will be very reluctant to make a qualifying investment in a start-up entity that is wholly or partially owned by an individual that will be seeking a grant of parole under this rule. DHS believes that there are a myriad of factors that go into a decision to invest significant funds in a start-up entity. While the underlying immigration status, or lack thereof, of the start-up entity's owner(s) may be a factor presenting a degree of additional risk, DHS believes that this rule will effectively mitigate some of that risk by providing a known framework under which certain significant public benefit parole requests will be reviewed and adjudicated. This final rule provides investors and entrepreneurs with greater transparency into the evaluation process and manner in which such requests will be reviewed, so that those individuals and entities can weigh the various risks and benefits that might apply to the particular investment decision being considered. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS has decided to take an incremental approach and will consider potential modifications in the future after assessing the implementation of the rule.
2. Waiver for Entrepreneurs Presently Failing To Maintain StatusComment: An individual commenter stated that international entrepreneurs already in the United States should be able to receive a waiver in order to establish eligibility for parole under this rule if they do not have a valid prior immigration status. Another commenter suggested that immigration status violations, such as unauthorized employment, should not be grounds for denying parole under this rule and, if parole is granted, any prior Start Printed Page 5264unauthorized employment that was used to meet the requirements for parole should be disregarded for purposes of any future immigration applications.
Response: As discussed above, eligibility for parole under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), is not wholly dependent upon an individual's current immigration status. Unauthorized employment or a prior status violation will not necessarily preclude an individual from qualifying for parole under this rule. However, the fact that an entrepreneur has worked without authorization, is out of status, or not legally present in the United States would be considered in determining whether DHS should grant parole under its discretionary authority. All requests for a discretionary grant of parole are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis and ultimately determined by evaluating all positive and negative factors.
DHS will not adopt the commenter's suggestion to disregard, for purposes of any future immigration applications, any prior unauthorized employment that was used to meet the requirements for parole. DHS believes that such a provision would require a statutory change, as eligibility for certain benefits is barred by statute if the applicant previously worked without authorization.[]
3. Relationship Between Parole and Various Nonimmigrant Visa Classificationsa. Pathway for Current Nonimmigrants To Use Entrepreneur ParoleComment: Some commenters expressed concern that it would be challenging for foreign students, recent graduates of U.S. universities, and other nonimmigrants presently in the United States to meet this rule's requirements for parole consideration under the constraints of their current visas. These commenters said that the rule should allow these individuals a realistic and clear pathway to easily utilize parole, and should clarify that potential applicants currently in the United States in nonimmigrant status will not be violating their existing visa status when taking the necessary steps to establish eligibility for significant public benefit parole. One commenter requested that students in F-1 nonimmigrant status and eligible to work on Curricular Practical Training (CPT) or Optional Practical Training (OPT) should become eligible for parole under the rule if they founded a start-up and raised $100,000 in capital.
Response: DHS appreciates that some entrepreneurs who are present in the United States and who might otherwise qualify for parole under this program may be unable to engage in certain activities given the limitations placed on their nonimmigrant status, making it difficult, for example, for them to raise significant capital for a start-up entity. DHS, however, disagrees with the commenters' assertion that individuals present in the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status will be unable to meet the requirements for parole under this program, such as starting a business and raising significant investment, without violating their F-1 nonimmigrant status. For example, an individual in F-1 status who has obtained OPT employment authorization may start and work for his or her own business in the United States. The OPT employment, and thus the business, must relate to the F-1 nonimmigrant's program of study and can occur either before (pre-completion OPT) or after the completion of a program of study (post-completion OPT).[] Additional requirements apply to F-1 nonimmigrants who are otherwise eligible for a STEM OPT extension, such as establishing that their STEM OPT employer will have a valid employer-employee relationship with the F-1 OPT nonimmigrant, but those additional requirements do not pertain to the initial 12-month OPT period, and in any event do not present an absolute bar against entrepreneurial activities. DHS believes that it is certainly realistic that an F-1 nonimmigrant in the United States can start a business during his or her OPT period, and during that time can take steps to obtain significant investment in the start-up entity, which the individual may then rely upon if applying for parole under this rule. DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to include in this rule a blanket provision stating that potential applicants currently in the United States in nonimmigrant status will not be violating their existing status when taking steps to establish eligibility for parole. Such changes would pertain to the statutory and regulatory limitations placed on various nonimmigrant classifications and are outside the scope of this rule.
DHS believes that this final rule provides a realistic and clear option for certain entrepreneurs to actively grow their qualifying start-up entity in the United States. As discussed below, parole is not a nonimmigrant status, and individuals present in the United States in a nonimmigrant status will not be able to change status or otherwise be granted parole without first departing the United States and appearing at a U.S. port of entry for inspection and parole. Under this final rule, however, an individual present in the United States in a nonimmigrant status may apply for and obtain an approval of the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941). Filing and obtaining approval of a Form I-941 application under this rule will not, by itself, constitute a violation of the individual's nonimmigrant status. After approval of the Form I-941 application, if the individual decides to rely upon parole to actively grow his or her business in the United States, the individual will need to appear at a U.S. port of entry for a final parole determination to allow him or her to come into the United States as a parolee.
This final rule already provides appropriate criteria under which all applications will be reviewed, including those submitted by any F-1 nonimmigrants. As indicated in this final rule, one basis on which an individual may be considered for parole under this rule is if he or she has raised at least $250,000 in investment capital from a qualifying investor (and meets certain other criteria). Individuals who raise a substantial amount of capital from a qualifying investor, but less than $250,000, may still qualify for and be granted parole under other criteria identified in the rule'--including the receipt of a qualifying government grant or award or other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
b. Switching Between Nonimmigrant Status and ParoleComment: Several commenters raised questions or provided suggestions regarding switching from a nonimmigrant status to parole, or from parole to a nonimmigrant status. Specifically, one commenter asked what her status would be if she were in the United States as an H-4 nonimmigrant, authorized to work pursuant to an EAD, but nevertheless pursued parole under this rule. Another commenter suggested that DHS should include a provision in this rule that expressly allows someone to switch from nonimmigrant status to parole, and from parole to nonimmigrant status, similar to DHS's policy to terminate and restore the H-1B or L-1 status of certain individuals who have temporarily departed the United States but came back using an advance parole document that was Start Printed Page 5265issued based on a pending Form I-485 application for adjustment of status.
Response: DHS declines to adopt a provision in this rule allowing individuals to change between nonimmigrant status and parole while in the United States. An individual who is present in the United States as a nonimmigrant based on an inspection and admission is not eligible for parole without first departing the United States and appearing at a U.S. port of entry to be paroled into United States. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). Moreover, an individual who has been paroled into the United States cannot change to nonimmigrant status without leaving the United States, as INA section 248, 8 U.S.C. 1258, only permits individuals who are maintaining nonimmigrant status to change to another nonimmigrant status. If an individual who has been paroled into the United States under this rule has a petition for nonimmigrant classification approved on his or her behalf, he or she would have to leave the United States and pursue consular processing of a nonimmigrant visa application before seeking to return to the United States.
c. Entrepreneur Pathways and Entrepreneur ParoleComment: One commenter stated that the international entrepreneur parole rule should complement and not supplant prior USCIS policy pertaining to entrepreneurs, including those reflected on the USCIS Entrepreneur Pathways Web site.[] The commenter, while expressing concerns with aspects of existing policies pertaining to entrepreneurs and this rule, suggested that if an entrepreneur cannot qualify for parole under this rule, USCIS should encourage the entrepreneur to seek a visa associated with his or her start-up entity under the existing immigrant or nonimmigrant visa system. Specifically, the commenter suggested that the final rule should expressly include an amendment to the H-1B regulations to allow approval of an H-1B petition under the policies articulated on the Entrepreneur Pathways Web site, and that USCIS adjudicators should see an express statement in the final rule that, notwithstanding the existence of this rule, the H-1B visa remains available for working owners of start-up entities. The commenter noted that the USCIS Entrepreneur Pathways Web site also provides guidance for entrepreneurs to use other existing nonimmigrant visa classifications (e.g., L-1, O, and E visas) that could be more advantageous to the entrepreneur than the parole rule, so adjudicators should continue to approve petitions in that spirit. The commenter asserted that the unique requirements under the parole rule, such as a threshold investment amount, should not be allowed to ''bleed into and taint'' the adjudicatory process for securing employment-based visas traditionally used by entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's suggestions, but the suggested changes to the H-1B regulations are outside the scope of this rulemaking. DHS agrees with the commenter that parole under this program is intended to complement, and not supplant, other options that may already exist for entrepreneurs under other immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications. This rule does not alter existing rules or policies regarding the ability of entrepreneurs to qualify for any immigrant or nonimmigrant status. This rule does, however, provide an additional avenue for entrepreneurs to consider when exploring options that may be available to them to grow a start-up entity in the United States.
4. Travel Document IssuanceComment: A commenter urged DHS to grant multiple-entry parole to foreign nationals so that they may travel internationally and return to the United States, as this is not explicit in the regulation. The commenter stated that this ability is essential to ensure that entrepreneurs can raise additional funds and market innovations worldwide. In addition, this commenter stated that some foreign nationals may begin their businesses and seek entrepreneur parole while in nonimmigrant status in the United States, such as in F-1 or H-1B nonimmigrant status (and thus seek to depart the United States with advance parole and then request parole from CBP upon their return to a U.S. port of entry). The commenter suggested that the regulation clarify how these foreign nationals will be able to return to the United States.
Response: DHS notes that individuals who have been admitted to the United States, such as those in nonimmigrant status, are not eligible to be granted parole unless they first depart the United States. DHS clarifies that any immigration status violations by any applicant for parole, including those related to their entrepreneurial efforts, will be taken into account as negative factors in the case-by-case determination of whether the applicant merits an exercise of discretion to grant parole, though they will not necessarily prohibit the individual from obtaining a grant of parole under this rule.
DHS recognizes that international travel can be essential for the success of some start-up entities. Under existing law, an individual's authorized period of parole ends each time he or she departs the United States. See8 CFR 212.5(e)(1)(i). DHS may, however, authorize advance parole before departure and can specify that such authorization is valid for multiple uses. An entrepreneur granted advance parole would be able to leave the country, present himself or herself at a port of entry upon return, and request a subsequent grant of parole for the remaining period of his or her initially granted parole period. At such time, DHS must then inspect the individual and determine whether or not to grant parole into the United States.[] If the individual is granted parole, he or she may only be paroled for up to the time initially granted. Any time spent outside the United States after the parole period is initiated will count against the total period of parole, so that the total time period of the parole period remains consistent with the date of initial parole granted by CBP.
5. Parole in PlaceComment: Several commenters requested that DHS allow parole-in-place under this rule. Some of these commenters stated that parole-in-place should be added so that individuals already in the United States in a nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B or F-1 nonimmigrant status, can apply for and be granted parole under this rule without having to depart the United States. Several other commenters noted that DHS has the jurisdiction to allow parole-in-place for spouses or dependents, as they do for military family members, and that this could be applied to the International Entrepreneur Rule. Some commenters argued that the requirement to be out of the country to apply for parole under this rule puts an unnecessary financial burden on applicants who are already residing in the United States.
Response: DHS appreciates, but declines to adopt, the commenters' suggestions that parole-in-place be allowed under this rule for individuals already in the United States in H-1B or F-1 nonimmigrant status. Only applicants for admission are eligible to Start Printed Page 5266be considered for parole, thus precluding individuals who have already been admitted from being considered for parole inside the United States. See INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also INA section 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (describing ''applicants for admission''). Such individuals are not eligible for parole, regardless of whether they have overstayed their admission, unless they first depart the United States.
6. Comments on Options After 5-Year Total Parole Period EndsComment: Many commenters provided views on the options available to entrepreneurs who have exhausted their up to 5 years of eligibility for parole under this rule. Some commenters were concerned that the rule does not provide a direct path to lawful permanent residence, which could limit the investment prospects for start-up entities. Other commenters were concerned that including such a path could exacerbate current immigrant visa backlogs and thus disadvantage those already in the queue for immigrant visa numbers.
A number of commenters were more broadly concerned that the overall uncertainty inherent in parole may discourage entrepreneurs from using this rule to start and grow their businesses in the United States. One particular commenter expressed concerns about an entrepreneur's ability to demonstrate nonimmigrant intent for purposes of a visa that does not permit dual intent. Others wanted DHS to consider entrepreneurs who have completed a 5-year parole period, and whose start-ups continue to demonstrate growth, as eligible for an EB-2 immigrant visa with a National Interest Waiver based upon the economic benefit to the United States. Other commenters urged DHS to establish prima facie eligibility for lawful permanent residence based on 3 years of parole under this rule. Still others wanted assurance that an individual who is the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition would keep his or her priority date for purposes of receiving lawful permanent residence if he or she were granted parole under this rule.
Response: DHS appreciates the wide range of comments about immigration options for entrepreneurs after the end of their authorized period or periods of parole under this rule. Nothing in this rule forecloses otherwise available options for international entrepreneurs who are granted parole. DHS further notes that this rule does not impact existing rules and policies pertaining to retention of priority dates in the immigrant petition context. The rule does not, however, establish a direct path to lawful permanent residence by creating a new immigrant visa classification for international entrepreneurs, which could only be done by Congress.
As discussed in the NPRM, the entrepreneur and any dependents granted parole under this program will be required to depart the United States when their parole periods have expired or have otherwise been terminated, unless such individuals are otherwise eligible to lawfully remain in the United States. Such individuals may apply for any immigrant or nonimmigrant classification for which they may be eligible (such as classification as an O-1 nonimmigrant or lawful permanent residence through employer sponsorship). Individuals who are granted parole under this rule may ultimately be able to qualify for an EB-2 immigrant visa with a National Interest Waiver. If an entrepreneur is approved for a nonimmigrant or employment-based immigrant visa classification, he or she would generally be required to depart the United States and apply for a visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. As noted above, because parole is not considered an admission to the United States, parolees will be unable to apply to adjust or change their status in the United States under many immigrant or nonimmigrant visa classifications. DHS does not believe that merely being granted parole under this rule would prevent an individual from demonstrating nonimmigrant intent for purposes of obtaining a subsequent nonimmigrant visa for entry into United States. DHS believes that this rule presents sufficient clarity and predictability for many individuals who want to establish and grow their businesses in the United States, and will contribute significantly to economic growth and job creation here. Such positive outcomes may be relevant in the event that entrepreneurs granted parole under this rule later seek to apply for an existing nonimmigrant or immigrant visa.
I. Appeals and Motions To ReopenComment: Several commenters requested that applicants be allowed to file appeals or motions to reconsider adverse parole decisions. A business association requested that submissions of motions to reopen or motions for reconsideration result in uninterrupted employment authorization for the parolee.
Response: DHS appreciates but declines to adopt these suggestions. DHS has concluded that granting a right of appeal following a decision to deny entrepreneur parole would be inconsistent with the discretionary nature of the adjudication and contrary to how DHS treats other parole decisions. The final rule also precludes applicants from filing motions to reopen or for reconsideration under 8 CFR 103.5(a)(1). DHS retains its authority and discretion, however, to reopen or reconsider a decision on its own motion as proposed. See final 8 CFR 212.19(d)(4). Applicants may alert DHS, through existing customer service channels, that they believe that a decision to deny parole was issued in error and include factual statements and arguments supporting such claims.
Because the determination to grant or deny a request for parole is discretionary, the parole process in this final rule may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Parole determinations would continue to be discretionary, case-by-case determinations made by DHS, and parole may be revoked or terminated at any time in accordance with the termination provisions established by this rule at 8 CFR 212.19(k). Parolees under this final rule would assume sole risk for any and all costs, expenses, opportunity costs, and any other potential liability resulting from a revocation or termination of parole. A grant of parole would in no way create any reliance or due process interest in obtaining or maintaining parole or being able to remain in the United States to continue to operate a start-up entity or for other reasons.
J. Termination of Parole1. Discretionary Authority To Revoke/Terminate ParoleComments: One commenter expressed concern that the basis for terminating parole is subjective, particularly with respect to reporting material changes. This commenter suggested that USCIS should limit such reporting to adverse judgments, since entrepreneurs and start-up entities are entitled to due process. Other commenters requested that USCIS adjudicators be specifically trained on entrepreneurship issues so that they can make the most informed decisions regarding parole.
Response: USCIS is committed to providing sufficient training on entrepreneurship issues for those adjudicators who will be assigned to adjudicating entrepreneur parole Start Printed Page 5267requests. DHS does not believe that further revisions to the rule are necessary to protect against possible unfair or inconsistent determinations among adjudicators. By statute, parole decisions are discretionary and must be made on a case-by-case basis. This rule establishes transparent parameters for termination of parole, including automatic termination and termination on notice. Automatic termination applies at the expiration of parole, or upon written notification to DHS from the entrepreneur parolee that he or she is no longer employed by the start-up entity or no longer possesses the required qualifying ownership stake in the start-up entity. See final 8 CFR 212.19(k)(2). Termination on notice with an opportunity for the entrepreneur to respond is authorized by 8 CFR 212.19(k)(3). These bases for termination are tied to objective facts regarding eligibility for parole, thereby placing all parolees on the same footing.
The commenter expressed particular concern regarding terminations based on material changes. DHS believes that this concern is sufficiently addressed by the parameters set by this rule's definition of material change. Under this rule, material change means any change in facts that could reasonably affect the outcome of the determination whether the entrepreneur provides, or continues to provide, a significant public benefit to the United States. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(10). This rule provides further guidance by listing several examples illustrating material changes, including: Any criminal charge, conviction, plea of no contest, or other judicial determination in a criminal case concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity; any complaint, settlement, judgment, or other judicial or administrative determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal or administrative proceeding brought by a government entity; any settlement, judgment, or other legal determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal proceeding brought by a private individual or organization other than proceedings primarily involving claims for damages not exceeding 10 percent of the current assets of the entrepreneur or start-up entity; a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the start-up entity's assets; the liquidation, dissolution or cessation of operations of the start-up entity; the voluntary or involuntary filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the start-up entity; a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity; and a cessation of the entrepreneur's qualifying ownership interest in the start-up entity or the entrepreneur's central and active role in the operations of that entity. See final 8 CFR 212.19(a)(10).
2. Notice and DecisionComments: A couple of commenters suggested that DHS provide notice and opportunity to respond before terminating parole.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenters that providing the entrepreneur parolee with notice and an opportunity to respond prior to termination is reasonable in certain scenarios, such as when grounds for termination require an assessment of the underlying case by the adjudicator. However, where no such assessment is required, DHS believes that automatic termination is appropriate. The NPRM provided for termination at DHS's discretion, including automatic termination in limited circumstances and termination on notice under a range of circumstances deemed appropriate by DHS. This rule finalizes that proposal without change. See final 8 CFR 212.19(k)(2) and (3). Under this rule, therefore, DHS will generally provide notice of termination and an opportunity to respond where it believes that:
(1) The facts or information contained in the request for parole were not true and accurate;
(2) The alien failed to timely file or otherwise comply with the material change reporting requirements in this section;
(3) The entrepreneur parolee is no longer employed in a central and active role by the start-up entity or ceases to possess the required ownership stake in the start-up entity;
(4) The alien otherwise violated the terms and conditions of parole; or
(5) Parole was erroneously granted.
Automatic termination will apply upon the expiration of parole or if DHS receives written notice from the parolee informing DHS that he or she is no longer employed by the start-up entity or no longer possesses the required qualifying ownership stake in the start-up entity. DHS believes that these bases for automatic termination clearly evidence that the entrepreneur no longer qualifies for parole under this rule; therefore, notice and opportunity to respond are unnecessary. Additionally, parole of the spouse or child of the entrepreneur will be automatically terminated without notice if the parole of the entrepreneur has been terminated. This rule also finalizes the provision indicating that the decision to terminate parole may not be appealed, that USCIS will not consider a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision to terminate parole, and, upon its own motion, USCIS may reopen or reconsider a decision to terminate. See final 8 CFR 212.19(k)(4).
3. Other Comments on Application Adjudication and Parole TerminationComments: Multiple commenters suggested an expedited or premium processing option for entrepreneur parole applicants. Some of these commenters suggested a maximum 30-day adjudication time period.
Response: While DHS appreciates the concern for timely adjudications, at this time DHS declines to include premium or expedited processing as part of the final rule. DHS may consider the possibility of premium processing or expedited processing after assessing implementation of the rule and an average adjudication time for processing requests for parole under this rule has been determined.
K. Opposition to the Overall RuleComment: Multiple commenters expressed overall opposition to the rule, stating that there is no reason to add an additional parole process for highly trained and talented entrepreneurs when visa and residency pathways already exist, such as the O nonimmigrant visa, EB-5 immigrant visa, or EB-2 immigrant visa based on a National Interest Waiver. Other commenters asserted that the United States needs to limit immigration, not create more immigration programs. Several individual commenters argued that the U.S. Government should reform other visa programs, such as the H-1B nonimmigrant classification, and address the current immigrant visa backlog before creating more programs. Several individual commenters asserted that taxpayer money should be used on domestic issues, such as reviving the American economy, rebuilding infrastructure, promoting national security, and supporting veterans, rather than on administering a parole process for international entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that sufficient avenues for international entrepreneurs already exist. DHS believes that this final rule will, by further implementing authority provided by Congress, reduce barriers standing in the way of innovation and entrepreneurial activity that will benefit the U.S. economy.34Start Printed Page 5268This final rule provides an avenue for innovative entrepreneurs to pursue their entrepreneurial endeavors in the United States and contribute to the U.S. economy. In the absence of this rule, these innovative entrepreneurs might be delayed or discouraged altogether in contributing innovation, job creation, and other benefits to the United States.
DHS also disagrees with the commenters' assertions that reforms should be made to the H-1B nonimmigrant classification and that the immigrant visa backlog should be addressed before this rule is finalized. Parole is an entirely separate option within the Secretary's authority to allow individuals to come to the United States on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. While DHS appreciates the commenters' sentiment that changes should be made in other contexts, the exact changes contemplated by the commenters are unclear, are outside the scope of this rulemaking, or would require congressional action.
DHS also disagrees with the assertion that taxpayer funds will be misallocated to process applications for parole under this final rule. Applicants for parole under this rule will be required to submit a filing fee to fully cover the cost of processing of applications.
L. Miscellaneous Comments on the Rule1. Additional Suggested Changes to the RuleComments: A number of commenters suggested additional changes to the final rule that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. These comments proposed changes to the regulations governing certain nonimmigrant programs, namely: Employment of F-1 nonimmigrant students through Optional Practical Training (OPT); annual H-1B numerical limitations; ''period of stay'' duration for L-1 nonimmigrants starting a new office in the United States; and merging significant public benefit parole with the O-1 visa program. A commenter suggested providing Employment Authorization Documents or lawful permanent resident status to individuals who obtained their Master's degrees in the United States. Other commenters suggested providing tax incentives to established U.S. corporations that would agree to mentor immigrant entrepreneurs, or establishing a system of compensation for certain senior citizens in the United States to mentor immigrant entrepreneurs. Other commenters recommended balancing parole for entrepreneurs with refugee admissions.
Response: DHS thanks commenters for these suggestions but declines to make changes to the rule as these comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: A joint submission from an advocacy group and professional association recommended that DHS consider parole for individuals who work in social services fields that do not command a high income or who might otherwise perform work in the national interest.
Response: This final rule is aimed at international entrepreneurs who will provide a significant public benefit to the United States'--which could include entrepreneurs whose startup entities operate in the field of social services, so long as they meet the criteria for parole in this final rule. Furthermore, this rule does not limit the Secretary's broader authority to grant parole to other applicants for admission on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
2. Information/GuidanceComment: One commenter recommended that DHS make parole data from the program publicly available.
Response: While DHS did not propose to disclose parole data related to this rule, DHS appreciates the commenter's suggestion, and may consider making such data publicly available after this rule is implemented.
Comment: Other commenters suggested that DHS provide additional guidance to those granted parole under this rule and to provide resources for small start-ups interested in applying for the rule.
Response: DHS will evaluate whether to provide additional guidance following publication of this final rule and an assessment of its implementation.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS add a provision to the rule for retrospective review, in order to analyze the effects of the rule's implementation.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter's suggestion that the effects of the rule, after its implementation, should be reviewed; however, DHS does not believe adding a provision to the final regulatory text requiring such review is necessary. DHS intends to review all aspects of this parole rule and process subsequent to its implementation and consistent with the direction of Executive Order 13563. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS will consider potential modifications in the future after assessing the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
Comment: One commenter said these rules should serve as a guide, but that companies and entrepreneurs should be analyzed on case-by-case basis.
Response: DHS may grant parole on a case-by-case basis under this rule if the Department determines, based on the totality of the evidence, that an applicant's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit and that he or she otherwise merits a favorable exercise of discretion.
Comment: An individual commenter suggested that DHS should, as part of its assessment of parole applications under this rule, evaluate the performance of applicants' prior start-ups in their home countries.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter and believes that the performance of applicants' prior start-ups in their home countries is the type of evidence already contemplated by the final rule both under the alternative criteria provisions and as part of the determination as to whether an applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The alternative criteria allow an applicant who partially meets one or more of the general criteria related to capital investment or government funding to be considered for initial parole under this rule if he or she provides additional reliable and compelling evidence that his or her parole would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such evidence would need to serve as a compelling validation of the entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS is not defining the specific types of evidence that may be deemed ''reliable and compelling'' at this time, as DHS seeks to retain flexibility as to the kinds of supporting evidence that may warrant DHS's exercise of discretion in granting parole based on significant public benefit.
3. Comments Regarding the E-2 Nonimmigrant ClassificationComment: Several commenters submitted comments regarding the E-2 nonimmigrant classification. The majority supported the inclusion of E-2 businesses into the parole process under this rule. Several companies and an individual commenter further recommended that the rule should Start Printed Page 5269accommodate E-2 businesses already in the United States.
Response: The final rule lays out specific criteria for determining the kind of start-up enterprise that has substantial potential for job growth and job creation, and for assessing whether an individual entrepreneur's parole would be justified by significant public benefit. DHS believes it is unnecessary to identify these enterprises even more specifically than in this final rule. DHS notes that the rule does not prevent individuals who might otherwise qualify for an existing immigrant or nonimmigrant classification from applying for parole under this rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule is much more complicated than the E-2 nonimmigrant classification, and that DHS should incorporate elements of the E-2 program into this rule's parole process.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's suggestion.[] A grant of parole under this rule is based on a determination that the individual will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Eligibility for E-2 nonimmigrant classification is based on different standards, and DHS believes that applying E-2 requirements would not suffice to meet the statutory requirements for parole and establish that an individual merits a favorable exercise of discretion. DHS therefore declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.
Comment: A commenter suggested that the proposed rule is unnecessary since the E-2 program already supports international entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's statement. The E-2 program allows nationals of a treaty country (a country with which the United States maintains a qualifying Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation or its equivalent) to be admitted to the United States when investing a substantial amount of capital in a U.S. business. Foreign entrepreneurs from nontreaty countries, such as Brazil, China, India, Israel, or Russia, are currently not eligible for an E-2 nonimmigrant visa. Also, the E-2 category requires the entrepreneur to invest his or her own funds, and is therefore not applicable to entrepreneurs relying upon funds from investors or government entities to build and grow their business. DHS believes that this rule provides a viable option, consistent with the Secretary's parole authority, to allow entrepreneurs to build and grow their businesses in the United States, providing significant public benefit here.
4. Usefulness of the RuleComment: Multiple commenters argued that this rule will not necessarily help international entrepreneurs succeed, because there are too many restrictions in place for foreign residents to qualify. One commenter asserted that the rule as proposed is too complex and its goals will be impossible to achieve.
Response: DHS disagrees with these assertions. DHS acknowledges that this final rule will not benefit all international entrepreneurs seeking to enter or remain in the United States. As several commenters have stated, the final rule does not and cannot create a new visa classification specifically designed for international entrepreneurs, which is something that can only be done by Congress. This final rule, however, provides an additional option that may be available to those entrepreneurs who will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. This parole option complements, but does not supplant, current immigrant and nonimmigrant visa classifications for which some international entrepreneurs might qualify to bring or keep their start-up entities in the United States.
The requirements governing eligibility for consideration for parole under this rule establish a high evidentiary bar that must be met in order to assist DHS in its determination that the individual will provide a significant public benefit to the United States. DHS, however, does not agree with the commenter's assertion that the requirements are impossible for all entrepreneurs to meet. Given that this is a new and complex process, DHS will consider potential modifications in the future after assessing the implementation of the rule and its impact on operational resources.
5. Include On-Campus Business Incubators in the RuleComment: One commenter urged USCIS to tie eligibility for parole to an applicant's participation in business incubators and accelerators located on U.S. university and college campuses that allow international entrepreneurs to grow start-up companies. The commenter stated that these programs meet the goal of the rule while providing benefits on a local and national scale. The commenter elaborated that the proposed rule only contemplates a traditional start-up arrangement, which creates requirements based on ownership interest, type of investor, and amount of money invested. The commenter asserted that international entrepreneurs that engage with campus-based incubators cannot meet these requirements because the structure and opportunities provided by a higher education institution do not follow the traditional models. The commenter urged DHS to create alternative criteria to recognize the role higher education plays in fostering international entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS appreciates the comment but will not adopt changes to the rule in response. DHS recognizes and values the important role that incubators and accelerators located on a U.S. university or college campuses perform in the entrepreneur community. DHS believes, however, that the framework provided by this rule does allow DHS to consider, in its discretionary case-by-case determination, the fact that the start-up entity is participating in such an incubator or accelerator. DHS believes that evidence of such participation is one factor to be weighed for those individuals who do not fully meet the general capital investment or government funding criteria and are relying on additional reliable and compelling evidence that the start-up entity has the substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. DHS believes that reliable and compelling evidence may, depending on all the circumstances, include evidence that the start-up entity is participating in a reputable incubator or accelerator located on a U.S. university or college campus.
6. Objection to Use of the Word ''Parole''Comment: Multiple commenters objected to the use of the word ''parole'' to describe the provisions in this rule. Commenters are concerned that use of the word in an immigration context will be confused with the use of the word in the criminal context. A commentator suggested using the term ''conditional status'' or ''provisional status.''
Response: DHS declines to accept the commenters' suggestion. ''Parole'' is a term established by statute at section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). The use of that term in the INA should not be confused with the word's usage in non-immigration contexts. Use of alternative terms as suggested by the commenter would be misleading.Start Printed Page 5270
7. Concern Over Possible Exploitation of EntrepreneursComment: Two commenters suggested that international entrepreneurs would be vulnerable to exploitation by venture capital investors under this rule. The commenters compare the influence of venture capitalists over entrepreneurs granted parole to the influence of employers over H-1B employees. One commenter expressed concern that the rule could allow a venture capitalist almost total dominance over the international entrepreneur's life, through the threat of withdrawing funding and thereby triggering termination of parole.
Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the final rule will facilitate such exploitation of international entrepreneurs by venture capital investors. As a general matter, venture capitalists and other investors cannot easily withdraw funding from a start-up entity once this investment transaction has been duly executed. Once an entrepreneur has applied for parole on the basis of prior investment, and has been granted such parole, the investor will not be in a position to directly interfere with the entrepreneur's continued eligibility during the parole period. The final rule will not create significant new conditions for exploitation that do not already exist currently for international entrepreneurs'--or for that matter, domestic entrepreneurs'--in the United States.
Comment: One commenter stated that the United States should be mindful of what may happen to poorer countries when the United States attracts their best entrepreneurs.
Response: DHS stresses that application for parole under this rule is voluntary and has the primary goal of yielding significant public benefit for the United States. DHS believes that applicants will assess economic and business conditions both in the United States and in other countries and will consider these conditions, along with numerous others, in the decision to apply for parole under this rule. DHS does not believe that the rule itself, which authorizes parole only for a limited period of time and under specific limited circumstances, will create significant negative consequences for poorer countries. Additionally, positive spillovers from new innovations are not limited to the specific country in which they were developed. Parole under this rule in no way prevents an entrepreneur contributing to the economy of his or her home, including through remittance payments or upon return. Furthermore, individuals may be interested in returning to their home countries in the future for a variety of reasons, including the temporary nature of parole.
M. Public Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements1. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Comment: Two commenters suggested alternative estimates for the number of applicants that could apply to this rule. One commenter estimated that 5,000 international entrepreneurs will apply for parole under this rule. This estimate was approximately 2,000 more entrepreneurs than the estimate provided by DHS. Another commenter stated that the rule's eligibility criteria are narrow and therefore, the rule would cause fewer than 3,000 people to apply.
Response: DHS recognizes that uncertainty in business and economic conditions, as well as data limitations, make it difficult to accurately predict how many entrepreneurs will apply for parole under this rule. However, as discussed in the ''Volume Projections'' section of this rule, DHS utilized limited data available to estimate that approximately 2,940 entrepreneurs could seek parole each year. This estimate was bolstered by an alternative estimate based on accelerator investment round data that DHS analyzed. Given limits on DHS's information about such entrepreneurs and that this is a new process, DHS does not know how many people within the estimated eligible population will actually apply. Additionally, fluctuations in business and economic conditions could cause the number of applications to vary across years.
While one commenter estimates that the eligible number of entrepreneurs will be higher than the DHS estimate, another commenter estimates it will be lower. Neither of the commenters provided a basis or data from which their figures were derived. DHS reaffirms that the estimate provided in this rule is reasonable. The assessment is based on analysis of data and publicly available information, and reflects, where data and analysis allow, reasonable medians or averages.
Comment: One commenter argued that the rule would only benefit certain special-interest venture capitalists.
Response: DHS respectfully disagrees with this commenter. Fundamentally, this rule is designed to yield significant public benefit to the United States'--including through economic growth, innovation, and job creation'--and not to any particular private-sector interest group. While some venture capital firms may benefit from the rule by having new opportunities to invest in start-up entities that would not have otherwise been able to locate in the United States, this is also true for a range of other ''qualified investors'' as defined in the rule. Moreover, many international entrepreneurs may qualify for parole under this rule without having raised private-sector capital investment at all, since funding from government entities is also an eligibility criterion.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the rule would provide significant economic benefits.
Response: DHS agrees with these commenters that the rule will provide significant economic benefits to the United States. As discussed in the proposed rule and elsewhere in this section, DHS believes that this rule will help the United States compete with programs implemented by other countries to attract international entrepreneurs. International entrepreneurs will continue to make outsized contributions to innovation and economic growth in the United States.
Comment: Several commenters provided feedback on the costs of applications. One commenter stated that the fees were reasonable. Another commenter suggested allowing market prices to determine parole costs, essentially allowing those entrepreneurs with more likelihood of success to invest in parole opportunities. Still other commenters stated that the application fee was too high, especially compared to various visa applications.
Response: DHS appreciates commenters' feedback on the costs for applications. DHS determines the costs of applications through a biennial fee study it conducts, which reviews USCIS' cost accounting process and adjusts fees to recover the full costs of services provided by USCIS. The established fees are necessary to fully recover costs and maintain adequate service by the agency, as required by INA section 286(m); 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
Comment: Several commenters generally stated support for the rule because it will likely improve innovation for local and regional economic areas. Another commenter stated support for the rule because it would increase intangible assets.
Response: DHS concurs with this expectation that the rule will foster innovation at the local and regional level. Studies on entrepreneurs reveal that they are key drivers of innovation throughout the United States, and that such innovation benefits local, regional, and the national economy through technical progress and improvements in efficiency and productivity. The rule's Start Printed Page 5271eligibility criteria focus on start-ups with high growth potential, and DHS expects that new firms started by entrepreneurs covered by the rule will conduct research and development, expand innovation, and bring new technologies and products to market in addition to creating jobs in the United States. These activities will produce benefits that will spill over to other firms and sectors.
DHS also agrees with the commenter on impacts to intangible assets. Intangible assets are generally integrated into a firm's or sector's total assets and have become important in broad analyses of productivity and efficiency. Such assets can include proprietary software, patents, and various forms of research and development. This rule is intended to attract the types of ventures that will increase intangible assets.
a. Job CreationComment: Many commenters agreed that this rule would help create jobs and significantly benefit the U.S. economy. A commenter noted that immigrants have helped to found one quarter of U.S. firms and therefore allowing more international entrepreneurs would result in new job creation. Commenters also mentioned that immigrants have historically been successful in creating and establishing new businesses, which in turn create jobs in the United States. Commenters also more specifically endorsed the need to provide more investment opportunities for venture capitalists and angel investors who indirectly create jobs. Finally, commenters from the technology industry stated that attracting entrepreneurs to the Unites States to operate in high unemployment areas could provide access to new jobs where they are most needed.
Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' support of this rule with regard to attracting international entrepreneurs, and emphasizes that job creation for U.S. workers is one of the rule's primary goals, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
b. Impact on Native U.S. Entrepreneurs and Native U.S. WorkersComment: Several commenters suggested the rule will have negative consequences for native U.S. entrepreneurs and native U.S. workers. These commenters were concerned that the rule would be disadvantageous to native U.S. entrepreneurs and would create incentives for venture capital firms to find international entrepreneurs instead of investing in native U.S. entrepreneurs. The commenters argued that job creation could be accomplished through investment of native U.S. entrepreneurs instead of foreign entrepreneurs. Several commenters also stated that the government should assist U.S. entrepreneurs and workers before helping international entrepreneurs. Commenters also mentioned that the need for international innovators was overstated and that the number of native U.S. innovators is already adequate. Finally, these commenters asserted that foreign workers are often exploited for cheap labor and harm job prospects for native U.S. workers.
Response: DHS disagrees with these commenters' assertion that the rule will have negative impacts on native U.S. entrepreneurs and native U.S. workers. This rule focuses on identifying entrepreneurs associated with start-up entities with significant potential for bringing growth, innovation, and job creation in the United States. Much research supports the conclusion that high-growth firms drive job creation for workers in the United States, including for native U.S. workers. As discussed in further detail in the RIA, research also shows that immigrants have been outsized contributors to business ownership and entrepreneurship in the United States and abroad. Self-employment rates for immigrants are higher than for the native U.S. population. As discussed in the RIA, although one economic study has suggested that a very small number of native U.S. entrepreneurs may be displaced by international entrepreneurs, other researchers have noted that the finding simply raises the possibility that such displacement could occur without providing evidence that it actually does.[] DHS reiterates, moreover, that the numbers of entrepreneurs who may be eligible for parole under this rule is limited and that the aim of the rule is to increase overall entrepreneurial activity and significant economic benefit throughout the United States. In any event, the purpose of the parole rule is to foster innovation and entrepreneurial activities in new or very young endeavors, where the literature much more decisively indicates a strong potential of creating new net jobs for U.S. workers.
c. Impact on InnovationComment: Several commenters provided feedback on the rule's impact on innovation. Two commenters stated that this type of international entrepreneurship supports innovation in the United States. Another commenter stated that the rule would not help foreign innovators because of complications with patents and modeling designs.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenters that stated that this rule supports innovation in the United States. Entrepreneurs tend to engage in research and development in order to develop and commercialize new products and technologies, and often stimulate patents and other intellectual capital linked to these efforts. DHS does not agree with the commenter that stated the rule is not helpful to foreign innovators because of issues with patents and modeling designs, and DHS sees no basis for this comment. Nothing in the rule poses specific burdens or constraints on the ability of entrepreneurs to seek and obtain patents or other intellectual capital.
2. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Comment: An advocacy organization stated that all rules, including immigration rules, are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The commenter suggested that, at minimum, an Environmental Assessment be conducted to account for the growth-inducing impacts that would occur with an influx in population under this rule.
Response: DHS agrees that NEPA applies to this, as to every, final rulemaking. As explained in section IV.E of this preamble, the rule has been reviewed for environmental effects and found to be within two categorical exclusions from further review because experience has shown rules of this nature have no significant impacts on the environment. DHS also notes that any entrepreneurial ventures undertaken will be governed by local, state and federal laws and regulations, including those protecting human health and the environment. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that an Environmental Assessment is required.
3. Proposed Information Collections Under the Paperwork Reduction Acta. Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9Comment: An individual commenter suggested that List A documents should be updated to include the verified Start Printed Page 5272driver's licenses (sample attached and included in the file) that meet federal guidelines and require the presentation of the same documentation needed to obtain a passport. The commenter stated that it is no longer reasonable for those who receive a verified license and who paid the premium necessary for the processing of the extra documents, to have to locate their birth certificate and social security card in order to complete the Form I-9 process.
Response: DHS presumes that by ''verified driver's licenses'' the commenter is referring to State driver's licenses that comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 302. The specific suggestion about amending List A on Form I-9, which would have wide-ranging effect and not be limited to entrepreneurs under this rule, is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rule and accompanying form revisions limit changes to List A of Form I-9 to the modification of an existing document specified at 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(5) to include individuals authorized to work incident to parole.
b. Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941Comment: DHS received a public comment that stated that the time burden estimate of 1.33 hours for the respondent to complete the information collection was too low.
Response: DHS appreciates and agrees with this comment. Based on further review of the information collection and public comments on this specific issue, DHS is revising the estimated time burden from 1.33 hours to 4.7 hours for Form I-941 respondents.
4. Comments and Responses to Impact on Small BusinessesComment: The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (SBA) commented by supporting the goals of this rule, but expressed concern that the rule could significantly impact small entities. The SBA commented that the proposed rule was erroneously certified under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The SBA stated that the only international entrepreneurs eligible for this parole program are those with significant ownership stakes in a start-up entity formed in the previous three years. The SBA also stated that the thresholds to qualify for parole were directly tied to the ability of the entrepreneur's start-up to produce significant public benefit to the United States. The SBA noted that under the proposed rule, an entrepreneur is not permitted to transfer work authorization to another start-up entity, and that these restrictions could impact start-up entities if the entrepreneur were no longer eligible to stay in the United States. For these reasons, SBA concluded that this rule directly impacts start-up entities. The SBA recommended that DHS submit a supplemental analysis on the impact of the final rule on small entities.
Response: DHS has concluded that a RFA certification statement for this final rule is appropriate. This final rule does not regulate small entities nor does it impose any mandatory requirements on such entities. Instead, it provides an option for certain individual entrepreneurs to seek parole on a voluntary basis. There are no compliance costs or direct costs for any entity, small or otherwise, imposed by this rule since it does not impose any mandatory requirements on any entity. Historically, when an employer petitions on behalf of an individual or employee, DHS has provided an RFA analysis for the impact to small businesses. However, under this rule, a small entity or an employer does not apply for parole on behalf of an employee; instead, an entrepreneur applies for parole on a voluntary basis on his or her own behalf, and only those eligible individuals seeking parole would be subject to the anticipated costs of application. Entrepreneurs with an ownership stake in a start-up make the cost-benefit decision to voluntarily apply for parole.
In both the RFA and SBA's Guide for Government Agencies on the RFA, government agencies are required to consider significant alternatives to the rule when providing a full RFA analysis. Among the kinds of alternatives that SBA suggests considering include ''the exemption for certain or all small entities from coverage of the rule, in whole or in part.'''[] Even if this rule directly impacted small entities and DHS were required to engage in an analysis to minimize negative impacts of the rule on small entities by exempting them from the rule, that alternative would only harm small entities, which would no longer be able to benefit from the rule's allowing entrepreneurs to seek parole and work authorization.
The SBA also commented on various policy issues on the eligibility of entrepreneurs in this rule. Notwithstanding DHS' belief that entrepreneurs when filing for parole are not small entities, DHS has carefully considered all those comments and has made policy changes in this final rule to address the comments. Specifically, the SBA commented that thresholds to qualify for parole are directly tied to the ability of the international entrepreneur's start-up to produce significant public benefit for the United States. DHS has considered this comment along with other public comments on this issue and has made the decision to lower the eligible threshold investment amount for initial parole from the proposed $345,000 in the NPRM to $250,000 in the final rule. Additionally, in the NPRM and in this final rule, DHS has provided some flexibility and alternative criteria for those entrepreneurs meeting partial eligibility requirements, as described in further detail in the preamble.
SBA also commented that the rule only allows the entrepreneur to work for the business identified on the parole application without providing leniency in transferring the work authorization to another entity. The SBA further comments that the start-up entity may be imperiled if the entrepreneur is no longer eligible to stay in the United States. The eligibility criteria for consideration for parole under this rule require an entrepreneur to have recently formed a new entity in the United States with substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. Before an application for parole under this rule is approved, USCIS must make a discretionary determination that the entrepreneur is well-positioned to provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Therefore, these eligibility criteria are not limiting entrepreneurs, but aimed at ensuring that only those entrepreneurs with high growth potential are eligible for parole consideration under this rule. DHS has also provided avenues for an additional parole period specifically to prevent instability of a start-up entity.
DHS reiterates that RFA guidance allows an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.[] DHS reiterates that this rule does not regulate small entities. Any costs imposed on businesses will be driven by economic and business conditions and not by the Start Printed Page 5273voluntary participation for benefits from this rule.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory RequirementsA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) is $155 million.
This rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure in any one year when adjusted for inflation ($155 million in 2015 dollars), and this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under the Act.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a ''significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
1. SummaryThis final rule is intended to add new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole with respect to individual international entrepreneurs who operate start-up entities and who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States. Such potential is indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital financing from U.S. investors with established records of successful investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain Federal, State or local government entities. The regulatory amendments will provide the general criteria for considering requests for parole submitted by such entrepreneurs.
DHS assesses that this final rule will, by further implementing authority provided by Congress, reduce a barrier to entry for new innovative research and entrepreneurial activity in the U.S. economy.[] Under this final rule, some additional international entrepreneurs will be able to pursue their entrepreneurial endeavors in the United States and contribute to the U.S. economy. In the absence of the rule, these innovative entrepreneurs might be delayed or discouraged altogether in bringing innovation, job creation, and other benefits to the United States.
Based on review of data on startup entities, foreign ownership trends, and Federal research grants, DHS expects that approximately 2,940 entrepreneurs, arising from 2,105 new firms with investment capital and about 835 new firms with Federal research grants, could be eligible for this parole program annually. This estimate assumes that each new firm is started by one person despite the possibility of up to three owners being associated with each start-up. DHS has not estimated the potential for increased demand for parole among foreign nationals who may obtain substantial investment from U.S. investors and otherwise qualify for entrepreneur parole, because changes in the global market for entrepreneurs, or other exogenous factors, could affect the eligible population. Therefore, these volume projections should be interpreted as a reasonable estimate of the eligible population based on past conditions extrapolated forward. Eligible foreign nationals who choose to apply for parole as an entrepreneur will incur the following costs: A filing fee for the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) in the amount of $1,200 to cover the processing costs for the application; a fee of $85 for biometrics submission; and the opportunity costs of time associated with completing the application and biometrics collection. After monetizing the expected opportunity costs and combining them with the filing fees, an eligible foreign national applying for parole as an entrepreneur will face a total cost of $1,591. Any subsequent renewals of the parole period will result in the same previously discussed costs. Filings to notify USCIS of material changes to the basis for the entrepreneur's parole, when required, will result in similar costs; specifically, in certain instances the entrepreneur will be required to submit to USCIS a new Form I-941 application to notify USCIS of such material changes and will thus bear the direct filing cost and concomitant opportunity cost. However, because the $85 biometrics fee will not be required with such filings, these costs will be slightly lower than those associated with the initial parole request and any request for re-parole.
Dependent spouses and children who seek parole to accompany or join the principal applicant by filing an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), will be required to submit biographical information and biometrics as well. Based on a principal applicant population of 2,940 entrepreneurs, DHS assumes a total of 3,234 spouses and children will be eligible for parole under this rule. Each dependent will incur a filing fee of $575, a biometric processing fee of $85 (if 14 years of age and over) and the opportunity costs associated with completing the FormI-131 application and biometrics collection.[] After monetizing the expected opportunity costs associated with providing biographical information to USCIS and submitting biometrics and combining it with the biometrics Start Printed Page 5274processing fee, each dependent applicant will face a total cost of $765. DHS is also allowing the spouse of an entrepreneur paroled under this rule to apply for work authorization. Using a one-to-one mapping of principal filers to spouses, the total population of spouses eligible to apply for work authorization is 2,940. To obtain work authorization, the entrepreneur's spouse will be required to file an Application for Employment Authorization (FormI-765), incurring a $410 filing fee and the opportunity costs of time associated with completing the application. After monetizing the expected opportunity costs and combining it with the filing fees, an eligible spouse will face a total additional cost of $446 (rounded). DHS expects that applicants will face the above costs, but does not anticipate that this rule will generate significant additional costs and burdens to private entities, or that the rule will generate additional processing costs to the government to process applications. While applicants may face a number of costs linked to their business or research endeavors, these costs will be driven by the business and innovative activity that the entrepreneur is engaged in and many other exogenous factors, not the rule itself or any processes related to the rule. Thorough review of academic, business, and policy research does not indicate that significant expected costs or negative consequences linked to attracting international entrepreneurs are likely to occur. As such, DHS expects that the negative consequences, if any, will be greatly exceeded by the positive effects of this rule.
In each case in which an entrepreneur will be granted parole under this rule, DHS will have made a determination that parole will yield a significant public benefit and that the person requesting parole merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Consistent with those decisions, the rule is expected to produce broad economic benefits through the creation of new business ventures that otherwise would not be formed in the United States. These businesses are likely to create significant additional innovation, productivity, and job creation. It is reasonable to conclude that investment and research spending on new firms associated with this rule will directly and indirectly benefit the U.S. economy and create jobs for American workers. In addition, innovation and research and development spending are likely to generate new patents and new technologies, further enhancing innovation. Some portion of the international entrepreneurs likely to be attracted to this parole process may develop high-growth and high-impact firms that can be expected to contribute disproportionately to U.S. job creation. In summary, DHS anticipates that this rule will produce positive effects that would greatly exceed any negative consequences.
Using an estimate of 2,940 annual applications for significant public benefit entrepreneur parole as developed in the ensuing volume projections section of this analysis, DHS anticipates the total cost of this rule for principal filers who face a total per applicant cost of $1,591 to be $4,678,336 (undiscounted) annually for any given year. (These estimates focus only on principal initial filers, not entrepreneurs who might be eligible for a re-parole period of up to 30 months, or their spouses.) Dependent spouses and children who must submit the Form I-131 application and biometrics will face a per-applicant cost of $765, for a total cost of $2,474,914 (undiscounted). Dependent spouses who apply for employment authorization will face a per applicant cost of $446, which DHS projects will total $1,311,830 (undiscounted). Adding together the costs for the principal filers and family members'--including filing costs, costs of submitting biometrics, and monetized opportunity costs'--yields a total cost of this rule for the first year, 2017 and subsequently 2018, of $8,465,080 (undiscounted). The total annual cost of the rule of $8,465,080 can be expected for each subsequent year in the ten-year period. The total ten-year undiscounted cost is $84,650,081.
2. Background and Purpose of the RuleSection 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretionary authority to parole applicants for admission into the United States temporarily, on a case-by-case basis, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. DHS is amending its regulations implementing this authority to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, research and development and other forms of innovation, and job creation in the United States. The rule will establish general criteria for the use of parole with respect to individual entrepreneurs who operate start-up entities and who can demonstrate through evidence of substantial and demonstrated potential for rapid business growth and job creation that they would provide a significant public benefit to the United States.
The purpose of the rule is to attract talented entrepreneurs to the United States who might otherwise choose to pursue such innovative activities abroad, or otherwise be significantly delayed in growing their companies in the United States, given the barriers they presently face. In addition to the benefits associated with entrepreneurial innovation, including new products, business networks, and production efficiencies that such activities are likely to generate, entrepreneurs have been and remain vital to economic growth and job creation in the United States and have generated a cohort of high-growth firms that have driven a highly disproportionate share of net new job creation.[]
A body of research documents both the importance of entrepreneurial activity to the U.S. economy and its link to immigration. In this background section, DHS does not attempt to comprehensively summarize this large body of work but instead focuses on specific aspects central to the purpose of the rule and to its potential impacts.[] In summary, DHS focuses on the role of new entrepreneurial firms in job creation in the United States, and the role that immigrant entrepreneurs have played in innovation and the high technology sector.
The labor market of the United States is highly dynamic. DHS analysis of data published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicates that between 2004 and 2013, on average about 847,000 firms were ''born'' each year and 784,000 ''died.'''[] To illustrate the extent of the labor market churn, since 1980 the private sector has generated about 16.3 million gross jobs annually but an average of only about 1.4 million net jobs annually. In both general business cycle expansions and contractions, large numbers of jobs are created and destroyed, comprising a key dynamic in the forces of creative destruction.45Start Printed Page 5275Research into the highly dynamic and volatile labor market in the United States has evolved. Earlier focuses on small- and new-firm size as the primary co-determinants of job creation has been reoriented to focus on the role of a relatively small subset of entrepreneurial firms.
This rule focuses on identifying entrepreneurs associated with types of start-up firms that are more likely to experience high growth, contribute to innovation, and create jobs in the United States. This deliberate focus is critical to ensuring that parole in individual cases is justified by significant public benefit. Research has shown that the average start-up company does not survive long.[] Most new firms do not add much net job creation either, as they are not focused on achieving high growth. By some estimates, the vast majority'--as much as 95 percent'--of all new firms are not substantial job creators or innovators.[] About 95 percent of new firms start with fewer than 20 employees, and about the same percentage ultimately close with fewer than 20 employees, indicating that business turnover is heavily influenced by small firms.[]
There is significant research, however, demonstrating that a small subset of new firms tends to be highly dynamic and to contribute disproportionately to net job creation. The BLS has highlighted the role of the small subset of high-growth firms that comprise about 2 percent of all firms but have accounted for 35 percent of gross job gains in recent years. ''High-growth firms'' are defined by the BLS and the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) as those with at least ten employees that grow by at least 20 percent for each of 3 consecutive years based on employment. As of 2012, there were 96,900 high-growth firms in the United States that had created about 4.2 million jobs.[] A key finding by the BLS is that high-growth firms especially add jobs in their first ten years, though they generally continue to add a diminishing number of new jobs even after that period of time to the extent they survive. Job creation in the United States for the last several decades has been driven primarily by high-growth firms that tend to be young and new, and by a smaller number of surviving high-growth firms that age for a decade or more.[]
This highly disproportionate, ''up or out'' dynamism of high-growth firms has been substantiated by many researchers. The SBA reported that about 350,000 ''high impact firms'''--defined as enterprises whose sales have at least doubled over a 4-year period and which have an employment growth quantifier of 2 or more over the same period'--generated almost all net new jobs in the United States between 1994 and 2006.[] The Kauffman Foundation, a leading institute on research, data collection, and advocacy for entrepreneurial activity, reports that the top-performing one percent of firms generates roughly 40 percent of new job creation, and, the fastest of them all'--the ''gazelles'''--comprising less than one percent of all companies, generated roughly ten percent of new jobs.[] The same general result has been found internationally; the OECD reports that between three percent and six percent of all firms can be considered high-growth firms but about one percent can be considered the even more high-performing ''gazelles.'''[]
Despite the finding across a large number of studies that small new firms tend to exhibit an ''up or out'' dynamic in which a small number survive to age five to become high-growth firms or ''gazelles,'' other key findings that have emerged in the literature suggest that the growth and performance of new firms, even high-growth firms, vary substantially (as indicated by metrics that include labor productivity, profitability, revenue, and research and development intensity).[] Models that can sort out various business characteristics and economic conditions to predict high-growth probabilities are still in nascent stages. Nevertheless, this rule includes threshold criteria for parole consideration meant to identify entrepreneurs associated with the kinds of promising start-up entities that appear more likely to contribute to American innovation, economic development, and job creation. As described in more detail below, businesses started and run by immigrants have propelled these kinds of broadly shared economic benefits for many years.
Broadly speaking, high-growth entrepreneurs engage in research and development (R&D) in order to develop and commercialize new products and technologies. Several studies have found that such entrepreneurs tend to engage in R&D spending in the first year, tend to attract patents and other forms of intellectual capital, and tend to attract venture capital financing.[]
Start Printed Page 5276Immigrants have been central contributors to business ownership and entrepreneurship in the United States and abroad. According to OECD data, self-employment rates for immigrants are higher than those of the native-born populations in many counties, including in the United States.[] Based on the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau, 12.9 percent of the United States population was foreign-born. Their rate of self-employment is about 30 percent higher than that of the native-born population (7.7 percent vs. 5.9 percent; n=1.8 million). The Census Bureau's 2012 Survey of Business Owners showed that 14.4 percent of U.S. firms were owned by at least one person not born a citizen of the United States.[] Two studies based on samples of U.S firms found slightly higher r foreign-born ownership rates.[]
Many high-growth firms are involved in activities classified in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. The high concentration of immigrant entrepreneurs in these industries has garnered much attention. Between 2006 and 2012, one-third of companies financed with venture capital that made an initial public offering had an immigrant founder, a sharp rise from seven percent in 1980. These companies have generated 66,000 jobs and $17 billion in sales.[] A survey of entrepreneurs in technology-oriented privately held companies with venture backing also showed about one-third were foreign born, and 61 percent held at least one patent.[]
Further evidence points to similar findings. Between 1995 and 2005, 25 percent of science and technology focused businesses founded in the United States had a foreign-born chief executive or lead technologist. In 2005, those companies generated $52 billion in sales revenue and employed 450,000 workers. In Silicon Valley, the share of immigrant-founded start-ups increased to 52 percent by 2005. In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the United States were involved (as inventors or co-inventors) in about 26 percent of patent applications filed that year. Immigrant founders of Silicon Valley firms tend to be highly educated, with 96 percent holding bachelor's degrees and 74 percent holding advanced degrees, and with three-quarters of the latter in STEM fields. As of 2010, according to one study, more than 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had been founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.[]
To reiterate, high-growth firms tend to be new and young, and one of their primary contributions to the highly dynamic labor market of the United States has been through job creation. High-growth firms tend to innovate and focus on developing new products and services. The intense involvement of immigrant entrepreneurs in successful technology-driven activities suggests substantial economic contributions. While measuring the precise value and impact of innovation is difficult and still at a nascent stage in research, many economists believe innovation creates positive externalities and spillover effects that further drive economic growth.[]
Notwithstanding the research on the positive effects of high-growth entrepreneurship, there is some evidence of a long-term slowing in start-up dynamism and entrepreneurial activity in the United States; this trend began several decades ago, driving many economists to advocate for policies that attract more entrepreneurs in general.[] Many business entrepreneurial advocacy centers have also advocated in recent years for the United States to enact a formalized pathway for immigrant entrepreneurs. DHS is aware of one estimate of the potential benefits of a theoretical start-up visa (which, as an entirely new visa classification, only Congress can create). A Kauffman Foundation study (2013) estimated that, under certain conditions, the establishment of a start-up visa program could lead to the creation of between 500,000 and 1.6 million new jobs after ten years.[] The potential benefits of attracting immigrant entrepreneurs have not gone unnoticed internationally. Thirteen of the thirty-five nations that are part of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have enacted special immigration programs for entrepreneurs, although the eligibility criteria vary among them to a significant extent.[]
3. Population of Entrepreneurs Potentially EligibleDHS cannot precisely predict the volume of new businesses that will start in the United States due to this rule. DHS has instead examined available data to provide a broad estimate of the population of individual entrepreneurs who may be eligible to request parole consideration under this rule. Given limits on DHS's information about such entrepreneurs, DHS does not know how many people within the estimated eligible population will actually seek such consideration; the estimates contained in this section represent an approximation to the size of the eligible population. DHS has estimated the population of entrepreneurs potentially eligible for parole under this rule based on two sub-groups: (1) Foreign individuals who seek to come to the United States to start a new business with financial backing from a qualified U.S. investor; and (2) foreign individuals who seek to come to the United States to start a new business as recipients of U.S. funded and awarded Start Printed Page 5277research grants and who intend to conduct the concomitant research in the United States. DHS assumes that each member of the eligible population will start a business and that the general criterion for investment from a qualified investor (e.g., venture capital firms, angel investors, or accelerators or incubators) be set at $250,000, while for government grants or awards the general criterion will be $100,000. Based on these amounts, DHS analyzed various past endeavors for the potential sources of funds. DHS estimates that approximately 2,940 foreign nationals annually could be eligible to apply for parole under this rule. Table 1 summarizes the analysis by source of funds.
Table 1'--Number of Entrepreneurs Potentially Eligible
Sub-groupAnnual eligibilityNew firms funded with investment capital2,105New firms funded with U.S. grants or awards835Total2,940DHS has no way of predicting with certainty the actual number of foreign nationals who will seek parole under this rule over time, as the size of the eligible population could change significantly. DHS acknowledges that the estimate of eligible individuals annually is an approximation based on past foreign ownership and start-up capital amounts. The analysis utilized to estimate the potential eligible population is also based implicitly on assumptions that: (1) The rule will not significantly change the frequency of U.S. funded grant applications from international researchers; and (2) that the rule will not significantly affect the market for international entrepreneurs and the market for the types of investment structures the rule will involve. Based on these assumptions and the data limitations, DHS projects that for the first full year that the rule will be effective, annual eligibility will be approximately 2,940.[] DHS projects that this number will hold steady for the second year as well. The next section provides key data and analytical approaches utilized to arrive at the estimates of eligible individuals. DHS first considers volume estimates of eligible individuals based on official U.S. data. The resulting estimates based on official data are those utilized for the cost projections of the rule. Due to particular constraints in the data, DHS follows with an alternative method of volume estimation of eligible individuals that adds robustness to the official estimate.
Volume Projections Data and MethodologyA. GrantsBecause U.S.-funded research grants may be a qualifying investment under this rule, DHS obtained publicly available data on federally funded grants for fiscal years 2013-2015.[] Although numerous agencies within the Federal Government award grants to foreign-born individuals, most are humanitarian or development focused.[] For this reason DHS parsed the very large data set comprising 1.7 million records to obtain a viable analytical cohort. First, the records were filtered to capture Federal Government agencies that award grants to both United States and foreign-born recipients. Secondly, the records were sorted to only include the Federal Government agencies that award grants focused on ''projects,'' thereby excluding block and assistance grants.[] The foreign-born cohort used for the eligibility projections excluded grants made to recipients in U.S. territories, as such recipients may be subject to special considerations outside the parole parameters.[] DHS also excluded grant amounts recorded as negative, zero, and trivial amounts of less than $1,000'--such values were recorded if grants were rescinded or for some other reason not ultimately funded. On average, 138,447 grants comprised the annual resulting analytical cohort derived from the above filtering procedures. Of that total, a small portion, 2,043 grants, or 1.5 percent, were awarded to foreign-born individuals. Having determined a reasonable eligibility threshold of $100,000, DHS proceeded to the next step, to determine the potential annual eligible population of grant-sourced researchers. Over the period of analysis, 41 percent of the Federal grants awarded to foreign recipients equaled or surpassed the $100,000 benchmark, for an average of 835 annually.
B. Investment CapitalTo estimate the number of potential new entrepreneurial start-ups, DHS obtained and analyzed data from the BLS and the Census Bureau. From the BLS Business Employment Dynamics (BED) data suite, DHS obtained the number of private establishments aged 1 year or less for nine broad sectors likely to be involved in innovative activity, in order to focus on entrants.[] Although a reasonable proxy, the number of establishments aged 1 year or less is not a perfect measure of firm start-ups (births). The chosen metric may Start Printed Page 5278overstate births, by including expansions and new franchises of existing businesses. Conversely, it may understate the actual number of start-ups, because some fraction of firms does not survive the first year (the data are tabulated in March of the respective year such that the establishments aged 1 year and less are those that opened within the previous year but remained in business as of March of the following year), and those that opened in the previous year and were still in business but had not reached 2 years of age. DHS utilized the relevant figure for March 2015, because the latter is the most recent figure reported in the BED dataset.
For each sector, DHS obtained the corresponding share of firms owned by a person ''not born a citizen of the United States'' from the Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners data set.[] For brevity, we utilize the term ''foreign'' here to describe such firms. The foreign share was obtained by dividing the number of foreign-owned private firms in a sector by the total number of reporting firms in the same sector. This share applies to firms that have a least one owner who was not born in the United States but does not differentiate between various types of ownership structures. The figure for new firms obtained from the BLS BED data was multiplied first by the foreign share to generate an estimate of firms per sector started by a person not born in the United States.
Next, DHS attempted to calculate how many of the firms were started with at least $250,000, the minimum investment threshold that the rule sets. The SBO data provides ranges of such startup capital amounts but DHS could not conduct a precise estimate because the data do not provide a category bound by the threshold minimum. In fact, the encompassing tranche is very large, from $249,500 to $1 million in range. The SBO does not provide actual cohort data or other information from which DHS could evaluate the distribution and, therefore, DHS has no way of ascertaining how many firms in this large range will occupy the $250,000 to $1 million segment. As a result, DHS relied on the share of firms in this tranche and the additional tranches over $1,000,000 relative to the share of all firms reporting for the sector, and recognizes that the volume projection is likely larger than is realistic. An additional assumption is that the startup threshold is the same for businesses with native and foreign-born founders. The relevant data and estimates per sector are shown in Table 2.
Table 2'--Summary of Entrepreneur Estimates
SectorNew firmsForeign share (%)Start-up threshold (%)Annual eligibleAgriculture10,1824.92.512Utilities1,20410.85.57Manufacturing29,88311.05.4178Information22,85511.92.055Professional Services'*165,42512.81.2248Management7,3347.320.2108Waste Services66,16116.40.994Education15,22611.90.713Health Care210,97718.03.71,391Total2,105*'Abbreviation for ''Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services''.As is discussed in the preamble, DHS has revised two substantive components of the eligibility criteria for this final rule. Foremost, the general investment amount requirement has been lowered from $345,000 to $250,000. DHS believes that the volume estimate of entrepreneurs based on investment capital will be higher than the 2,105 presented above but cannot make a determination of exactly how much higher. The reason is that the lower investment amount will allow some firms to be created that otherwise would not at the higher amount proposed initially, but the Census Bureau capital size bin relevant to the level proposed is the $249,500 to $1 million in range, which includes both figures. Because DHS does not have data on the distribution of amounts within this range, the entire bin was included in the proposed estimates and is retained in the final estimates. However, as is described below, DHS has conducted an alternative method of estimation'--to include updates from the initial proposal based on new information and data'--that compares very closely to the estimated total volume of 2,940. Specifically, an alternative estimate of total volume annually is 2,920.
C. An Alternative Estimate of Entrepreneurs Based on Investment StructuresDHS recognizes the imperfections in estimating the potential population of eligible entrepreneurs based on extrapolating past conditions of foreign ownership rates and capital thresholds. The main benefit of this method is that it is based on official data. A main limitation is that it assumes that the annual crop of firms created are entrepreneurial and the types of firms covered by the parole process in the rule. In practice, some, but not all, will Start Printed Page 5279be innovators, even though the present analysis focuses on the sectors of the economy linked to STEM activity (DHS is not aware of any methods or data that can allocate a research-innovation share of firms to each sector). A second limitation is that the DHS method of measuring new firms in the context of the rule is imprecise. The final rule revised the definition of ''start-up entity'' in 8 CFR 212.19(a)(2) to include firms that were formed up to 5 years prior to the filing of the application for parole, compared to three years as proposed in the NPRM. However, the BLS cohort of new firms utilized for the volume projections are 1 year of age or less, not five or even three years, and is thus a smaller estimate of the number of new firms that could be eligible. This limitation cannot be overcome because of the manner in which the survival cohorts are presented.[] Because the volume projections are derived from information obtained from official sources'--the BLS and Census Bureau'--DHS retains them for purposes of the costs and volume estimates of the rule. DHS believes, however, that an alternative method of estimation will inform readers and strengthen the regulatory analysis by providing a viable comparison to the official projections. In this alternative approach, DHS focuses on business accelerators and incubators (described together as ''accelerators'' for brevity). By analyzing the foreign component of these structures, data permitting, an alternative estimate of entrepreneurs can be obtained for comparison purposes.
DHS obtained publicly available information from Seed-DB, which provides data on U.S. accelerators collected from industry associations and fee-based data providers such as Crunchbase, which is a large data provider for venture capital, angel investors, and accelerators.[] From the Seed-DB Web site DHS utilized the link to ''firms that have exited'' to collect the cohort of firms that underwent accelerators and then exited via an acquisition or public offering. Next, DHS parsed the data to capture firms that reported total funding, exit value, and were not recorded as ''dead'' (last accessed on Nov. 7, 2016). The parsing described above yielded a cohort of 89 firms. DHS followed the Seed-DB links to Crunchbase for each firm and extracted the seed round, recording its value.[] Analysis of the investment rounds reveals that the median is $250,000. Having determined a median seed round size from the data, DHS next attempted to estimate a foreign share of accelerated firms. The exit cohort from which the median was calculated did not provide such information, hence DHS turned to the Seed-DB data suite that lists the total number of companies incubated for each accelerator and the countries that the companies were located in. Since there is wide variation in the number of companies per incubator, ranging from 1 to over a thousand, DHS grouped the incubators by country and then weighted each one for its share of total companies. The resulting weighted average indicates that one quarter of incubated companies were foreign.[] Having determined a median seed round and a foreign share estimate, the final point required is the number of firms to apply these figures to. Based on the most recent data from the Center for Venture Research, the 2013-2015 annual average for angel financed firms in the seed and startup phase was 33 percent, which equals 23,336 firms annually. Multiplying this average number of firms by 0.25 to capture the foreign share and then by 0.5 to reflect the median and also the investment level DHS has set yields an annual estimate of 2,920.
This estimate compares well to the official total volume estimate of 2,940. The accelerator data captures seed rounds that involve venture capital, angel, accelerator investments, and grants, which is why it is compared to the total volume estimate.
D. Potential Variability in the Volume ProjectionsThis section discusses several potential cohorts involving entrepreneurial activity that is difficult to estimate.
In light of the potential benefits to the U.S. economy and job creation, DHS is proposing this rule to provide a mechanism that, consistent with the requirements of the INA, encourages international entrepreneurs described herein to form and create innovative firms in the United States. In 2011, DHS began outreach and stood up the Entrepreneurs in Residence initiative to try to encourage entrepreneurship among foreign nationals.[] DHS began tracking the number of foreign nationals who indicated interest in starting up an entrepreneurial endeavor at some point during their admission as an H-1B nonimmigrant. Over four fiscal years (FY 2010-2013), an average of 77 foreign nationals indicated such interest. In light of the relatively small numbers of foreign nationals who indicated their entrepreneurial intentions, DHS believes that considering parole requests under this rule will promote further innovation and other economic benefits in addition to those created by existing programs and policies used by foreign nationals to pursue high-growth entrepreneurial activity in the United States. When the rule is effective, there could be some small substitution effects as some portion of this cohort could switch to seeking parole instead of relying on other existing nonimmigrant programs and policies. DHS, however, does not believe such substitution will occur on a large scale because the ability to be admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant offers materially more benefits and protections than parole.
In addition, the rule lists a number of ancillary conditions for eligibility'--and conversely a number of conditions that Start Printed Page 5280will leave individuals unlikely or unable to be paroled into the United States (or continue to be paroled in the country). Because ancillary conditions can be considered for eligibility, the actual volume may be smaller than the estimates herein. Two examples are that, under the rule, applicants must maintain household income greater than 400 percent of the poverty line and that the qualifying start-up capital cannot come from family members. The volume estimates presented in this analysis assume all ancillary eligibility conditions are met.
Finally, two potential elements of the eligible population are considered. First, as alluded to in the summary, the volume estimates and ensuing cost estimates assume one individual owner for each new firm; under the rule, DHS will allow up to three individuals per firm to seek parole but does not attempt to estimate how many of the startups could have more than one owner. Second, the volume estimate for grants is based on Federal awards only. DHS will consider eligibility based on State or local grants and awards, including those from State or local Economic Development Corporations (EDCs). However, unlike in the case of Federal awards, there is not a database capturing State and local grants or the transmission mechanisms through which some Federal grants are distributed to other entities, such as EDCs, and as such DHS was unable to estimate the number of entrepreneurs potentially eligible for parole as a result of receiving State and local grants.
4. CostsA. Principal Filer Costs
The rule will permit certain foreign nationals to apply for a 30-month (2.5-year) initial period of parole into the United States provided they meet the eligibility criteria. Those who seek such parole into the United States will face the costs associated with the application, which involve a $1,200 application fee plus other costs, detailed below. The costs will stem from filing fees and the opportunity costs of time associated with filing the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941).
The filing fee for the Form I-941 application is $1,200. The fee is set at a level intended to recover the anticipated processing costs to DHS.[] In addition, DHS is proposing that applicants for parole as an entrepreneur submit biometrics and incur the $85 biometric services fee. Because entrepreneurs could start firms in any number of occupations, DHS believes it is appropriate to utilize the mean hourly wage for all occupations, which is $22.71.[] In order to anticipate the full opportunity cost to petitioners, DHS multiplied the average hourly U.S. wage rate by 1.46 to account for the full cost of employee benefits such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement, for a total of $33.16 per hour.
DHS estimates that the application will take 4.7 hours to complete. After DHS receives the application and fees, if the applicant is physically present in the United States, USCIS will send the applicant a notice scheduling him or her to visit a USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) for biometrics collection. Along with the $85 biometric services fee, the applicant will incur the following costs to comply with the biometrics submission requirement: the opportunity cost of traveling to an ASC, the mileage cost of traveling to an ASC, and the opportunity cost of time for submitting his or her biometrics. While travel times and distances vary, DHS estimates that an applicant's average roundtrip distance to an ASC is 50 miles, and that the average time for that trip is 2.5 hours. DHS estimates that an applicant waits an average of 1.17 hours for service and to have his or her biometrics collected at an ASC, adding up to a total biometrics-related time burden of 3.67 hours.[] By applying the $33.16 hourly time value for applicants to the total biometrics-related time burden, DHS finds that the opportunity cost for a principal applicant to travel to and from an ASC, and to submit biometrics, will total $121.68.[] In addition to the opportunity cost of providing biometrics, applicants will experience travel costs related to biometrics collection. The cost of such travel will equal $28.75 per trip, based on the 50-mile roundtrip distance to an ASC and the General Services Administration's (GSA) travel rate of $0.575 per mile.[] DHS assumes that each individual will travel independently to an ASC to submit his or her biometrics, meaning that this rule will impose a time cost on each of these applicants.
DHS estimates that each principal parole applicant will incur the following costs: $1,285 in filing fees to cover the processing costs for the application and biometrics; $306.27 after summing the monetized cost of travel to submit biometrics, the total opportunity costs of time of the initial applications, biometrics, and estimated travel costs, resulting in a total cost of $1,591.27 per application, rounded to $1,591.[] If DHS receives 2,940 applications from persons eligible to apply, DHS anticipates that such applications will result in annual filing fee transfers of $3,777,900 (undiscounted), which comprise the application fee and cost of submitting biometrics, and opportunity and other burden costs of $900,436 for a total annual cost of $4,678,366. Any subsequent renewal of the parole period will result in costs similar to those previously discussed, with the exceptions of travel costs, since the applicant will not be required to depart the United States and re-enter. Similarly, the same costs will result for material changes requiring the filing of amended applications, with the exception of the travel costs noted above and costs associated with biometrics collections, including the time and travel to an ASC.
Start Printed Page 5281B. Dependent Spouses and ChildrenThe rule will require all dependent family members (spouses and children) accompanying or joining the entrepreneur to file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131), and will require all spouses and children 14 years of age through age 79 to submit biometrics.[] Those spouses and children will face the costs associated with filing the application and submitting biometrics. DHS recognizes that many dependent spouses and children do not currently participate in the U.S. labor market, and as a result, are not represented in national average wage calculations. In order to provide a reasonable proxy of time valuation, DHS has to assume some value of time above zero and therefore uses an hourly cost burdened minimum wage rate of $10.59 to estimate the opportunity cost of time for dependent spouses. The value of $10.59 per hour represents the Federal minimum wage with an upward adjustment for benefits.[] The value of $10.59 per hour is consistent with other DHS rulemakings when estimating time burden costs for those who are not authorized to work.[]
DHS will require dependents of parole applicants (spouses and children of the parole applicant) to file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). There is a $575 filing fee associated with the Form I-131 application, and DHS estimates it will take 3.56 hours to complete each submission. In addition to filing the Form I-131 application, each dependent spouse and child 14 years of age and over will be required to submit biometric information (fingerprints, photograph, and signature) by attending a biometrics services appointment at a designated USCIS Application Support Center (ASC). The biometrics processing fee is $85.00 per applicant. In addition to the $85 biometrics services fee, the applicant will incur the following costs to comply with the biometrics submission requirement: the opportunity and mileage costs of traveling to an ASC, and the opportunity cost of submitting his or her biometrics. While travel times and distances vary, DHS estimates that an applicant's average roundtrip distance to an ASC is 50 miles, and that the average time for that trip is 2.5 hours.[] DHS estimates that an applicant waits an average of 1.17 hours for service and to have his or her biometrics collected at an ASC, adding up to a total biometrics-related time burden of 3.67 hours. In addition to the opportunity cost of providing biometrics, applicants will experience travel costs related to biometrics collection. The cost of such travel will equal $28.75 per trip, based on the 50-mile roundtrip distance to an ASC and the General Services Administration's (GSA) travel rate of $0.575 per mile.[] DHS has assumed that each applicant will travel independently to an ASC to submit his or her biometrics, meaning that this rule will impose a time cost on each of these applicants. DHS also assumed all children were over the age of 14 for the purposes of this analysis and, therefore, this cost estimate may be slightly overestimated.
DHS projects that approximately 3,234 dependents will be required to file a Form I-131 application and submit biometrics, based on the estimate of 2,940 principal applicants and using a multiplier for expected family members of 1.1.[] The total cost for those spouses and children requesting parole under this program includes the filing fee, biometrics processing fee, travel costs associated with biometrics processing, and the opportunity cost of filing the Form I-131 application and submitting biometrics. The total time burden is 7.23 hours. At the cost-burdened wage, the total opportunity cost is $76.53. Adding the $28.75 cost of travel, the total non-filing cost is estimated to be $105.28, and the total cost per applicant is $765.28. At the projection of 3,234 applicants, the non-filing cost is $340,474 (undiscounted), and combined with filing costs of $2,134,440, the total estimated cost for dependents germane to the Form I-131 application is $2,474,914.
In addition, DHS is allowing independent employment authorization for spouses of entrepreneurs granted parole under this rule. DHS will permit these individuals to apply for employment authorization by filing a Form I-765 application. To estimate the number of potential persons applying for employment authorization, DHS used a simple one-to-one mapping of entrepreneurs to spouses to obtain 2,940 spouses, the same number as entrepreneur parolees.
The current filing fee for the Form I-765 application is $410.00. The fee is set at a level to recover the processing costs to DHS. Based on the projection of 2,940 applicants, the total filing cost is $1,205,400 (undiscounted). DHS estimates the time burden of completing the Form I-765 application is 3.42 hours.[] At the cost-burdened wage, the total opportunity cost is $36.20. At the projection of 2,940 applicants, the non-filing cost is $106,430 (undiscounted) and combined with filing costs of $1,205,400 the total estimated cost for spouses germane to the Form I-765 application is $1,311,830.
In addition to the filing costs, applicants for parole may face other costs associated with their entrepreneurial activities. These could include the administrative costs of starting up a business, applying for grants, obtaining various types of licenses and permits, and pursuing qualified investments. However, these costs apply to the entrepreneurial activity and the business activity that the applicant has chosen to be involved in and are not driven by the parole process or other governmental functions attributable to the rule itself. Hence, DHS does not attempt to estimate, quantify, or monetize such costs.
Lastly, DHS recognizes that some individuals who were lawfully admitted in the United States in certain nonimmigrant classifications may seek Start Printed Page 5282parole. Individuals who are present in the United States at the time their parole application is approved, based on admission as a nonimmigrant, will have to depart the United States and appear at a U.S. port of entry in order to be granted parole since USCIS is unable to grant parole to individuals who are not applicants for admission. See INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). These individuals will be ineligible for a change of status under section 248 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1258. Such applicants will therefore bear the travel costs of exit and returning to a port of entry. However, because there are no similar programs for comparison, DHS cannot determine the demand for parole or substitution effects from other classifications and thus cannot estimate, quantify, or monetize such potential travel costs. Finally, because the program allows for re-parole under conditions that DHS has set, entrepreneurs and their spouse and children, if applicable, will likely face filing and opportunity costs associated with applying for re-parole. However, DHS has no means of estimating the share of the potential eligible population that will seek and be eligible for re-parole, hence re-parole conditions are not included in this analysis. In summary, DHS believes that it is possible that there could be some substitution into the parole program from other programs and such applicants and dependents will incur travel and possible other costs related to exit and requesting a grant of parole at a U.S. port of entry.
C. Potential for Negative U.S. Labor Market ImpactsDHS does not expect the rule to generate significant costs or negative consequences. Extensive review of information relevant to immigrant entrepreneurship indicates that while much about the impact of such entrepreneurship is not known, there is no reason to expect that substantial negative consequences, including adverse impact on domestic workers, are likely. The possibility that immigrant entrepreneurs may displace (''crowd-out'') native entrepreneurs has been raised by a few researchers. One study indicated that a very small number of native entrepreneurs were possibly displaced by immigrant entrepreneurs.[] However, because of difficulties in controlling for a large amount of variables related to entrepreneurship, other researchers have noted that this finding only raises the possibility that displacement could not be ruled out completely, but did not actually provide evidence that it had actually occurred.[] Another study, conducted by the Brookings Institution, did not find displacement but acknowledged that more research and refined control techniques, along with longitudinal data, will need to be studied before ruling out the possibility completely.[] In any event, the purpose of the parole rule is to foster innovation and entrepreneurial activities in new or very young endeavors, where the literature much more decisively indicates a strong potential of creating new net jobs for U.S. workers.
DHS recognizes that the potential inclusion of spouses can incur labor market implications and possibly impact U.S. workers. As was noted in previous sections of the regulatory impact analysis, DHS did not attempt to assess or measure the labor market impact of the estimated entrepreneurs potentially eligible for parole because as founders of firms, these persons will not affect the labor market in the same way as other workers. Although spouses could have labor market impacts as new labor market entrants, DHS believes such potential impacts will be negligible. The main reason is that the size of the potential new cohort is very small. As of the end of 2015, there were an estimated 157,130,000 people in the U.S. civilian labor force.[] Consequently, the estimated ''new'' available workers in the first year will represent approximately 0.001 percent of the overall U.S. civilian labor force.[] DHS believes this fraction is too small to have a significant impact on the labor market.
While the figures above apply to the general U.S. labor force, DHS recognizes that concentration of new labor force entrants can impact specific labor markets. DHS believes that any such potential impacts linked to this rule will be insignificant. The NVCA and other sources of information that DHS reviewed indicates that while the area of California known as Silicon Valley has traditionally been, and continues to be, the primary recipient geographically for technology startup capital, other large urban centers on the East Coast and, even more recently, parts of the Mid- and Mountain West have seen increased technology startup activity. To provide just one example of a potential area-specific impact, DHS considered the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland (CA) Combined Statistical Area (CSA) conjoining the seven Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and nine encompassed counties constituting the economic linkages of Silicon Valley. Based on data from the BLS, the population of this CSA is about 8.6 million (as of May 2014) and the employed population (a narrower measure of the labor market than the labor force) about 3.75 million. If the share of new entrants is based on the proportion of venture capital to the area, which is 42 percent, then 2,746 spousal entrants could impact the area.[] Assuming such entrants gain employment, this cohort represents just 0.02 percent of the employed population of the specific CSA.
D. Government CostsThe INA provides for the collection of fees at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing services, including administrative costs and services provided without charge to certain applicants and petitioners. See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS has established the fee for the adjudication of the Form I-941 application based on notional application filing volumes and estimated resource commitments. During the biennial fee review, DHS Start Printed Page 5283will examine whether the fee is sufficient to recover the full costs of adjudication, as required by the INA.
5. BenefitsAs referenced previously, evidence suggests that innovation-focused start-ups contribute disproportionately to job creation. The rule will reduce entry barriers, and thus support efforts by international entrepreneurs to generate entrepreneurial activity in the United States.
The rule is expected to generate important net benefits to the U.S. economy. For one, expenditures on research and development by the grant-based researchers that DHS has identified that could qualify for entrepreneur parole will generate direct and indirect jobs. In addition, this research-focused spending could potentially generate patents, intellectual property, licensing, and other intangible assets that can be expected to contribute to innovation and technological advances and spill over into other sectors of the overall economy. DHS acknowledges that it is extremely difficult to gauge the precise economic value of such assets and that peer-reviewed research in this area is still nascent. Despite the nascent stage of the research and the difficulty of measuring quantitatively the benefit of innovation driven by new high technology firms, a large body of research indicates that the innovation driven by entrepreneurs contributes directly to economic growth, generates important efficiencies and cost reductions for firms that utilize such innovation, and increases productivity and profitability for firms that benefit indirectly through new products generated by such innovation.
Lastly, DHS believes that many of the start-up firms operated by international entrepreneurs during the parole period could eventually become high-growth firms that generate exceptionally high levels of economic activity and contribute disproportionately to job creation in the United States.
D. Regulatory Flexibility ActIn accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601(6), DHS examined the impact of this rule on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632), a small not-for-profit organization, or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).
In the proposed rule, DHS certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DHS made this determination based on the following facts: This is not a mandatory rule; this rule only impacts those individual entrepreneurs who make the voluntary decision to apply for parole; and this rule does not regulate the business entities in any way. After reviewing public comments, including the formal letter submitted on the record by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy (Advocacy), DHS maintains its certification that the rule does impose a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For a full discussion of the DHS response to the letter submitted by Advocacy, please see Section III.M.4 of this preamble.
Individuals are not defined as a ''small entity'' by the RFA. The rule will not mandate that all individuals apply for parole. This rule provides flexibilities and options that do not currently exist for individuals who wish to establish or operate a start-up business in the United States. Importantly, the rule does not require any individuals or businesses, including those created by foreign nationals, to seek parole'--either generally or as a specific condition for establishing or operating a business in the United States. Rather, as mentioned previously, this rule is intended to provide an additional flexibility for foreign individuals who are unable to obtain another appropriate nonimmigrant or immigrant classification, in order to facilitate the applicant's ability to oversee and grow the start-up entity. If any individual believes this rule imposes a significant economic impact, that individual could simply choose not to seek parole under the rule and thus incur no economic impact. As discussed previously, this rule imposes direct filing costs of $1,285 (which includes the $1,200 application fee and the $85 biometrics fee), plus $194 in time-related opportunity costs for those individuals who do choose to apply for parole as entrepreneurs under the rule. This cost is relatively minor when considering the costs of starting up a new business and the capital necessary to start a business.
Under the general term ''entrepreneur,'' DHS includes those who desire to form firms with investment funds from certain U.S. investors. For purposes of the RFA, the regulatory requirements place compliance costs and establish eligibility criteria for the individual requesting consideration for parole under this rule. DHS believes that the costs of application for parole will burden the individual applicant, and not the entrepreneurial venture (firm). This rule will not alter or change the normal procedure for fundraising or other start-up administrative costs that occur in forming a business entity. Such costs are not direct costs of this rule and could include, but are not limited to, business application fees, legal fees, and licensing that precede significant infusions of investment, the latter of which are primarily utilized for operational and capital expenses in order to produce goods or services.
It is possible that some of the 2,940 estimated entrepreneurs who could be eligible for parole annually could involve business structures in which the filing fees are paid by a business entity. In the event that small business entities are impacted by this rule because they choose to pay the filing fees on behalf of an individual entrepreneur, DHS believes that the filing cost of $1,285 per application will be insignificant compared to such entities' annual gross revenues, potential for revenue, and other economic activity.
For businesses that may pay the filing costs, the expected impact to such businesses will be small. For businesses that utilize either the minimum threshold of $100,000 for a qualifying government grant or award or $250,000 in capital investment to source the filing costs, such costs will constitute 1.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of the total capital amount. These relatively low cost proportions apply to those firms that only obtain the minimum investment amounts and have no other source of funding or revenues. In addition, DHS analyzed the cost impact relative to more typical RFA indices. DHS analysis of Census Bureau data on the smallest firms found that the average revenue based on sales receipts for firms with no paid employees is $309,000, while the average for firms with one to four paid employees is $411,000.[] The filing cost relative to these averages is 0.42 percent and 0.31 percent, respectively.
DHS also analyzed the average revenue for new firms. Since the rule defines a new firm as one that is less than five years old at the time the initial parole application is filed, DHS grouped private sector firms for the 2012 survey as those responding that the year of Start Printed Page 5284establishment was either 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008. DHS obtained the average revenue per firm and then weighted the average by the yearly proportion of firms. Based on the resulting weighted average of $162,000, such new firms will face a filing-cost burden of 0.8 percent.[] DHS notes that there is a large difference between the revenue of new firms with paid employees and those without such employees (i.e., sole proprietors). For the latter, average revenues are about $34,000, and the cost burden will be 3.8 percent. However, because a central component of this parole program requires a demonstration of significant public benefit in the form of economic activity and job growth, DHS does not anticipate that sole proprietors will be eligible to participate in this program.
In summary, DHS believes that per-applicant costs will be primarily incurred by the individual (which is not covered by the RFA), any direct cost due to this rule will be relatively minor, and these costs will only be borne by those who voluntarily choose to apply for parole under this rule. While the applicant for parole may be the owner of a firm that could be considered small within the definition of small entities established by 5 U.S.C. 601(6), DHS considers the applicants to be individuals at the point in time they are applying for parole, particularly since it is the individual and not the entity that files the application and it is the individual whose parole must provide a significant public benefit under this rule. Furthermore, even if firms do voluntarily decide to incur the compliance costs on behalf of the individual requesting consideration for parole under this rule, the only compliance costs those businesses will be permitted to incur will be the filing costs for the applications. As indicated previously, based on the comparison metric used, those costs are expected to be insignificant.
Based on the evidence presented in this RFA section and throughout this preamble, DHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. National Environmental Policy ActDHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (''categorical exclusions'') which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes Categorical Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the Categorical Exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)-(3).
DHS analyzed this action and does not consider it to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This rule provides criteria and procedures for applying the Secretary's existing statutory parole authority to entrepreneurs in a manner to assure consistency in case-by-case adjudications. DHS has determined that this rule does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment because it fits within two categorical exclusions under DHS Directive 023- 01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1. Specifically, the rule fits within Categorical Exclusion number A3(a) for rules strictly of an administrative or procedural nature and A3(d) for rules that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.
This rule is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. Fewer than 3,000 individuals, an insignificant number in the context of the population of the United States, are projected to receive parole through this program. Furthermore, any ventures will be governed by local, state and federal laws and regulations, including those protecting the human health and the environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
F. Executive Order 13132This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12988This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. Paperwork Reduction ActUnder the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. SeePublic Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995). This final rule involves a new information collection and makes revisions to the existing information collections as follows:
Overview of Information Collection, Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941This final rule requires that an applicant requesting entrepreneur parole complete an Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941, and is considered a new information collection under the PRA. USCIS did receive one comment regarding the time burden of this form and, upon review of the work involved to review the form, gather necessary information to support the submission, and the time required to complete and submit the form, USCIS has revised the estimated hour burden per response to 4.7 hours.
a. Type of information collection: New information collection.
b. Abstract: This collection will be used by individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and proposed new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals, other than those filing an application on the basis of a material change, are subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.
c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941.Start Printed Page 5285
d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-941, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Businesses and other for profit; Not-for-profit Institutions.
f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 2,940.
g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-941 is 4.7 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the biometric processing is 1.17 hours.
h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 17,258 hours.
Overview of Information Collection, Application for Travel Document Form I-131, OMB Control No. 1615-0013DHS is revising this collection by including spouses and children seeking parole on the basis of an entrepreneur parolee.
In addition to revising the form and form instructions, DHS is revising the estimate of total burden hours has increased due to the addition of this new population of Application for Travel Document, Form I-131, filers, and the increase of burden hours associated with the collection of biometrics from these applicants.
a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.
b. Abstract: This collection will be used by dependents of individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and proposed new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals are subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.
c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131.
d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Individuals or households.
f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 594,324.
The total number of respondents includes the additional population of 3,234 individuals as estimated previously in the analysis in Section IV.C.
g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-131 Supplement is 1.9 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the biometric processing is 1.17 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for the passport-style photographs is .5 hours.
h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,372,928 hours.
Overview of Information Collection, Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9, OMB Control No. 1615-0047In accordance with new 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A)(5), DHS is revising the Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9, Lists of Acceptable Documents, List A item 5 to replace ''nonimmigrant alien'' with ''individual,'' to replace ''alien's nonimmigrant'' with ''individual,'' and to add ''or parole'' after ''status'' in List A item 5.b.(2). With these changes the acceptable List A document is described as the following: For an individual authorized to work for a specific employer because of his or her status or parole, a foreign passport and Form I-94 (or Form I-94A) that has the same name as the passport and has an endorsement by DHS indicating such employment-authorized status or parole, as long as the period of endorsement has not yet expired and the employment is not in conflict with the individual's employment-authorized status or parole. DHS is also updating the Lists of Acceptable Documents, List C so that the most current version of the certification or report of birth issued by the Department of State is acceptable for Form I-9.
a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.
b. Abstract: This form was developed to facilitate compliance with section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. This information collection is necessary for employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee, and state employment agencies to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired (or recruited or referred for a fee, if applicable) for employment in the United States.
c. Title of Form/Collection: Employment Eligibility Verification.
d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-9, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; State, local or Tribal Government.
f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 78 million employers and 78 million individuals. (The total number of responses will be only 78 million responses. Each response involves an employer and an individual who is being hired.)
g. Hours per response:
Time Burden for Employees'--20 minutes (.33 hours) total;Time Burden for Employers'--10 minutes (.17 hours) total;Time Burden for Recordkeeping'--5 minutes (.08 hours) totalh. Total Annual Reporting Burden: Approximately 40,600,000 total annual burden hours.
Overview of Information Collection, Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765, OMB Control No. 1615-0040DHS is making minor revisions to the form instructions to reflect changes made by this final rule that allow spouses of an entrepreneur parolee to request employment authorization.
a. Type of information collection: Revised information collection.
b. Abstract: This collection will be used by individuals who file an application for entrepreneur parole under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) and proposed new 8 CFR 212.19. Such individuals are subject to biometric collection in connection with the filing of the application.
This form was developed for individual aliens to request employment authorization and evidence of that employment authorization. The form is being amended to add a new class of aliens eligible to apply for employment authorization, specifically a spouse of an entrepreneur parolee described as eligible for employment authorization under this rule. Supporting documentation demonstrating eligibility must be filed with the application. The form lists examples of relevant documentation.
c. Title of Form/Collection: Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765.
d. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form I-765, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
e. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond: Individuals or households.Start Printed Page 5286
f. An estimate of the total annual numbers of respondents: 2,139,523.
This total represents the aggregate estimate for this information collection, to include the additional estimate of 2,940 respondents under this rule.
g. Hours per response: The estimated hour per response for Form I-765 is 3.42 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for biometric processing is 1.17 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for Form I-765 WS is .5 hours; the estimated hour burden per response for passport-style photographs is .5 hours.
h. Total Annual Reporting Burden: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,985,859 hours.
Regulatory AmendmentsDHS adopted most of the proposed regulatory amendments without change.
Start List of Subjects8 CFR Part 103Administrative practice and procedureAuthority delegations (Government agencies)Freedom of informationImmigrationPrivacyReporting and recordkeeping requirements8 CFR Part 212Administrative practice and procedureAliensImmigrationPassports and visasReporting and recordkeeping requirements8 CFR Part 274aAdministrative practice and procedureAliensEmploymentPenaltiesReporting and recordkeeping requirementsEnd List of SubjectsAccordingly, DHS amends chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Start PartEnd PartStart Amendment Part1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:
End AuthorityStart Amendment Part2. Section 103.7 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(1)(i)(KKK) to read as follows:
End Amendment PartFees.
*****
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(KKK) Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941). For filing an application for parole for entrepreneurs: $1200.
*****
Start PartEnd PartStart Amendment Part3. The authority citation for part 212 is revised to read as follows:
End Amendment PartStart Authority6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458), 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 CFR part 2.
End AuthoritySection 212.1(q) also issued under section 702, Pub. L. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.
Start Amendment Part4. Add §'212.19 to read as follows:
End Amendment PartParole for entrepreneurs.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Entrepreneur means an alien who possesses a substantial ownership interest in a start-up entity and has a central and active role in the operations of that entity, such that the alien is well-positioned, due to his or her knowledge, skills, or experience, to substantially assist the entity with the growth and success of its business. For purposes of this section, an alien may be considered to possess a substantial ownership interest if he or she possesses at least a 10 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of the initial grant of parole and possesses at least a 5 percent ownership interest in the start-up entity at the time of adjudication of a subsequent period of re-parole. During the period of initial parole, the entrepreneur may continue to reduce his or her ownership interest in the start-up entity, but must, at all times during the period of initial parole, maintain at least a 5 percent ownership interest in the entity. During the period of re-parole, the entrepreneur may continue to reduce his or her ownership interest in the start-up entity, but must, at all times during the period of parole, maintain an ownership interest in the entity.
(2) Start-up entity means a U.S. business entity that was recently formed, has lawfully done business during any period of operation since its date of formation, and has substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation. An entity that is the basis for a request for parole under this section may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the filing date of the alien's initial parole request. For purposes of paragraphs (a)(3) and (5) of this section, an entity may be considered recently formed if it was created within the 5 years immediately preceding the receipt of the relevant grant(s), award(s), or investment(s).
(3) Qualified government award or grant means an award or grant for economic development, research and development, or job creation (or other similar monetary award typically given to start-up entities) made by a federal, state, or local government entity (not including foreign government entities) that regularly provides such awards or grants to start-up entities. This definition excludes any contractual commitment for goods or services.
(4) Qualified investment means an investment made in good faith, and that is not an attempt to circumvent any limitations imposed on investments under this section, of lawfully derived capital in a start-up entity that is a purchase from such entity of its equity, convertible debt, or other security convertible into its equity commonly used in financing transactions within such entity's industry. Such an investment shall not include an investment, directly or indirectly, from the entrepreneur; the parents, spouse, brother, sister, son, or daughter of such entrepreneur; or any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or other entity in which such entrepreneur or the parents, spouse, brother, sister, son, or daughter of such entrepreneur directly or indirectly has any ownership interest.
(5) Qualified investor means an individual who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, or an organization that is located in the United States and operates through a legal entity organized under the laws of the United States or any state, that is majority owned and controlled, directly and indirectly, by U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States, provided such individual or organization regularly makes substantial investments in start-up entities that subsequently exhibit substantial growth in terms of revenue generation or job creation. The term ''qualified investor'' shall not include an individual or organization that has been permanently or temporarily enjoined from participating in the offer or sale of a security or in the provision of services as an investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, government securities broker, government securities dealer, bank, transfer agent or credit rating agency, barred from association with any entity involved in the offer or sale of securities or provision of such Start Printed Page 5287services, or otherwise found to have participated in the offer or sale of securities or provision of such services in violation of law. For purposes of this section, such an individual or organization may be considered a qualified investor if, during the preceding 5 years:
(i) The individual or organization made investments in start-up entities in exchange for equity, convertible debt or other security convertible into equity commonly used in financing transactions within their respective industries comprising a total in such 5-year period of no less than $600,000; and
(ii) Subsequent to such investment by such individual or organization, at least 2 such entities each created at least 5 qualified jobs or generated at least $500,000 in revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20 percent.
(6) Qualified job means full-time employment located in the United States that has been filled for at least 1 year by one or more qualifying employees.
(7) Qualifying employee means a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or other immigrant lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States, who is not an entrepreneur of the relevant start-up entity or the parent, spouse, brother, sister, son, or daughter of such an entrepreneur. This definition shall not include independent contractors.
(8) Full-time employment means paid employment in a position that requires a minimum of 35 working hours per week. This definition does not include combinations of part-time positions even if, when combined, such positions meet the hourly requirement per week.
(9) U.S. business entity means any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or other entity that is organized under federal law or the laws of any state, and that conducts business in the United States, that is not an investment vehicle primarily engaged in the offer, purchase, sale or trading of securities, futures contracts, derivatives or similar instruments.
(10) Material change means any change in facts that could reasonably affect the outcome of the determination whether the entrepreneur provides, or continues to provide, a significant public benefit to the United States. Such changes include, but are not limited to, the following: Any criminal charge, conviction, plea of no contest, or other judicial determination in a criminal case concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity; any complaint, settlement, judgment, or other judicial or administrative determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal or administrative proceeding brought by a government entity; any settlement, judgment, or other legal determination concerning the entrepreneur or start-up entity in a legal proceeding brought by a private individual or organization other than proceedings primarily involving claims for damages not exceeding 10 percent of the current assets of the entrepreneur or start-up entity; a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the start-up entity's assets; the liquidation, dissolution or cessation of operations of the start-up entity; the voluntary or involuntary filing of a bankruptcy petition by or against the start-up entity; a significant change with respect to ownership and control of the start-up entity; and a cessation of the entrepreneur's qualifying ownership interest in the start-up entity or the entrepreneur's central and active role in the operations of that entity.
(b) Initial parole'--(1) Filing of initial parole request form. An alien seeking an initial grant of parole as an entrepreneur of a start-up entity must file an Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) with USCIS, with the required fees (including biometric services fees), and supporting documentary evidence in accordance with this section and the form instructions, demonstrating eligibility as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Criteria for consideration'--(i) In general. An alien may be considered for parole under this section if the alien demonstrates that a grant of parole will provide a significant public benefit to the United States based on his or her role as an entrepreneur of a start-up entity.
(ii) General criteria. An alien may meet the standard described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section by providing a detailed description, along with supporting evidence:
(A) Demonstrating that the alien is an entrepreneur as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that his or her entity is a start-up entity as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(B) Establishing that the alien's entity has:
(1) Received, within 18 months immediately preceding the filing of an application for initial parole, a qualified investment amount of at least $250,000 from one or more qualified investors; or
(2) Received, within 18 months immediately preceding the filing of an application for initial parole, an amount of at least $100,000 through one or more qualified government awards or grants.
(iii) Alternative criteria. An alien who satisfies the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and partially meets one or both of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section may alternatively meet the standard described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
(c) Additional periods of parole'--(1) Filing of re-parole request form. Prior to the expiration of the initial period of parole, an entrepreneur parolee may request an additional period of parole based on the same start-up entity that formed the basis for his or her initial period of parole granted under this section. To request such parole, an entrepreneur parolee must timely file the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941) with USCIS, with the required fees (including biometric services fees), and supporting documentation in accordance with the form instructions, demonstrating eligibility as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Criteria for consideration'--(i) In general. An alien may be considered for re-parole under this section if the alien demonstrates that a grant of parole will continue to provide a significant public benefit to the United States based on his or her role as an entrepreneur of a start-up entity.
(ii) General criteria. An alien may meet the standard described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section by providing a detailed description, along with supporting evidence:
(A) Demonstrating that the alien continues to be an entrepreneur as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that his or her entity continues to be a start-up entity as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(B) Establishing that the alien's entity has:
(1) Received at least $500,000 in qualifying investments, qualified government grants or awards, or a combination of such funding, during the initial parole period;
(2) Created at least 5 qualified jobs with the start-up entity during the initial parole period; or
(3) Reached at least $500,000 in annual revenue in the United States and averaged 20 percent in annual revenue growth during the initial parole period.
(iii) Alternative criteria. An alien who satisfies the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and partially meets one or more of the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section may alternatively meet the standard Start Printed Page 5288described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section by providing other reliable and compelling evidence of the start-up entity's substantial potential for rapid growth and job creation.
(d) Discretionary authority; decision; appeals and motions to reopen'--(1) Discretionary authority. DHS may grant parole under this section in its sole discretion on a case-by-case basis if the Department determines, based on the totality of the evidence, that an applicant's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit and that he or she otherwise merits a favorable exercise of discretion. In determining whether an alien's presence in the United States will provide a significant public benefit and whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, USCIS will consider and weigh all evidence, including any derogatory evidence or information, such as but not limited to, evidence of criminal activity or national security concerns.
(2) Initial parole. DHS may grant an initial period of parole based on the start-up entity listed in the request for parole for a period of up to 30 months from the date the individual is initially paroled into the United States. Approval by USCIS of such a request must be obtained before the alien may appear at a port of entry to be granted parole, in lieu of admission.
(3) Re-parole. DHS may re-parole an entrepreneur for one additional period of up to 30 months from the date of the expiration of the initial parole period. If the entrepreneur is in the United States at the time that USCIS approves the request for re-parole, such approval shall be considered a grant of re-parole. If the alien is outside the United States at the time that USCIS approves the request for re-parole, the alien must appear at a port of entry to be granted parole, in lieu of admission.
(4) Appeals and motions to reopen. There is no appeal from a denial of parole under this section. USCIS will not consider a motion to reopen or reconsider a denial of parole under this section. On its own motion, USCIS may reopen or reconsider a decision to deny the Application for Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941), in accordance with 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5).
(e) Payment of biometric services fee and collection of biometric information. An alien seeking parole or re-parole under this section will be required to pay the biometric services fee as prescribed by 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(C). An alien seeking an initial grant of parole will be required to submit biometric information. An alien seeking re-parole may be required to submit biometric information.
(f) Limitations. No more than three entrepreneurs may be granted parole under this section based on the same start-up entity. An alien shall not receive more than one initial grant of entrepreneur parole or more than one additional grant of entrepreneur re-parole based on the same start-up entity, for a maximum period of parole of five years.
(g) Employment authorization. An entrepreneur who is paroled into the United States pursuant to this section is authorized for employment with the start-up entity incident to the conditions of his or her parole.
(h) Spouse and children. (1) The entrepreneur's spouse and children who are seeking parole as derivatives of such entrepreneur must individually file an Application for Travel Document (Form I-131). Such application must also include evidence that the derivative has a qualifying relationship to the entrepreneur and otherwise merits a grant of parole in the exercise of discretion. A biometric services fee is required to be filed with the application. Such spouse or child will be required to appear for collection of biometrics in accordance with the form instructions or upon request.
(2) The spouse and children of an entrepreneur granted parole under this section may be granted parole under this section for no longer than the period of parole granted to such entrepreneur.
(3) The spouse of the entrepreneur parolee, after being paroled into the United States, may be eligible for employment authorization on the basis of parole under this section. To request employment authorization, an eligible spouse paroled into the United States must file an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765), in accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13 and form instructions. An Application for Employment Authorization must be accompanied by documentary evidence establishing eligibility, including evidence of the spousal relationship.
(4) Notwithstanding 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11), a child of the entrepreneur parolee may not be authorized for and may not accept employment on the basis of parole under this section.
(i) Conditions on parole. As a condition of parole under this section, a parolee must maintain household income that is greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty line for his or her household size as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. USCIS may impose other such reasonable conditions in its sole discretion with respect to any alien approved for parole under this section, and it may request verification of the parolee's compliance with any such condition at any time. Violation of any condition of parole may lead to termination of the parole in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section or denial of re-parole.
(j) Reporting of material changes. An alien granted parole under this section must immediately report any material change(s) to USCIS. If the entrepreneur will continue to be employed by the start-up entity and maintain a qualifying ownership interest in the start-up entity, the entrepreneur must submit a form prescribed by USCIS, with any applicable fee (not including any biometric fees), in accordance with the form instructions to notify USCIS of the material change(s). The entrepreneur parolee must immediately notify USCIS in writing if he or she will no longer be employed by the start-up entity or ceases to possess a qualifying ownership stake in the start-up entity.
(k) Termination of parole'--(1) In general. DHS, in its discretion, may terminate parole granted under this section at any time and without prior notice or opportunity to respond if it determines that the alien's continued parole in the United States no longer provides a significant public benefit. Alternatively, DHS, in its discretion, may provide the alien notice and an opportunity to respond prior to terminating the alien's parole under this section.
(2) Automatic termination. Parole granted under this section will be automatically terminated without notice upon the expiration of the time for which parole was authorized, unless the alien timely files a non-frivolous application for re-parole. Parole granted under this section may be automatically terminated when USCIS receives written notice from the entrepreneur parolee that he or she will no longer be employed by the start-up entity or ceases to possess a qualifying ownership stake in the start-up entity in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section. Additionally, parole of the spouse or child of the entrepreneur will be automatically terminated without notice if the parole of the entrepreneur has been terminated. If parole is terminated, any employment authorization based on that parole is automatically revoked.
(3) Termination on notice. USCIS may terminate on notice or provide the entrepreneur or his or her spouse or children, as applicable, written notice of Start Printed Page 5289its intent to terminate parole if USCIS believes that:
(i) The facts or information contained in the request for parole were not true and accurate;
(ii) The alien failed to timely file or otherwise comply with the material change reporting requirements in this section;
(iii) The entrepreneur parolee is no longer employed in a central and active role by the start-up entity or ceases to possess a qualifying ownership stake in the start-up entity;
(iv) The alien otherwise violated the terms and conditions of parole; or
(v) Parole was erroneously granted.
(4) Notice and decision. A notice of intent to terminate issued under this paragraph should generally identify the grounds for termination of the parole and provide a period of up to 30 days for the alien's written rebuttal. The alien may submit additional evidence in support of his or her rebuttal, when applicable, and USCIS will consider all relevant evidence presented in deciding whether to terminate the alien's parole. Failure to timely respond to a notice of intent to terminate will result in termination of the parole. When a charging document is served on the alien, the charging document will constitute written notice of termination of parole (if parole has not already been terminated), unless otherwise specified. Any further immigration and removal actions will be conducted in accordance with the Act and this chapter. The decision to terminate parole may not be appealed. USCIS will not consider a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision to terminate parole under this section. On its own motion, USCIS may reopen or reconsider a decision to terminate.
(l) Increase of investment and revenue amount requirements. The investment and revenue amounts in this section will be automatically adjusted every 3 years by the Consumer Price Index and posted on the USCIS Web site at www.uscis.gov. Investment and revenue amounts adjusted under this paragraph will apply to all applications filed on or after the beginning of the fiscal year for which the adjustment is made.
Start PartEnd PartStart Amendment Part5. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:
End Amendment PartStart Authority8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
End AuthorityStart Amendment Part6. Section 274a.2 is amended by:
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Parta. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A)( 5) and (b)(1)(v)(C)(2);
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partb. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(v)(C)( 3); and
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partc. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C)( 4) through (8) as paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C)(3) through (7).
End Amendment PartThe revisions read as follows:
Verification of identity and employment authorization.
*****
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(5) In the case of an individual who is employment-authorized incident to status or parole with a specific employer, a foreign passport with an Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94 (as defined in 8 CFR 1.4) or Form I-94A, bearing the same name as the passport and containing an endorsement by DHS indicating such employment-authorized status or parole, as long as the period of endorsement has not yet expired and the employment is not in conflict with the individual's employment-authorized status or parole;
*****
(C) * * *
(2) Certification or report of birth issued by the Department of State, including Forms FS-545, DS-1350, FS-240;
*****
Start Amendment Part7. Section 274a.12 is amended by:
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Parta. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partb. Removing the word ''or'' at the end of paragraph (b)(24);
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partc. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(25) and adding ''; or'' in its place;
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partd. Adding and reserving paragraphs (b)(26) through (36);
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Parte. Adding paragraph (b)(37);
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partf. Revising paragraph (c)(11); and
End Amendment PartStart Amendment Partg. Adding paragraph (c)(34).
End Amendment PartThe revisions and additions read as follows:
Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
*****
(b) Aliens authorized for employment with a specific employer incident to status or parole. The following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States by the specific employer and subject to any restrictions described in the section(s) of this chapter indicated as a condition of their parole or of their admission in, or subsequent change to, the designated nonimmigrant classification. An alien in one of these classes is not issued an employment authorization document by DHS:
*****
(37) An alien paroled into the United States as an entrepreneur pursuant to 8 CFR 212.19 for the period of authorized parole. An entrepreneur who has timely filed a non-frivolous application requesting re-parole with respect to the same start-up entity in accordance with 8 CFR 212.19 prior to the expiration of his or her parole, but whose authorized parole period expires during the pendency of such application, is authorized to continue employment with the same start-up entity for a period not to exceed 240 days beginning on the date of expiration of parole. Such authorization shall be subject to any conditions and limitations on such expired parole. If DHS adjudicates the application prior to the expiration of this 240-day period and denies the application for re-parole, the employment authorization under this paragraph shall automatically terminate upon notification to the alien of the denial decision.
(c) * * *
(11) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(37) and (c)(34) of this section and §'212.19(h)(4) of this chapter, an alien paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act.
*****
(34) A spouse of an entrepreneur parolee described as eligible for employment authorization in §'212.19(h)(3) of this chapter.
*****
Start SignatureJeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
End SignatureEnd Supplemental Information[FR Doc. 2017-00481 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
steve mnuchin tourettes - Google SearchScreen reader users, click here to turn off Google Instant.
Please click
here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.
Google Instant is unavailable. Press Enter to search.
Learn moreGoogle Instant is off due to connection speed. Press Enter to search.
Press Enter to search.
About 1,430 results (0.36 seconds)
My AccountSearchMapsYouTubePlayNewsGmailDriveCalendarGoogle+TranslatePhotosMoreShoppingWalletFinanceDocsBooksBloggerContactsHangoutsEven more from Google
Jared Kushner, who previously worked on his father-in-law's election campaign, is set to be a White House advisor.
Donald Trump is free to go ahead with his plan to hire his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a Senior White House advisor, the U.S. Justice Department of Justice said on Saturday. The appointment will avoid breaking federal anti-nepotism laws.
RELATED: Protesters Face Increasing Criminalization in Trump Era
The White House is exempted from a 1967 law that bars public officials from appointing relatives to the head of federal agencies, and therefore the law ''would not prohibit the contemplated appointment,'' Daniel L. Koffsky, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, said in a memorandum.
In a statement this month Trump called Kushner, 35, who is married to Trump daughter Ivanka, a ''tremendous asset and trusted adviser.'' Kushner has previously been a senior member on Trump's campaign team and will now work alongside Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon, who is the founder of far-right media outlet Breitbart.
Kushner is reported to be taking the role without a salary and his lawyer said that he will divest from ownership in the media outlet the New York Observer and investment firm Thrive Capital. In keeping with ethical standards, he will step down as chief executive officer of family real estate company Kushner Companies.
Kushner is not the first example of family ties in the White House. John Kennedy picked his brother Robert as his attorney general, and Bill Clinton put wife Hillary in charge of an initiative to change the healthcare system.
Washington, DC'' Internet Association President and CEO Michael Beckerman issued the following statement on the announcement of Ajit Pai to serve as Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman:
''I have enjoyed working with Chairman Pai over the years and while he doesn't always agree with our industry on every issue, he is both thoughtful and willing to listen. The internet industry is a significant stakeholder before the FCC and we look forward to a productive working relationship with Chairman Pai. The FCC is charged with preserving a free and open internet and fostering innovation online, and we will continue our work in pursuit of these goals.''
In one of the first official acts of his presidency, Donald Trump has increased taxes on a million middle-class homebuyers.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Friday reversed a scheduled 0.25 percent cut in mortgage insurance premiums issued by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). For a mortgage worth $200,000, this adds $500 to a homebuyer's annual costs.
These insurance fees are effectively a tax on middle-class homeownership. By reversing the cut, which was scheduled to go into effect on January 27, one week from today, Trump will be taking more money from FHA homebuyers to keep in government coffers.
The FHA doesn't make loans, but it enables borrowers with credit scores as low as 580 to purchase homes with low down payments (as little as 3.5 percent). In exchange, it collects mortgage insurance premiums, which it places in the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) to draw upon in case of default.
The outgoing Obama Administration announced the FHA insurance cut on January 9, from 0.85 percent of the mortgage price to 0.60 percent. They did so in direct response to increases in mortgage rates that significantly raised the price of purchasing a home. The FHA previously cut premiums by 0.5 percent in January 2015.
Critics argued that lowering FHA premiums would threaten the solvency of the MMIF, which did require a $1.7 billion bailout in 2013, the first in the agency's history, owing to a surge of defaults after the housing bubble collapsed. However, the finances of the MMIF have significantly improved since then, amid modest recovery in the housing market. By law, the fund must be maintained at least at 2 percent of the total FHA loan portfolio. The FHA puts the current figure at 2.32 percent.
''After four straight years of growth and with sufficient reserves on hand to meet future claims, it's time for FHA to pass along some modest savings to working families,'' Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro wrote earlier this month in announcing the change.
Ben Carson, who Trump has nominated to replace Castro, said at his confirmation hearing that he would ''really examine'' the FHA insurance cut, and that he wasn't consulted about it. Conservatives have warned for years that the MMIF is dangerously insolvent, despite the recent robust balance sheet.
In addition, by making FHA loans more expensive, traditional bank mortgages become more competitive. Banks typically earn more in profit from of their own products than from FHA loans. So this initial Trump policy also generates a competitive advantage for mortgage lenders to make more money for their business.
Based on analysis by Attom Data Solutions, the reversal means an extra $446 million for the MMIF, and concurrently that much less in the pocketbooks of an estimated 1 million homebuyers projected to take out FHA loans in 2017.
Trump's inaugural rhetoric on ''transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people'' is at odds with the specific action of increasing fees on middle-class homebuyers to bolster a government insurance fund.
Because more expensive home markets would be more affected by the increase, the reversal certainly hits liberal America harder. Counties like Santa Clara, Alameda, and Santa Cruz, California, and Honolulu and Maui, Hawaii, would see the biggest increases, from $1,253 to $1,448 annually.
Report: U.S. Announces Withdrawal From TPP Within 24 Hours of Trump Inauguration'...
Making good on a consistent campaign promise, and in absolute rebuke to the best laid plans of Tom Donohue, the Asian Pacific Nikkei reports:
WASHINGTON '-- Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his administration announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact championed by former President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The White House on Friday also wasted no time in declaring a renegotiation of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. (more)
It would appear the economic plan continued before the actual nomination is proceeding according to a well designed plan. The elimination of TPP is a complete rebuke of The Big Club.
But wait, oh it gets better.
For the past six weeks I have been staring at an index card stuck in the middle of our research white board which simply states: ''Why Mulvaney?'' It's been nagging at me, because choosing Mick ''Cantalopes'' Mulvaney for OMB director just didn't make sense.
Then a friendly cow walked up and licked me square on the face.
My friendly bovine asked three questions:
'... 1.) ''What makes you think President Donald Trump wasn't aware of the Mulvaney housekeeper issue''? '... 2.) ''Remember how candidate Trump shot the arrow into the Achilles heel of Bush and Rubio's Wall Street alignment''? and '... 3.) ''Isn't Paul Ryan quite literally, and similarly, attached to the Mulvaney pick''?
After an ah-ha moment I grinningly wiped the slobber from my noggin, and I must now apologize for my one-dimensional-chess, shallow thoughtlessness and previously expressed position.
While it is prudent to hide the smile and wait for the predictably toxic OMB confirmation hearing. In the interest of belaying concern, we might point out the Dem side of the confirmation hearing is not accidentally being led -quite loudly- by Senator Chuck Schumer who would like nothing more than to have a notch on his partisan anti-confirmation belt.
The Senate minority leader needs a win.
Schumer being a New Yorker n' all '' nudge-nudge, wink-wink,.. say no more, say-no-more.
Oh, how the media would gleefully play up such a defeat, and how President Trump would be protesting the loss, almost pearl-clutchy if done just right. The optics of political opposition toward other cabinet appointments necessarily decreases; the dems already carrying a scalp to prove their oppositional bona-fides.
Additionally, considering all the angles, the first Trump budget is due by constitutional requirement to congress by March 31st. The media never held Obama accountable for this deadline, and he missed it in six of the eight years in office. Not a single Obama budget ever passed congress even though Dems controlled the House and Senate for two of those proposals.
Heck, after year #5 in office the media quit even mentioning the absence of an Obama budget, and worse yet the last two fiscal years Obama never even presented a proposal that mattered. Boehner, then Ryan, went along with CR's, totally eliminated the debt ceiling and passed record setting Omnibus bills.
However, we can easily predict EPIC media protestations if a Trump budget doesn't meet the legal deadline for submission; and we can only imagine how the media will SCREAM about Trump not having one.
'... Phase Two '' Walking out the play'.... brings the OMB Director (Mulvaney or other), and the Paul Ryan budget approval process, immediately into play. If Ryan doesn't get the Trump budget from fellow consort Mulvaney's architecture, Ryan's going to get it from a lesser ideological aligned, non GOPe, OMB director. Interesting paradox.
'... Phase Three '' Most predictably meaning a Trump budget proposal more likely at loggerheads with what Ryan would prefer. Where ''loggerheads'' is most likely defined as President Trump not spending enough on the stuff which will make Ryan's Wall Street UniParty lobbyists happy etc.
'... Phase Four '' The above back-and-forth leads to a potential continuing resolution, or impasse of sorts. Which could ultimately mean Trump is in the same non-budget position as Obama, at least in the short-term.
In that ''short-term'' the president gets to prioritize what aspects of government are funded'.... Oh, hurt me. Please don't throw me in the Briar Patch, please.
'...see where this is headed?
Tell me where President Trump loses in all of the assembled variables?
Either Mulvaney is confirmed albeit usefully damaged goods, and as OMB Director complies with Trump's construction priority, setting up friction with Ryan'.... which ends with Trump in control of spending prioritization anyway'..... Or, Mulvaney doesn't pass confirmation, Schumer is happy, and by direct extension Mulvaney's primary advocate, Paul Ryan, is usefully wounded in the process'.... which ends with Trump in control of spending prioritization.
Join the Resistance to stop Trump's destructive agenda during his first 100 days in office!
OUR MISSION
Millions of us are working TOGETHER to resist, oppose and obstruct the Trump Administration's brazenly-stated agenda to overturn and destroy the gains we've made for more than half a century. He has promised to enact laws that will discriminate and harm people across the country. During Trump's first 100 days in office, we, the MAJORITY of this nation, will unite to form a blockade to protect the voiceless and the powerless. That means peaceful acts of resistance to stop harmful policies including:
The repeal of HealthcareA senseless border wallReligious, racial and immigration discriminationEnvironmental destructionRollback of women's rightsAt the same time, we will aggressively set a POSITIVE agenda that the MAJORITY of Americans support and are demanding:
A progressive voice on the Supreme CourtSingle Payer Health Care for AllMiddle Class Jobs and a Livable WageImmediate Action on the Climate Change CrisisAn End to Mass IncarcerationA Halt to Police ViolenceHumane Immigration LawsIncome Equality and Democratic SocialismElection Reform which includes: Re-establishing the Voting Rights Act, Abolishing the Electoral College, the Removal of Big Money from Elections, etc.A Foreign Policy Based on Fairness, Justice for All and PeaceWhen a new administration takes office, the agenda for the next four years is set in the first 100 days. That is why we must form a strong and strategic resistance to stop Trump's hate-filled agenda and continue to advance the cause of racial, social, environmental and economic justice. We can do it and we can win. Join us!
Help Us Spot the Mega-Donors Given Special Seats on Donald Trump's Inaugural Platform
[UPDATED AT 4:27 p.m. ET; now includes two new sightings and CNN's Gigapixel photo.]
Some of Donald Trump's top donors received choice seats on the platform where he took the oath of office on Friday. The Intercept exclusively obtained a list revealing that the incoming administration had allocated at least a dozen of 183 seats on the inaugural platform to donors and fundraisers.
The Intercept identified seven donors who were seated not far from the dais: Sheldon Adelson, Steve Wynn, Carl Icahn, Harold Hamm, Lew Eisenberg, Woody Johnson and Phil Ruffin.
The list, however, suggests that 17 other individuals listed as donors were given seats on the platform as well: Hushang Ansary, Roy Bailey, Brian Ballard, Tom Barrack, Joe Craft, Louis DeJoy, Robert Grand, Diane Hendricks, Peter Kalikow, Richard Lefrak, Ed McMullen, Steve Roth, Anthony Scaramucci, Tommy Hicks, Gentry Beach, Ray Washburne, and Ron Weiser.
Can you help us spot the other donors on the platform? Email us at mattathias.schwartz@theintercept.com and lee.fang@theintercept.com, or tweet to us at @Schwartzesque and @lhfang. See the image below, or this one, as well as other images posted online of the inauguration platform, to help us. And check back for updates. Try CNN's amazing Gigapixel shot, too.
Update: Twitter user Gregory Lomanno spotted Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, speaking to Icahn in the picture below. Kraft appeared at an event last week with inauguration donors and other VIPs. And Brandon Bledsoe tweets that Tom Barrack, a private equity executive who chaired the inaugural committee, which has raised over $100 million, according to reports, was given the seat just in front of Adelson. As we reported on Friday, Barrack was granted 49 of 259 seats for the Friday morning service at St. John's Episcopal Church, about as many seats as were allocated to Vice President Mike Pence and his family.
Graphic: The Intercept
The donors we have already identified used their checkbooks to develop close ties to the Trump administration, either financing his election victory or the inauguration, or both. Adelson, the chief executive of the Las Vegas Sands casino, gave $25 million to Super PACs supporting Trump during the campaign, and joined fellow casino mogul Wynn to help lead the inaugural committee hosting events celebrating Trump's new administration.
Harold Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Resources, a major drilling firm involved in using hydraulic fracturing (''fracking'') technology, has advised Trump on energy, and fundraised on his behalf.
Lew Eisenberg, a a former Goldman Sachs executive who went on to work in private equity, served as the finance chair of Trump Victory, a joint fundraising effort that solicited checks as big as $449,400 per donor.
Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets who was recently nominated to serve as ambassador to the United Kingdom, was seated near Eisenberg. Johnson donated $349,000 to Trump Victory. Carl Icahn, the billionaire investor, gave $200,000 to Trump Victory. He, too, has won special access to the Trump administration, and is now advising the president on regulatory policy.
And Phil Ruffin, billionaire owner of the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, also donated to Trump Victory, giving the fund $400,000. He was joined by his wife, Aleksandra Nikolaenko, a former Miss Ukraine; Trump was the best man at their wedding.
But the still un-identified donors who were on the list were just as important. Hendricks, for instance, a billionaire who co-founded ABC Supply, a roofing and construction materials firm, gave $7.5 million to a SuperPAC that flooded the airwaves in Wisconsin, a state crucial to Trump's electoral college victory, with advertisements against Hillary Clinton. Joe Craft, the chief executive of Alliance Resource Partners, a major coal firm, gave $750,000 to Future45, another Super PAC that aired that aggressively went after Clinton during the election.
The America First Committee (AFC) was the foremost non-interventionistpressure group against the American entry into World War II. Peaking at 800,000 paid members in 450 chapters, it was one of the largest anti-war organizations in American history.[1][2] Started on September 4, 1940, it was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America.
Membership[edit]The AFC was established on September 4, 1940, by Yale Law School student R. Douglas Stuart, Jr. (son of R. Douglas Stuart, co-founder of Quaker Oats), along with other students, including future President Gerald Ford, future Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart.[3] Future President John F. Kennedy contributed $100, along with a note saying "What you all are doing is vital."[4][5] At its peak, America First claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago.[1]
The AFC gained much of its early strength by merging with the more left-wingKeep America Out of War Committee, whose leaders included Norman Thomas and John T. Flynn.
It claimed 135,000 members in 60 chapters in Illinois, its strongest state.[6] Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, Sterling Morton of Morton Salt Company,[citation needed] publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune).
The AFC was never able to get funding for its own public opinion poll. The New York chapter received slightly more than $190,000, most of it from its 47,000 contributors. Since it never had a national membership form or national dues, and local chapters were quite autonomous, historians suggest that the organization's leaders had no idea how many "members" it had.[7]
Serious organizing of the America First Committee took place in Chicago not long after the September 1940 establishment. Chicago was to remain the national headquarters of the committee. To preside over their committee, America First chose General Robert E. Wood, the 61-year-old chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Co.. Wood remained at the head of the committee until it was disbanded in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First Committee had its share of prominent businessmen as well as the sympathies of political figures including Democratic Senators Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Republican Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, and Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, with its most prominent spokesman being aviator Charles A. Lindbergh. Other celebrities supporting America First were novelist Sinclair Lewis, poet E. E. Cummings, Washington socialite Alice Roosevelt Longworth, film producer Walt Disney, actress Lillian Gish and architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The many student chapters included future celebrities, such as author Gore Vidal (as a student at Phillips Exeter Academy), and the future President Gerald Ford, at Yale Law School.[8]
When the war began in September 1939, most Americans, including politicians, demanded neutrality regarding Europe.[9] Although most Americans supported strong measures against Japan, Europe was the focus of the America First Committee. The public mood was changing, however, especially after the fall of France in spring 1940.[10]
The America First Committee launched a petition aimed at enforcing the 1939 Neutrality Act and forcing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to keep his pledge to keep America out of the war. They profoundly distrusted Roosevelt and argued that he was lying to the American people.
On the day after Roosevelt's lend-lease bill was submitted to the United States Congress, Wood promised AFC opposition "with all the vigor it can exert." America First staunchly opposed the convoying of ships, the Atlantic Charter, and the placing of economic pressure on Japan. In order to achieve the defeat of lend-lease and the perpetuation of American neutrality, the AFC advocated four basic principles:
The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war."Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.Charles Lindbergh was admired in Germany and allowed to see the buildup of the German air force, the Luftwaffe in 1937. He was impressed with its strength and secretly reported his findings to the General Staff of the U.S. Army, warning that the U.S. had fallen behind and must urgently build up its aviation.[11] He had feuded with the Roosevelt administration for years. His first radio speech was broadcast on September 15, 1939, over all three of the major radio networks. He urged listeners to look beyond the speeches and propaganda they were being fed and instead look at who was writing the speeches and reports, who owned the papers and who influenced the speakers.
On June 20, 1941, Lindbergh spoke to 30,000 people in Los Angeles billed as "Peace and Preparedness Mass Meeting," Lindbergh criticized those movements which he perceived were leading America into the war. He proclaimed that the United States was in a position that made it virtually impregnable, He claimed that the interventionists and the British who called for "the defense of England" really meant "the defeat of Germany."[12][13]
Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech Lindbergh delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941. In that speech he identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, and American Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better. He said in part:
It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.
Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.[14]
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, AFC canceled a rally with Lindbergh at Boston Garden "in view of recent critical developments",[15] and the organization's leaders announced their support of the war effort. Lindbergh said:[16]
We have been stepping closer to war for many months. Now it has come and we must meet it as united Americans regardless of our attitude in the past toward the policy our government has followed.
Whether or not that policy has been wise, our country has been attacked by force of arms and by force of arms we must retaliate. Our own defenses and our own military position have already been neglected too long. We must now turn every effort to building the greatest and most efficient Army, Navy and Air Force in the world. When American soldiers go to war it must be with the best equipment that modern skill can design and that modern industry can build.
With the formal declaration of war against Japan, the organization chose to disband. On December 11, the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement which they released to the press was the following:
Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained.We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.[17]
Communists were antiwar until June 1941 and tried to infiltrate or take over America First.[18] After Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, they reversed positions and denounced the AFC as a Nazi front (or infiltrated by German agents).[19] Nazis also tried to use the committee: at the trial of the aviator and orator Laura Ingalls,[20] the prosecution revealed that her handler, Ulrich Freiherr von Gienanth, a German diplomat, had encouraged her to participate in committee activities.
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan has praised America First and used its name as a slogan. "The achievements of that organization are monumental," writes Buchanan. "By keeping America out of World War II until Hitler attacked Stalin in June 1941, Soviet Russia, not America, bore the brunt of the fighting, bleeding and dying to defeat Nazi Germany."[21]
See also[edit]^ abWayne S. Cole, America First: The Battle against Intervention, 1940-41 (1953)^Bill Kauffman, Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism (2008)^Kauffman, Bill; Sarles, Ruth (2003). A story of America First: the men and women who opposed U. S. intervention in World War II. New York: Praeger. p. xvii. ISBN 0-275-97512-6. ^Burns, Ken. The Roosevelts: An Intimate Portrait. PBS documentary, 2014, pt. 6.^http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/still-america-first/^Schneider p 198^Cole 1953, 25-33; Schneider 201-2^Kevin Starr (2003). Embattled Dreams: California in War and Peace, 1940-1950. Oxford UP. p. 6. ^Leroy N. Rieselbach (1966). The Roots of Isolationism: congressional voting and presidential leadership in foreign policy. Bobbs-Merrill. p. 13. ^James Gilbert Ryan; Leonard C. Schlup (2006). Historical Dictionary of the 1940s. M.E. Sharpe. p. 415. ^James Duffy (2010). Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America. Regnery. pp. 76''77. ^Louis Pizzitola (2002). Hearst Over Hollywood: Power, Passion, and Propaganda in the Movies. Columbia UP. p. 401. ^Wayne S. Cole (1974). Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. p. 9. ^Cole 1953, p. 144^"No America First Rally". The New York Times. Associated Press. 1941-12-09. p. 40. ^"Isolationist Groups Back Roosevelt". The New York Times. 1941-12-09. p. 44. ^"America First Group to Quit". The Telegraph-Herald. Dubuque, Iowa. United Press International. 1941-12-12. p. 13. Retrieved November 16, 2011. ^Selig Adler (1957). The isolationist impulse: its twentieth-century reaction. pp. 269''70, 274. ^Kahn, A. E., and M. Sayers. The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1946, chap. XXIII (American Anti-Comintern), part 5: Lone Eagle, pp. 365-378. Kahn, A.E., and M. Sayers. The Plot against the Peace: A Warning to the Nation!. 1st ed. New York: Dial Press, 1945, chap. X (In the Name of Peace), pp. 187-209.^New York Times, December 18, 1941, "Laura Ingalls Held as Reich Agent: Flier Says She Was Anti-Nazi Spy".^Pat Buchanan (October 13, 2004). "The Resurrection of 'America First!'". The American Cause. Retrieved 2008-02-03 Bibliography[edit]Berg, A. ScottLindbergh (1999) pp 384''432Cole, Wayne S. Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle against American Intervention in World War II (1974)Cole, Wayne S. America First: The Battle against Intervention, 1940-41 (1953)Doenecke, Justus D. The Battle Against Intervention, 1939-1941 (1997), includes short narrative and primary documents.Doenecke, Justus D., ed. In Danger Undaunted: The Anti-Interventionist Movement of 1940-1941 as revealed in the Papers of the America First Committee (1990)Doenecke, Justus D. Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941 (2000).Doenecke, Justus D. "American Isolationism, 1939-1941" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Summer/Fall 1982, 6(3), pp. 201''216. online versionDoenecke, Justus D. "Anti-Interventionism of Herbert Hoover," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Summer 1987, 8(2), pp. 311''340. online versionDoenecke, Justus D., ed. In Danger Undaunted: The Anti-Interventionist Movement of 1940-1941 as Revealed in the Papers of the America First Committee (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1990).Goodman, David, "Loving and Hating Britain: Rereading the Isolationist Debate in the USA," in Britishness Abroad: Transnational Movements and Imperial Cultures, ed. Kate Darian-Smith, Patricia Grimshaw, and Stuart Macintyre, pp 187''204. (Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2007) ISBN 978-0-522-85392-6Gordon, David. America First: the Anti-War Movement, Charles Lindbergh and the Second World War, 1940-1941; presentation to The New York Military Affairs Symposium in 2003Jonas, Manfred. Isolationism in America, 1935-1941 (1966).Gleason, S. Everett, and William L. Langer; The Undeclared War, 1940-1941 (1953). semi-official government historyKauffman, Bill, America First!: Its History, Culture, and Politics (1995) ISBN 0-87975-956-9Parmet, Herbert S., and Marie B. Hecht; Never Again: A President Runs for a Third Term 1968.Schneider, James C. Should America Go to War? The Debate over Foreign Policy in Chicago, 1939-1941 (1989)Historiography[edit]Doenecke, Justus D. "Literature of Isolationism, 1972''1983: A Bibliographic Guide" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Spring 1983, 7(1), pp. 157''184. online versionDoenecke, Justus D. "Explaining the Antiwar Movement, 1939''1941: The Next Assignment" Journal of Libertarian Studies, Winter 1986, 8(1), pp. 139''162. online versionHogan, Michael J., ed. (2000). Paths to Power: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations to 1941. Cambridge University Press. p. 258. Primary sources[edit]External links[edit]
German Press: ''That Was No Presidential Speech; That Was A Declaration Of War''
Following yesterday's openly confrontational, deliberately protectionist presidential address by president Trump, which in various circles has been dubbed the ''American carnage'' speech for obvious reasons, some of Obama's closest foreign friends are scrambling to find a role in a world that has drastically changed in less than 24 hours. One of them is the foreign leader whom Obama spoke to last before vacating the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who vowed on Saturday to seek compromises on issues like trade and military spending with Trump, adding she would work on preserving the important relationship between Europe and the United States.
''He made his convictions clear in his inauguration speech,'' Merkel said in remarks broadcast live, a day after Trump vowed to put 'America first'.
Speaking at a news conference in the south-western town of Schoental, Merkel '' and finding herself in a world where many of her ''established'' friends have been swept away by the tide of ''populist anger'' '' suddenly struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump than Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who on Friday said Germany should prepare for a rough ride under the new U.S. president.
''I say two things with regards to this (speech): first, I believe firmly that it is best for all of us if we work together based on rules, common values and joint action in the international economic system, in the international trade system, and make our contributions to the military alliances,'' Merkel said. Judging by Trump's fiery sermon, he disagrees.
''And second, the trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years. And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect,'' added Merkel.
The conservative German leader, who is seeking a fourth term and enjoyed a close relationship with former president Barack Obama, is seen by liberals across the Atlantic as a voice of reason that counterbalances rising populist parties in Europe. That voice, however, has rising problems at home, where her approval rating has tumbled over the past year due to her immigration policies, where ''radical'' views such as those espoused by Trump are gaining traction.
As Reuters notes, relations with the United States, Germany's biggest trading partner, are likely to be a hot topic in electioneering in coming months leading to a general election in September. And in the aftermath of the Trump speech, which defined Trump's ''negotiating baseline'', Merkel will have no choice but admit weakness in accepting compromises with a man who has criticized her decision in 2015 to throw open Germany's borders to asylum seekers fleeing wars and conflicts, and has said he believes other countries will leave the EU after Britain and that the NATO military alliance was obsolete.
* * *
Yet while Merkel may be hoping for a fresh start with the new US president, her domestic institutions and media will be far less forgiving to any indication of weakness from the chancellor.
The best example of this, so far, is an article penned this morning by Gabor Steingart, chief in chief of Handelsblatt, Germany's leading economic newspaper, who burned all compromise bridges when he said that ''that was no presidential speech; that was a veritable declaration of war.''
The savage criticism continued:''Threatening in tone. Cold and calculating in logic. Change minus the hope. Donald Trump used the traditional Inauguration Day address to settle a score with the U.S. political establishment going back decades. With four ex-presidents sitting a few feet behind him, the 45th president delivered a populist manifesto.''
He notes than any attempts at compromise will fail because ''the new president loves a good fight, not consensus. He doesn't want to hug, but to smother, to overwhelm'' and add that ''in domestic policy, the Trump agenda sounds like a blueprint for civil war; in foreign policy, it sounds like the dawn of a new ice age.''
Hardly an amicable setting for Merkel to be demand compromises.
For the German press what hope there is that the Trump phenomenon will be promptly overthrown lies in the face of three opponents: ''Opponent No. 1: The other America. Across the country, an anti-Trump movement is growing'''... ''Opponent No. 2: The Media. Among publishers, producers, filmmakers and journalists, Trump has hardly any friends. CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Hollywood couldn't warm to the volcanic personality of the new president.'''... ''Opponent No. 3: The Political Party System. Washington is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Democrats and even Republicans are cooperating on Capitol Hill to investigate the Trump team's contacts to Russia in a special committee.''
It is clear on whose side the German economic press is; the bigger question for Merkel is whether in the aftermath of this ''war'' by Trump, the German people will side with her, and distance themselves from the ''American populist'', or whether the backlash against the establishment will reverberate further, leading to even more pain for Merkel in the upcoming polls.
Finally, should Merkel's ''compromise'' approach fail, will Germany respond to Trump's ''declaration of war'' in kind, and will it be simply trade, or conventional?
Full Handelsblatt letter below:
The Demons Have Been Unchained
That was no presidential speech; that was a veritable declaration of war. Threatening in tone. Cold and calculating in logic. Change minus the hope. Donald Trump used the traditional Inauguration Day address to settle a score with the U.S. political establishment going back decades. With four ex-presidents sitting a few feet behind him, the 45th president delivered a populist manifesto.
Until his victory, the nation's political elite used days like these, he told America, to celebrate amongst themselves. Their triumph was not your triumph. Their well-being was not your well-being. But this time, power would transfer not just from one party to the other, but from Washington back to the people. In the people's name, he will put America ''first.'' In their name, he will ''take back'' America's factories. In their name, he will ''exterminate'' Islamic terrorism, end inner-city drug gang ''bloodbaths'' and get NATO partners like Germany to pay more for Europe's security. In domestic policy, the Trump agenda sounds like a blueprint for civil war; in foreign policy, it sounds like the dawn of a new ice age. Not that he's cold-bloodedly planning either one, but he knows where his fiery rhetoric will lead him. The new president loves a good fight, not consensus. He doesn't want to hug, but to smother, to overwhelm.
Yesterday was his day, but the days that follow may belong to his opponents. There are three main opponents that could bring him down politically.
Opponent No. 1: The other America. Across the country, an anti-Trump movement is growing. While only 10,000 people came to an open-air concert in Washington celebrating his victory on the night before the inauguration, 20,000 people took to the streets in New York to protest his elevation. Their signs shouted: Not My President. The security and surveillance costs around Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, at the corner of 56th Street, is costing taxpayers about a half million dollars '' each day.
Opponent No. 2: The Media. Among publishers, producers, filmmakers and journalists, Trump has hardly any friends. CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Hollywood couldn't warm to the volcanic personality of the new president. Even an unbroken Twitter assault has no chance against such a monolithic wall of media rejection. He hates them, and they hate him right back. He pushes forward his agenda, and they push back unabashedly with theirs. Trump enters The White House with the lowest approval rating ever of an elected president.
Opponent No. 3: The Political Party System. Washington is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Democrats and even Republicans are cooperating on Capitol Hill to investigate the Trump team's contacts to Russia in a special committee. House Speaker Paul Ryan doesn't see himself as a Trump follower but as a Trump successor. He is the wolf in sheep's clothing, biding his time, waiting for an opening. Put another way: Not only Democrats are hoping for an impeachment proceeding.
America is now on the brink of a new period of polarization. The demons in this fraternal battle have been unchained. The greatness that Trump seeks will not be borne under these conditions. An icy wind is blowing across the land.
Yours sincerely,
Gabor Steingart
Lame Cherry: White House Staff Bending Over For Press Corpse
As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
According to the lying press there are 4 people who think they are Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, in Jared Kurschner, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus.
According to the fake news press, Major Garrett of CBS fake news, Garrett was talking with Steve Bannon about the little cubby holes that the White House press corp endures, and Bannon upon seeing them said, "Well this is populist, we can live with this".Garrett asked again if the press was going to be moved out, and Bannon said, "This is populist, we can live with this".
Let me start this off so there is no doubt in this, that I am pissed with Righteous Indignation.
Why?
For starters the DO NOTHING CONGRESS deliberately detained President Trump on Inauguration Day, so he did not get a damn thing done, and word came from Spicer of the Press Corpse, that it would be Monday.
Americans sent Donald Trump to Washington to DRAIN THE SWAMP, not to have those lazy asses in Congress stuff their faces with expensive food, preening on about Cleo the Clock (If you missed that, you missed two of the nuttiest speeches in the world, led by Nancy Pelosi, talking about a clock non stop.) and the reason I am pissed????
Trump clearly looks puzzled when Nancypelosi schools him on "Cleo". ... also talks about the clock which is above Cleo that Lincoln use ta look up at. ... Pelosi ...I am pissed because there were Americans standing out in the damned cold and rain while these pompous asses were chowing down in comfort, and those Americans were out there 90 minutes waiting to march in a parade to honor President Trump, and then had to march in the dark.
That is what is wrong with Washington DC, in the PEOPLE get stuffed out in the cold rain, while those millionaires all jack each other off about how wonderful they are and think a clock named Cleo is of some value to normal people.
I did not vote for any of this bullshit and if there are still Trump advisers who are American in this inner circle, they should pay attention to a reality check which is about to be posted here about Up the Press Cunt Bannon.
A question first.
Ah where in the Constitution does it state that the press gets access and office space which Americans have to pay for in the White House?
Oh yes, freedom of the press........but what about the right of access of the other freedoms in RELIGION and ASSEMBLY?
MajorGarrett Verified ... Copy link to Tweet; Embed Tweet; SteveBannon just took a tour of the WH ... His reaction: "very populist" #inauguration2017 #Trump ...Why is it not populist of the American clergy like Franklin Graham to have his office in the White House, and 50 preachers have their daily briefing?
What about the assembly in the protestors and advocates. Why doesn't the Psycho Twats of America have their room to burn down in protest and the NRA have a room in the White House to wave flags?
Where is the legal right of access in this? When the press has a right that religion or assembly does not have, that is a breach of the Constitution and ILLEGAL!!!
Into this, where in the blessed room space is the Lame Cherry office in the White House? Or for that matter the Des Moines Register or Alex Jones or Jeff Rense. I certainly did more than anyone in this blog in accomplishing God's work in changing the time line, and I do not see Steve Bannon talking about how populist it is to have Lame Cherry access to the White House or any of the other hard working advocates who did all the work in running interference for Donald Trump.
So let us get a few things straight in this. Americans did not vote for the same fake news traitors to be given more rights than the rest of Americans. There is nothing populist in that in the least. Steve Bannon just agreed to press bigotry where CBS is of more value than a Paul Joseph Watson blog.As the Lame Cherry reminds all in this, let Bannon put that horse shit into the elections, in the big press gets more right than the small electoral college blogs, and Donald Trump would not be President now, and instead Hillary Clinton would have Loretta Lynch indicting Donald Trump for treason in Russian hacking.
So that pretty much sums up why I am pissed off. I do not stand for Americans desiring to march in a parade were pissed on by the skies and those pissers in Congress preening each other like gods. I do not stand for Steven Bannon bigotry in rewarding the 5th column enemies of America with White House office space, when I am stuck in poverty and have Homeland interviewing me for posting information to keep Americans safe and to bring about world peace.
Major problems in the Trump White House in Steve Bannon just fed the political cancer, and Priebus and Spicer, assisted Congress in flat lining this Administration to keep President Trump from the job.
The Lame Cherry trusts President Donald Trump and the Lame Cherry adores Donald Trump, but this cadre of up the cunts from Mike Pence to Steve Bannon have proven they are the absolute problem in creating the destruction of the Trump Administration.
As Steve Bannon is so short sighted that he thinks elitist terror press is populist, then I demand that 50 preachers have offices in the White House and have a White House Clergy Director briefing every day, and I demand for equal access groups to assemble daily in the White House for equal access rights.If that is not going to be done, the throw the damn press out to the street where they belong and stop having your head up a twat thinking this is some Constitutional provision, when all it is accomplishing is Constitutional destruction of America.
President Donald Trump is being ill served by unInspired, self serving flat brains. That is the fact.
Reporters also traditionally have free access to ''Lower Press,'' a set of offices for the deputy and assistant press secretaries just off the Brady Briefing Room. Some time after Obama and Trump departed the White House, the door to ''Lower Press'' was locked. Zeke Miller, a Time correspondent and board member of the White House Correspondents' Association, asked Shah to have the door unlocked. Shah was unfamiliar with the setup '-- but the sliding door was unlocked within 15 minutes of the conversation.
Did Shah powder Zeke Miller's ass too while he was shitting on the Trump Staff as Bannon handed out the Exlax?
Association with Hillary Clinton donor, billionaire George Soros, and his Open Society Foundation"Women's March on Washington" Partners>>Signatory to anti-Trump "We are Better Than This" Petition; "Includes a number of USP grantees" and "wide swath of OSF and OSPc grantees, including MoveOn.org, the Domestic Workers Alliance, United We Dream, the center for Community Change, Demos and Color of Change."Democratic Party AffiliatedNotesNotes#VoteForChoicexOpen Society "Equality Fund works with national unions SEIU and the AFL-CIO to advance the immigration reform agenda."1199 SEIUx18MillionRisingx350.orgxTrump is authentic50/50 ProjectxYes; Grantee9to5, National Association of Working WomenxxA Better BalancexxA. Philip Randolph InstitutexYes; GranteeACCESS MichiganxYes: "Anchor" grantee; "Top Funded USP Grantees from Jan 2009 through April 2014: $4.8 million"The Advancement ProjectxxAdvocates for YouthxYes; "Key Partner"AFL-CIOxOpen Society "Equality Fund works with national unions SEIU and the AFL-CIO to advance the immigration reform agenda."xAfrican Communities TogetherxxAFSCMExxjxxAlliance for JusticexxAlliance for Quality EducationxxAlliance of Nurses for Healthy EnvironmentsxxAll OutxxAmeinu (Our People)xYes; "Key grantee"America's VoicexxThe American Association of University Professors (AAUP)xxAmerican Association of University Women (AAUW)xxAmerican AtheistsxYes; "Anchor" grantee; "Top Funded USP Grantees from Jan 2009 through April 2014: $27.7 million"American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)xYes; GranteeAmerican Constitution SocietyxYes; "Key Partner"American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIOxxAmerican Humanist Associationx1/18/2017 media query sent.xAmerican Indian MovementxYes; "Donor partner"American Jewish World ServicesxxAmerican Medical Women's AssociationxxAmericans for Democratic Action (ADA)xxAmericans United for Separation of Church and StatexYes; "Grantee"Amnesty InternationalxxThe Amplifier FoundationxYes; "Grantee"Arab American Association of New YorkxxART NOT WAR / Humanity for ProgressYesxArte SanaxxAsian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)xYes; "Anchor" granteeAsian Americans Advancing Justice - AtlantaxYes; "Anchor" granteeAsian Americans Advancing Justice - ChicagoxYes; "Anchor" granteeAsian Americans Advancing Justice - Los AngelesxxAsian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA)YesxAssociation of Black Women Attorneys (ABWA)xxAssociation of Flight Attendants - CWAxxAthlete AllyxxThe Autonomous Womyn's FrontxxBaltimore County Green PartyxxBe Kind for LymexYes; "Donor partner"Bend the Arc Jewish ActionxxBest of LifexxBeyond NuclearxxBlack Business Network ExchangexxBlack Girls RockxxBlack Ladies International IncorporatedxxBlack Lives of Unitarian UniversalismxxBlack Women's RoundtablexxBlack Youth Vote! (BYV!)xxBold and BoundlessxxBrady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with Million Mom MarchxYes; GranteeBreakthroughxxBrick x Brickx?The Brotherhood/Sister SolxxBrown Boi ProjectxxBus for ProgressxxBUSTxCalifornia Immigration Policy CenterxYes; "Donor partner"Catholics for ChoicexnYes; GranteeCenter for Constitutional RightsxxCenter for Emergent DiplomacyxxCenter for Popular DemocracyYesxCenter for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)xxCenter for InquiryxYes; GranteeThe Center for Reproductive RightsxxChildren's Firearm AlliancexSpoke at panelCHIRLAxxCitizens for Juvenile JusticexxCivil Liberties & Public Policy ProgramxxCleveland Action DemocratsxxClimate First!xxCoalition Against Gun ViolencexxCoaliton for Post Tubal Women (CPTwomen)xxThe Coalition of Nasty WoemnxxCoalition to Stop Gun ViolencexxCODEPINKYesxtheCollectiveShiftxYes; "Anchor" granteeColor of ChangexxCommon ConversationxxCommon DefensexxCommunication Workers of AmericaxYes; GranteeCommunities United for Police ReformxxConnecticut Juvenile Justice AlliancexxConvergencexxCouncil on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)xxCouncil on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-CT)xxCouncil on American Islamic Relations -- San Francisco Bay AreaxxCovenant Baptist United Church of Christx1/18/2017 media query sent; voicemail left.xCTZNWELLxxCultureStrikexxCultures of DignityxxDayton Women's Rights AlliancexxDC Lawyers for YouthxxDefine AmericaxxDemocracy SpringxxDemocratic Socialists of AmericaxxDemocratic Women of Sullivan CountyxYes; GranteeDemosxxDisability Action for AmericaxxDisabilityMarch.comxxDiverse Disability MediaxxDoctors for AmericaxxDoubleDutchxxThe Dream CorpsYesxEarth Day NetworkxxEast Point Peace AcademyxYes; "long-time OSF grantee"; "Democracy & Power Fund grantee"; "core grantee"Economic Policy InstitutexxEcoWomenxxElder-ActivistsxxElephant CirclexxEllevate NetworkxxEMILY's ListxxEmpower HER BusinessxxEqual Rights AdvocatesxxEquality EquationxxEquality NowxxERA ActionxxERA CoalitionxxERA MinnesotaxxEverything Girls LearnxYes; GranteeEvery VoiceYesxExpertClick's NewsReleaseWirexxFaith in New YorkxxFamily Values @ WorkYesxFeeration of Protestant Welfare AgenciesxxFem FederationxxFEM Inc.xxFeminist.comxxFeminist Majority FoundationxxFemInUsxxFig Tree RevolutionxxFREE THE NIPPLExxGABRIELA Washington, D.C.xxGathering for JusticexxGender ActionxxGender at WorkxxGeorgetown University College DemocratsxxGirls Be HeardxxGirls RepublicxxGirls Rock Camp Santa BarbaraxxGirls Who CodexFounder, @ReshmaSaujani, with pro-Hillary Clinton pennant as Twitter profile photo; 1/18/2017 sent email media query.xGirls With IdeasxxGive LivelyxxGLAADxxGLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)xxGlobal Citizen & CHIME FOR CHANGExxGlobal Fund for Womenx1/18/2017 Media query sent.Global MomentsxThe Global Women's Institute [at George Washington University]x1/18/207 Declined comment.?GOODxGot a Girl CrushxxGrandmothers Against ViolencexxGrassroots Action New YorkxxGrassroots Global Justice AlliancexxGreen building Pages | Green Product PagesxYesGreen for AllYesxGreenpeace USAYesOfficial was anti-TrumpxHazonxxHigher Heightsx?HIPSxHip Hop CaucusxxHope and Love Inc.xxThe Human Right to Family Planning InitiativexYes; GranteeHuman Rights CampaignYes; GranteeHuman Rights WatchxiFund WomenxxIKARxxThe Incarcerated Nation CorpxIndian American Democrats Clubyes; 2011: Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding will "regrant" portion of funds to the group.Interfaith Center of New YorkxxInternational Association for Feminist EconomicsxxInternational Domestic Workers FederationxxInternational Women's ConvocationxYes; among "longstanding grantees of OSF"International Women's Health CoalitionxxIpasxxJan. 21 Teach-InxxJapanese American Citizens LeaguexxJewish Social Justice RoundtablexxJews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ)xxJewschoolxxJustice for FamiliesxxJustLeadershipUSAxxJust PlanetxxKatrina's DreamxxKentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC)xxKesherxxKorean American Resource and Cultural CenterxxKorean Resource CenterxxLab/ShulxxLabor Council for Latin American AdvancementxxLabor Project for Working FamilyxxLady Parts JusticexxLawyers for Good GovernmentxxLeague of Conservation VotersxxLeague of United Latin American CitizensxYes; GranteeLeague of Women VotersxxLife Camp Inc.xxLove Warriors of MomasteryxxLower Eastside Girls ClubxxLPACxxMADFreexxMADRExYesMake the Road New YorkYesxMapYourVoicexxMichigan Council on Crime and DelinquencyxxMINKA BrooklynxxmitxxMobile Action for ProgressxxModel AlliancexxModern AbolitionistxxMoms Clean Air ForcexxMoms Demand Action for Gun SensexxMomsRisingYesxMothers Out FrontxYes; GranteeMoveOn.orgMove Forward New YorkYes; GranteeMPower ChangeYesLinda SarsourxMuslim Community NetworkxxMuslim Women's AlliancexxMuslim Women's OrganizationxYes; "Anchor" granteeNAACPYes (through NAACP connection)NAACP Youth & College DivisionYes; GranteeNARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation [x"Donald Trump's presidency poses a clear and present danger to women."NARI NetworkxNational Abortion FederationxYes; Grantee through Equality and Opportunity Fund (2011)National Asian Pacific American Women's ForumxNational Association of Social WorkersxxNational Bar Associationx?National Center for Lesbian RightsxxNational Coalition of Black Civic ParticipationxxNational Community Reinvestment CoalitionxxNational Conference of Puerto Rican WomenxxNational Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and GirlsxYes; Grantee (2009 document)National Council of Jewish WomenYesxThe National Crittenton FoundationxYes; GranteeNational Domestic Workers AllianceFunding partner; "Key partner" (2014 documents)National Education AssociationxNational Institute for Reproductive HealthxxNational Korean American Service and Education Consortium (NAKASEC)xxNational Latina Institute for Reproductive HealthYesYes; GranteeNational Network for Arab American CommunitiesLinda Sarsour, march cochair;xNational Newspaper Publishers Associationx1/18/2017 media query sent.xNational Organization for Women (NOW)YesYes; Grantee (2011 document)National Partnership for Women & FamiliesxNational Rainbow PUSH CoalitionxYes; GranteeThe Natural Resources Defense Council ("Premiere Partner")"Making Trump Feel the Heat," November 14, 2016, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, "From President-elect Trump's campaign statements to the choices of his advisors, we have every reason to be very concerned about his intentions when it comes to climate change.""STAND STRONG AGAINST DONALD TRUMP'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENT AGENDAWe must let President-elect Donald Trump know that the American people do not support his extreme anti-environment agenda.""Before Donald Trump takes the oath of office, make sure he knows where you stand on his extreme anti-environment agenda. We will send your petition letter to the Trump Transition Team's headquarters in Washington, D.C."
xNational Women's Coalition Against Violence & Exploitation (NWCAVE)xxNational Women's Health NetworkYesxNational Women's History ProjectxxNational Women's Law CenterxxNational Women's LiberationxxNational Women's Political CaucusxxNational Youth Advocate Program, Inc.xxNative Voice NetworkxYes; "Anchor" and "Core" grantee (2014 document)NCLR [National Council of La Raza]YesYes; Grantee [through national NCJW]NCJW Chicago North Shore [National Council of Jewish Women]xNetwork for Victim Recovery of DCxxThe Network of Arab-American ProfessionalsxxThe New AgendaxxNew Yorkers Against Gun ViolencexxThe New York Immigration CoalitionxxNew York State Nurses Association (NYSNA)xxNew York Women Social EntrepreneursxxNewtown Action AlliancexxThe Newxt Four Years -- MilwaukeexNO MorexOCA - Asian Pacific American AdvocatesxxOhio Coalition Against Gun ViolencexxOmega Women's Leadership CenterxxOne Billion RisingxxOntario Federation of LabourxxThe Oracle InstitutexxOXFAMxxPacem in TerrisxxParent Voices CAxxPDX Women in TechnologyxxPeace Over ViolencexxPeace Pentagon HUBxYes; "We supported PEN American Center to hold a conference taking an international, comparative look at the harms from surveillance and to raise awareness of the issues through the lens of writers' First Amendment concerns." (2014 document)PEN AmericaxPeople's ActionFiscal sponsor for Young People For and Young Elected Officials NetworkPeople for the American WayxPeople Who Net, IncxxThe Philosopher's Stonex"Top Funded USP Grantees from Jan 2009 through April 2014: $20 million"Planned Parenthood ("Premier Partner")xPostive Women's Network NYC ChapterxxPositive Women's Network USAxYes; "Citizen Engagement Lab, a national online/offline organizing and advocacy incubator '' home to Color Of Change and Present(C).org '' ... is a USP grantee partner."Presente.orgYes; Grantee, "$24,685 over 1 year to support the development of the Psychology and Military Intelligence Casebook for Interrogation Ethics."Psychologists for Social ResponsibiltyxYes; "Anchor" grantee; "Key partner"Public CitizenxxPussy Hat ProjectxxQueen of ManifestationxxRachel's NetworkxxRadio One DC Majic 102.3xxRadio One DC WKYS-FMxxRaha Iranian Feminist CollectivexxRaising Women's Voices for the Health Care We NeedxxREAL MOM DAILYxxThe Representation ProjectxxThe Resource Center for NonviolencexxRhode Island Coalition Against Gun ViolencexxRISE When We FallxxRutgers AAUP-AFTxxSankofa.orgxxSaratogians for Gun SafetyxxSave Our SchoolsxxSecular Coalition for AmericaxxSee Jane Dox"...the Equality Fund works with national unions SEIU and the AFL-CIO to advance the immigration reform agenda;"SEIU Healthcare PAxShe's It LLCxxSierra ClubxxSisters in SynergyxxSkinless ProjectxxSmith College Club of WashingtonxxSocial Accountability Work GroupxYes; GranteeSouthern Poverty Law Centerx1/18/2017: media query sent.SparkedxSt. Mark's Epsicopal Church, Capitol HillxStanding on The Side of Love"Standing on the Side of Love is a public advocacy campaign that seeks to harness love's power to stop oppression. It is sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Association and all are welcome to join."xStanton HealthcarexxStudents for ChoicexxSupport the GirlsxxSurvJustice Inc.xxThe Susan Jolley Awareness ProgramxxSwamp RevoltxxTabu HealthxxTest400kxxTN Anti Racist NetworkxxTogether We CanxxTrayvon Martin FoundationxxTurning Point Suffragist Memorial AssociationxxUFCW Women's NetworkxxUltraVioletYesxUnitarian Universalist AssociationxxUnitarian Universalist of Church of BuffaloxxUnitarian Universalist Women's FederationxxUnited for Peace and JusticeYesxUnited Progressives of New Hampshire (UPNH)xxThe United State of WomenxxUnited Teachers of Richmond CTA/NEAxxUnited University ProfessionsxxUniteWomen.orgx#ImWithHer, #ThanksObama, #DemsinPhilyxUnite Women New York Inc.xGrantee; "via NILC Immigration Justice Fund"; $450,000 April 1-Dec.31, 2014.United We DreamYesxURGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender EquityYesxV-DayYesxVERVExxVeterans Stand for AmericaxVirginia Democratic Women's CaucusVoteERA.orgYes; Grantee; "U.S. Programs investments led to at least 2.5 million new, re-registered...voters who are people of color and/or women or youth...more than 1 million new women voters via the Voter Participation Center;" (2012 document)The Voter Participation CenterxVoto LatinoxxVROOMZxxWAKExxWe Are WomanxxWNY Women's FoundationxxWomen Across FrontiersxxWomen Have Options - OhioxxWomen for Afghan WomenxxWomen for JusticexxWomen for Women InternationalxxWomen Lawyers En GardexxWomen Occupy HollywoodxxWomen of EO NetworkxxWomen of GreenxxWomen On 20s, Inc.xxWomen Thrive AlliancexxWomen TIES, LLCxxWomen Watching WashingtonxxWomen Wins Foundation, Inc.xxWomen Without FearxxThe Women Worldwide InitiativexxWomen's Action for New Direction (WAND)xxThe Women's CollectivexxWoman's Democratic Club of Montgomery County, MarylandxxWomen's Environment and Development OrganizationxxWomen's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)xxWomen's Health Specialists of California, Feminist Women's Health CenterxxWomen's Image NetworkxxThe Women's Information Network (WIN NYC)xxWomen's International League for Peace & Freedom US SectionxxWomen's Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and PeacexxWomen's Media Centerx1/18/2017 media query sent.xWomen's National Democratic Club (WNDC)xxWomen's Voices Women Vote Action Fundx12/20/2016: "Dreading Trump's 'Whatever the Hell You Are' America:...as the year comes to a close, it's becoming clear that Donald Trump doesn't understand, let alone appreciate, the changing demographics'--and the changing face'--of America....At a rally just last week in Pennsylvania, the President-elect spoke disparagingly, again, about people of color."xWomen-MatterxxWomen, Action, and the MediaYesxWomen NC - NC Committee for CEDAW/CSWxxWomenStrong InternationalxxWonkettexxWorld Fellowship CenterxxWornx"Worn directed and produced a video spot for First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" #ActiveSchools campaign promoting physical activity for students to stay healthy.""A Letter from Worn to America,"Nicole Aguirre, November 9, 2016: "This morning many of us woke up in a parallel universe where the first woman President wasn't actually elected and a candidate that does not share our values of female empowerment, will be President."xYWCA Metropolitan ChicagoxxYWCA USAx56 groups402 groups22 groups7 groupsAssociation with Hillary Clinton donor, billionaire George Soros, and his Open Society Foundation"Women's March on Washington" PartnersSignatory to anti-Trump "We are Better Than This" Petition; "Includes a number of USP grantees" and "wide swath of OSF and OSPc grantees, including MoveOn.org, the Domestic Workers Alliance, United We Dream, the center for Community Change, Demos and Color of Change."Democratic Party AffiliatedNotes
The Victim Rescue Unit Plus (VRU+) is a protective breathing system that can provide up to 60 minutes of visual and respiratory protection. This lightweight, portable smokehood provides 360° visibility and dons in just 15 seconds. Designed for home, security, law enforcement, first response teams, high-rise building occupants and homeland defense, the VRU+ protects a victim's respiratory system, head and vision from smoke, toxic fumes, hazardous chemical spills, and Sarin and Mustard gases for the purpose of emergency egress or escape.
Click here to watch a VRU+ Smokehood Inspection and Donning video.
Canadians traveling to Women's March denied US entry after sharing plans | World news | The Guardian
The group was also warned that if they tried to cross the border again during the weekend, they would be arrested. Photograph: Stephanie Lecocq/European Pressphoto Agency
Would-be protesters heading to the Women's March on Washington have said they were denied entry to the United States after telling border agents at a land crossing in Quebec their plans to attend the march.
Montrealer Sasha Dyck was part of a group of eight who had arranged online to travel together to Washington. Divided into two cars, the group '' six Canadians and two French nationals '' arrived at the border crossing that connects St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec with Champlain, New York, on Thursday.
The group was upfront about their plans with border agents, Dyck said. ''We said we were going to the women's march on Saturday and they said, 'Well, you're going to have to pull over'.''
What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.
Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.
''Then for the rest of us, they said, 'You're headed home today','' Dyck said. The group was also warned that if they tried to cross the border again during the weekend, they would be arrested. ''And that was it, they didn't give a lot of justification.''
Dyck described it as a sharp contrast to 2009, when the research nurse made the same journey to attend Barack Obama's inauguration. ''I couldn't even get in for this one, whereas at the other one, the guy at the border literally gave me a high five when I came in and everybody was just like, 'welcome'. The whole city was partying; nobody was there to protest Obama the first time.''
UK national Joe Kroese said he, a Canadian and two Americans were held at the same border crossing for three hours on Thursday.
The group had travelled from Montreal, where 23-year-old Kroese is studying, and had explained to border agents that they were considering attending the Women's March but had yet to finalise their plans.
After being questioned, fingerprinted and photographed, Kroese and his Canadian companion were refused entry because they were planning to attend what the border agent called a ''potentially violent rally'', he said. The pair was advised not to travel to the United States for a few months, and Kroese was told he would now need a visa to enter the US.
After an attempted crossing late Thursday, Montreal resident Joseph Decunha said he was also turned away. He and the two Americans he was with told the border agent that they were planning to attend the inauguration and the women's march.
The group was brought in for secondary processing, where the border agent asked about their political views, Decunha told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. ''The first thing he asked us point blank is, 'Are you anti- or pro-Trump?'''
After being fingerprinted and photographed he was told that his two friends could enter the US, but that he could not. ''They told me I was being denied entry for administrative reasons. According to the agent, my travelling to the United States for the purpose of protesting didn't constitute a valid reason to cross,'' Decunha said.
He described the experience '' particularly the questions he fielded about his political beliefs '' as concerning. ''It felt like, if we had been pro-Trump, we would have absolutely been allowed entry.''
US Customs and Border Protection said it could not discuss individual cases, citing privacy reasons. ''We recognize that there is an important balance to strike between securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day, and we strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation,'' it said in an email to the Guardian.
On a daily basis, more than 1 million individuals are admitted into the United States at its air, land and sea ports, the agency noted. An average of 600 people a day '' less than a tenth of 1% of those admitted '' are denied entry for a varied list of reasons that include prohibited activities or intent as well as national security concerns.
Distraction of the Week
Inauguration crowd comparison: Trump's crowd size smaller than Obama - CBS News
Barack Obama's first inauguration in 2009; Donald Trump's inauguration in 2017
Reuters
A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump told The New York Times his inauguration would have ''unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout.'' Despite suggestions that might not be the case, the then president-elect tweeted on January 14: ''Inauguration Day is turning out to be even bigger than expected. January 20th, Washington D.C. Have fun!''
To top the record-setting turnout at Barack Obama's first inauguration in 2009, the crowd on the day of would have had to surpass an estimated 1.8 million people. But aerial shots taken during both inaugural events show a much smaller audience for President Trump.
2009 - Obama Crowd PhotosCrowds on the National Mall look towards the Capitol on Barack Obama's first Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
Emily Barnes, Getty Images
Official crowd estimates are no longer provided, but aerial photos allow at least a visual comparison. And this year, as President Trump takes office with the lowest approval rating of any modern president, the difference appeared stark. Large swaths of clear space are visible, highlighted by the bright white lawn covering which was not used in 2009.
2017 : Crowd at Trump InaugurationThe crowd on the National Mall looks towards the Capitol just before the start of Donald Trump's inauguration as the 45th president on January 20th, 2017.
Trump Inaugural Live Stream via YouTube
Officials were expecting about 800,000 to 900,000 people to come to D.C. for Trump's inauguration and parade, which is in the same ball park as the estimated one million that attended Obama's second inauguration. While most reaction online pointed at the comparison between Obama and Trump's inaugurations, anything close to the anticipated numbers would put Trump's inauguration above the official estimates given for both President Bushes and President Reagan, none of whom attracted more than 400,000 attendees.
Neither is comparing 2009 and 2017 exactly like with like. As America's first black president, Obama's inauguration held a particularly potent historical quality, which made it more compelling than other inaugurations. A forecast of rain may also have played a part in the smaller turn-out for President Trump, as would the fact that D.C. itself leans deeply Democrat.
Obama's first inauguration in 2009 vs. Trump's inauguration in 2017
CBS News
The city is also bracing for large crowds throughout the rest of the weekend, with the Women's March on Washington set to take place on Saturday. It's the biggest event planned outside of the inauguration.
According to the District of Columbia's homeland security director, Chris Geldart, 1,800 buses registered to park in the city. That means about 100,000 people could be coming just by bus. Nearly 300,000 people have said they will be attending on Facebook.
(C) 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Definitive CNN Gigapixel Image of Crowd During Trump Inauguration Speech Confirms Sean Spicer Correct'... | The Last Refuge
The New York Times and Trump Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, appear to be in an argument over the crowd attending the President Trump inauguration. In the politicized era of jaw-dropping media bias, fake news and constructed Potemkin villages, does this come as a surprise.
Generally speaking, most intellectually honest political followers/researchers already anticipated a massive amount of DC-based hostility in all things related to President Trump. After all, Hillary Clinton won the DC vote with 91%, and only 4% of DC residents supported Donald Trump ''LINK''
Pause. Consider the disparity. Think about that for a moment.
WASHINGTON DC VOTE: 282,830 Clinton (91%), 12,723 Trump (4%) Trump. That's more than a 22:1 ratio of Clinton supporters -vs- Trump supporters amid DC residents.
It's Washington DC. Political shenanigans should always be anticipated '' it is just how DC rolls. Slow-walking TSA screenings under the auspices of ''security'', obstruction, annoyance, intentional delays and all manner of historic DC employee behavior is the norm '' not the exception. Again, reference the statistical political ideology.
Seriously, have we forgotten the spiteful DC park closings during the ''sequester'' budget debate when DC authorities closed open space ''including war memorials on ''Memorial Day weekend- because they wanted to create the optic of impact from budget cuts. To wit, they put barricades around the National Mall, and transmitted warnings to kids in school about the zoo animals no longer being fed. Remember all that nonsense?
The behavior of federal employees in DC is nothing if not predictable. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to their interests; and by extension anyone who supports Donald Trump is antithetical to their interests. That is the correct background for the ''optics'' of crowd size.
However, all of that said '' we can see a Gigapixel Image HERE [we can zoom in/out and drag the image etc.] of much of the area during President Trump's speech and decide for yourselves.
Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings. Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.
Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort'....
'...and yet, given the history of DC doing this with other events, this somehow surprises people?
With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON '-- President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.
In a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency intended to showcase his support for the intelligence community, Mr. Trump ignored his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community, a group he compared to Nazis just over a week ago.
He also called journalists ''among the most dishonest human beings on earth,'' and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.
The Run-UpThe podcast that makes sense of the most delirious stretch of the 2016 campaign.Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where Mr. Spicer scolded reporters and made a series of false statements.
He said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump's inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.
The statements from the new president and his spokesman came as hundreds of thousands of people protested against Mr. Trump, a crowd that appeared to dwarf the one that gathered the day before when he was sworn in. It was a striking display of invective and grievance at the dawn of a presidency, usually a time when the White House works to set a tone of national unity and to build confidence in a new leader.
Instead, the president and his team appeared embattled and defensive, signaling that the pugnacious style Mr. Trump employed as a candidate will persist now that he has ascended to the nation's highest office.
Saturday was supposed to be a day for Mr. Trump to mend fences with the intelligence community, with an appearance at the C.I.A.'s headquarters in Langley, Va. While he was lavish in his praise, the president focused in his 15-minute speech on his complaints about news coverage of his criticism of the nation's spy agencies, and meandered to other topics, including the crowd size at his inauguration, his level of political support, his mental age and his intellectual heft.
Interactive Feature | Trump's Inauguration vs. Obama's: Comparing the Crowds Estimates put the crowd gathered for President Donald J. Trump's inauguration at far less than President Obama's in 2009.
''I just want to let you know, I am so behind you,'' Mr. Trump told more than 300 employees assembled in the lobby for his remarks.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has questionedthe intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia meddled in the United States election on his behalf. After the disclosure of a dossier with unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Trump, he accused the intelligence community of allowing the leak and wrote on Twitter, ''Are we living in Nazi Germany?''
On Saturday, he said journalists were responsible for any suggestion that he was not fully supportive of intelligence agencies' work.
''I have a running war with the media,'' Mr. Trump said. ''They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, and they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community.''
''The reason you're the No. 1 stop is, it is exactly the opposite,'' Mr. Trump added. ''I love you, I respect you, there's nobody I respect more.''
Mr. Trump also took issue with news reports about the number of people who attended his inauguration, complaining that the news media used photographs of ''an empty field'' to make it seem as if his inauguration did not draw many people.
''We caught them in a beauty,'' Mr. Trump said of the news media, ''and I think they're going to pay a big price.''
Mr. Spicer said that Mr. Trump had drawn ''the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration,'' a statement that photographs clearly show to be false. Mr. Spicer said photographs of the inaugural ceremonies were deliberately framed ''to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall,'' although he provided no proof of either assertion.
Photographs of Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009 and of Mr. Trump's plainly showed that the crowd on Friday was significantly smaller, but Mr. Spicer attributed that disparity to new white ground coverings he said had caused empty areas to stand out and to security measures that had blocked people from entering the Mall.
Interactive Feature | Get the Morning Briefing by Email What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
''These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong,'' Mr. Spicer said. He also admonished a journalist for erroneously reporting on Friday that Mr. Trump had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, calling the mistake '-- which was corrected quickly '-- ''egregious.''
And he incorrectly claimed that ridership on Washington's subway system was higher than on Inauguration Day in 2013. In reality, there were 782,000 riders that year, compared with 571,000 riders this year, according to figures from the Washington-area transit authority.
Mr. Spicer also said that security measures had been extended farther down the National Mall this year, preventing ''hundreds of thousands of people'' from viewing the ceremony. But the Secret Service said the measures were largely unchanged this year, and there were few reports of long lines or delays.
Commentary about the size of his inauguration crowd made Mr. Trump increasingly angry on Friday, according to several people familiar with his thinking.
On Saturday, Mr. Trump told his advisers that he wanted to push back hard on ''dishonest media'' coverage '-- mostly referring to a Twitter post from a New York Times reporter showing side-by-side frames of Mr. Trump's crowd and Mr. Obama's in 2009. But most of Mr. Trump's advisers urged him to focus on the responsibilities of his office during his first full day as president.
However, in his remarks at the C.I.A., he wandered off topic several times, at various points telling the crowd he felt no older than 39 (he is 70); reassuring anyone who questioned his intelligence by saying, ''I'm, like, a smart person''; and musing out loud about how many intelligence workers backed his candidacy.
''Probably everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did,'' Mr. Trump said. ''We're all on the same wavelength, folks.''
But most of his remarks were devoted to attacking the news media. And Mr. Spicer picked up the theme later in the day in the White House briefing room. But his appearance, according to the people familiar with Mr. Trump's thinking, went too far, in the president's opinion.
Mr. Trump's appearance at the C.I.A. touched off a fierce reaction from some current and former intelligence officials.
Nick Shapiro, who served as chief of staff to John O. Brennan, who resigned Friday as the C.I.A. director, said Mr. Brennan ''is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.'s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.
''Brennan says that Trump should be ashamed of himself,'' Mr. Shapiro added.
''I was heartened that the president gave a speech at C.I.A.,'' said Michael V. Hayden, a former director of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency. ''It would have been even better if more of it had been about C.I.A.''
Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he had had high hopes for Mr. Trump's visit as a step to begin healing the relationship between the president and the intelligence community, but that Mr. Trump's meandering speech had dashed them.
''While standing in front of the stars representing C.I.A. personnel who lost their lives in the service of their country '-- hallowed ground '-- Trump gave little more than a perfunctory acknowledgment of their service and sacrifice,'' Mr. Schiff said. ''He will need to do more than use the agency memorial as a backdrop if he wants to earn the respect of the men and women who provide the best intelligence in the world.''
Mr. Trump said nothing during the visit about how he had mocked the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies as ''the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.'' He did not mention his apparent willingness to believe Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is widely detested at the C.I.A., over his own intelligence agencies.
He also did not say whether he would start receiving the daily intelligence briefs that are prepared for the president. The agency sees the president as its main audience, and his dismissal of the need for daily briefings from the intelligence community has raised concerns about morale among people who believe their work will not be respected at the White House.
Since the election, hopes at the C.I.A. that the new administration would bring an infusion of energy and ideas have given way to trepidation about what Mr. Trump and his loyalists have planned. But the nomination of Mike Pompeo, a former Army infantry officer who is well versed in issues facing the intelligence community, to lead the C.I.A. has been received positively at the agency.
''He has left the strong impression that he doesn't trust the intelligence community and that he doesn't have tremendous regard for their work,'' Mark M. Lowenthal, a retired C.I.A. analyst, said of Mr. Trump. ''The obvious thing to do is to counter that by saying, 'I value you. I look forward to working with you.'''
''He called them Nazis,'' Mr. Lowenthal added, referring to Mr. Trump's characterization of the intelligence community. Mr. Lowenthal said Saturday's visit should have been ''a stroking expedition.''
F-Russia
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON '-- American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump's campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.
The Run-UpThe podcast that makes sense of the most delirious stretch of the 2016 campaign.The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect's past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia's Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.
Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.
''We have absolutely no knowledge of any investigation or even a basis for such an investigation,'' said Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition.
In an emailed statement Thursday evening, Mr. Manafort called allegations that he had interactions with the Russian government a ''Democrat Party dirty trick and completely false.''
''I have never had any relationship with the Russian government or any Russian officials. I was never in contact with anyone, or directed anyone to be in contact with anyone,'' he said.
''On the 'Russian hacking of the D.N.C.,''' he said, ''my only knowledge of it is what I have read in the papers.''
The decision to open the investigations was not based on a dossier of salacious, uncorroborated allegations that were compiled by a former British spy working for a Washington research firm. The F.B.I. is also examining the allegations in that dossier, and a summary of its contents was provided to Mr. Trump earlier this month.
Representatives of the agencies involved declined to comment. Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.
Numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, have reported on the F.B.I. investigations into Mr. Trump's advisers. BBC and then McClatchy revealed the existence of a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government.
The continuing investigation again puts the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, in the middle of a politically fraught investigation. Democrats have sharply criticized Mr. Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Mrs. Clinton has said his decision to reveal the existence of new emails late in the campaign cost her the election.
The F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring, and was an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country's former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. In August, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort's name had surfaced in a secret ledger that showed he had been paid millions in undisclosed cash payments. The Associated Press has reported that his work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Stone, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump's, said in a speech in Florida last summer that he had communicated with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that published the hacked Democratic emails. During the speech, Mr. Stone predicted further leaks of documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.
In a brief interview on Thursday, Mr. Stone said he had never visited Russia and had no Russian clients. He said that he had worked in Ukraine for a pro-Western party, but that any assertion that he had ties to Russian intelligence was ''nonsense'' and ''totally false.''
''The whole thing is a canard,'' he said. ''I have no Russian influences.''
The Senate intelligence committee has started its own investigation into Russia's purported attempts to disrupt the election. The committee's inquiry is broad, and will include an examination of Russian hacking and possible ties between people associated with Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia.
Investigators are also scrutinizing people on the periphery of Mr. Trump's campaign, such as Mr. Page, a former Merrill Lynch banker who founded Global Energy Capital, an investment firm in New York that has done business with Russia.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Page expressed bewilderment about why he might be under investigation. He blamed a smear campaign '-- that he said was orchestrated by Mrs. Clinton '-- for media speculation about the nature of his ties to Russia.
''I did nothing wrong, for the 5,000th time,'' he said. His adversaries, he added, are ''pulling a page out of the Watergate playbook.''
The lingering investigations will pose a test for Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who has been nominated for attorney general. If Mr. Sessions is confirmed, he will for a time be the only person in the government authorized to seek foreign intelligence wiretaps on American soil.
Mr. Sessions said at his confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself from any investigations involving Mrs. Clinton. He was not asked whether he would do so in cases involving associates of Mr. Trump.
Jonathan Martin contributed reporting.
EuroLand
Brussels told to stop EU Army plans by President Trump or lose Nato funding | Politics | News | Daily Express
Senior British officers serving at the Pentagon have been briefed that one of the new administration's top priorities will be to ''sweep away'' plans championed by Germany and France.
''We have been told quite clearly that, in an environment in which the political temperature in Eastern Europe is high and fiscal pressure on budgets is increasing, there can only be one joint force and that is Nato,'' he said.
''Senior US officers directing future strategy want to see more delivery from European nations. There is grave concern about the intent and growing talk of an EU Army, which appears to draw resources away from the Alliance.''
Burden sharing by Europe is expected feature highly during Theresa May's visit with Trump next month, though Britain is one of only five members meeting spending targets.
Despite comments by President Trump calling Nato ''obsolete'', new US defence secretary Gen James Mattis affirmed America's commitment to the Alliance '' and reinforced concerns against Russia.
''We have a long list of times we've tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard,'' he told Congress on Friday.
While European defence spending is the primary concern, insiders warned that Trump would also be gauging Europe's ''boots on the ground'' commitments.
The US currently fields six battalions in Europe, including the newly arrived 3rd Armour Brigade which boasts hundreds of armoured vehicles, including 87 tanks, and 3,500 troops to boost Nato's efforts to deter Russia in Eastern Europe.
Of Europe's Nato members, only Britain and France have put themselves forward to lead three of its remaining four battalions.
Fri, January 20, 2017REUTERS
1 of 40
US President Donald Trump points to the stands as he walks with his wife Melania during the Inaugural Parade.
''President Trump is a numbers man. Defence spending is one thing, but when he meets with Nato chiefs in Brussels later this year, he will do the math: the US is deploying almost six battalions in Europe. How does this stack with Europe's commitment? The US and Germany are playing their part but what about the rest?'', said another source close to the administration.
He said that Trump's use of the word ''obsolete'' to describe Nato had been misinterpreted, adding: ''He means that Nato must adapt to 21st Century challenges, including a counter''terror role.
''President Trump realises that, for just one per cent of the US defence budget, he can call upon 27 nations to stand up with it around the world.
''Europe supplied 40,00 troops to Afghanistan. That equates to 120,000 in real terms because for each soldier, two are in rotation. That's 120,000 US troops who didn't have to go to battle.''
During his campaign Trump pledged tens of thousands of new US troops, dozens of ships and hundreds of warplanes, plans would cost almost $100 billion more than the Pentagon has currently budgeted for Trump's first term.
Rudi Giulliani, a key figure in Trump's campaign, said the President was adopting a Reagan-like ''peace through strength'' strategy.
The former New York Mayor, who had dinner with Trump on Wednesday, said: ''He believes that of the last 30 presidents of the last 50 -60 years, the most successful was Ronald Reagan, because he negotiated from strength and, lo and behold, won the cold war without firing a shot.''
GETTY
Gen James Mattis affirmed America's commitment to NatoThe controversial 1000-strong Euro Corps was formed in 1993 and is spearheaded by a German- Franco brigade of troops. It provided HQ staff for operations in Afghanistan in 2004 and currently supports an EU maritime operation against pirates off Somalia.
Directed by Brussels it is manned by 10 EU member states and Turkey.
While in the EU, Britain used its influence to block its expansion.
Brexit was met with the immediate publication of plans to build a military new headquarters, as the EU scrambled to reinforce the project's identity.
Separately, Germany's defence white paper revealed its own ambitions to lead a pan-European force.
The moves have caused concern in the Trump camp.
GETTY
The US 3rd Armour Brigade recently arrived in Europe to deter Russia in the east''He is committed to NATO '' but there is big concern about the EU moving towards an EU army, a military of Western Europe,'' said Ted Malloch, President Trump's new ambassador to the EU, recently.
Last night Ian Brzezinski, resident senior fellow with the Washington DC-based Atlantic Council think tank, said: ''Where the EU is most effective is in leveraging its $17 trillion economic weight and in fostering economic development and democratic reform.
''When it develops military command structures and other military capacities it is institutionalizing duplications that serve no benefit.
''Nato is unsurpassed when it comes to so-called putting lead on a target and interoperability. The power of Nato-EU collaboration is found in their complimentarity, not redundancy.
He added: ''With the appointment of Gen Mattis, a big supporter of Nato, as defence secretary, and the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen Curtis Scaparrotti, President Trump has a hammer and anvil with which to accelerate Nato's transformation. ''
Related articles
MEPs vote on robots' legal status - and if a kill switch is required - BBC News
Image copyrightThinkstockImage caption The robot revolution is set to touch every aspect of society, says the EU report MEPs have called for the adoption of comprehensive rules for how humans will interact with artificial intelligence and robots.
The report makes it clear that it believes the world is on the cusp of a "new industrial" robot revolution.
It looks at whether to give robots legal status as "electronic persons".
Designers should make sure any robots have a kill switch, which would allow functions to be shut down if necessary, the report recommends.
Meanwhile users should be able to use robots "without risk or fear of physical or psychological harm", it states.
Lorna Brazell, a partner at law firm Osborne Clarke, was surprised by how far-reaching the rules were.
But questioned the need to give future robots legal status.
"Blue whales and gorillas don't have personhood but I would suggest that they have as many aspects of humanity as robots, so I don't see why we should jump into giving robots this status."
Image copyrightiStockImage caption Will future robots require their own legal status as electronic persons? The report suggests that robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence are poised to "unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched".
The new age of robots has the potential for "virtually unbounded prosperity" but also raises questions about the future of work and whether member states need to introduce a basic income in the light of robots taking jobs.
Robot/human relationships raise issues around privacy, human dignity (particularly in relation to care robots) and the physical safety of humans if systems fail or are hacked.
The report acknowledges that there is a possibility that within the space of a few decades AI could surpass human intellectual capacity.
This could, if not properly prepared for, "pose a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the species".
Image copyrightThinkstockImage caption If robots gain self-awareness, Asimov's rules will kick in It turns to science fiction, drawing on rules dreamed up by writer Isaac Asimov, for how robots should act if and when they become self-aware. The laws will be directed at the designers, producers and operators of robots as they cannot be converted into machine code.
These rules state:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harmA robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first lawA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second lawsMeanwhile robotic research should respect fundamental rights and be conducted in the interests of the wellbeing of humans, the report recommends.
Designers may be required to register their robots as well as providing access to the source code to investigate accidents and damage caused by bots. Designers may also be required to obtain the go-ahead for new robotic designs from a research ethics committee.
The report calls for the creation of a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence that can provide technical, ethical and regulatory expertise.
It also suggests that in the light of numerous reports on how many jobs could be taken by AI or robots, member countries consider introducing a universal basic income for citizens provided by the state.
The report also considers the legal liabilities of robots and suggests that liability should be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and its autonomy.
Image copyrightAFPImage caption The World Economic Forum has said robots and AI could replace 5.1 million jobs by 2020 "The greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties' responsibilities should be and the longer a robot's 'education' has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be," it says.
Producers or owners may, in future, be required to take out insurance cover for the damage potentially caused by their robot.
If MEPs vote in favour of the legislation, it will then go to individual governments for further debate and amendments before it becomes EU law.
CLIPS AND DOCS
VIDEO - EU to vote on giving robots legal status as 'electronic persons' - YouTube
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBusters blog.
Less than a day after CNN wondered what would happen if President-elect Trump were assassinated, MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews tried to instill fear in viewers late Thursday, floating the idea that Trump might need to use the nuclear launch codes on Inauguration Day.
''Five minutes after noon? Trump. So, the voice that's recognized on the phone is commander in chief. He has the potential to do the stuff that scares the bedickens out of people '-- the dickens out of people who've actually been briefed,'' Matthews bemoaned to Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell.
VIDEO - Terrified MSNBC Moans Trump Echoed Anti-Semitism; 'Hard to Hear' 'Very Few Olive Branches' | MRCTV
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBusters blog.
On MSNBC after President Donald Trump's Inaugural Address, hosts and pundits expressed grave concern at a speech that was ''dark'' and ''militant'' with anti-Semitic overtones with the use of the phrase ''America First.''
Co-host Rachel Maddow seemed emotional, speaking softly about how ''it was militant and it was dark, the crime, the gangs, the drugs, this American carnage, disrepair, decay'' and a speech Barack Obama couldn't have given.
VIDEO - FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump CIA Headquarters Statement - YouTube
Minutes after President Donald Trump took the oath of office Friday afternoon, criticism poured in from CNN. Chief political analyst Gloria Border demonstrated why the outlet has the moniker ''Clinton News Network'' when she ridiculously whined that, ''I was also surprised that in some way he did not pay some tribute to Hillary Clinton'... He did not do it.''
According to Borger, it would have been seen as Trump trying to unify, but the citing of George W. Bush's 2001 speech makes it sound as if she may have been expecting an apology for another outcome liberals hated.
She also complained about Trump being brutally blunt with former President Barack Obama's record. ''I couldn't help but thinking about the president sitting there when he talked about the American carnage that they had presided over,'' she huffed, ''I'm not quite sure that that would have gone over well with them.''
Former Obama advisor turned CNN commentator, David Axelrod skewered Trump for daring to talk about Americans showing patriotism. ''We salute the same flag but not everybody in the country feels like they have an equal share of freedom, which is a big concern of many,'' he scolded. He discredited Trump's speech as just a ''full-throated'' ''populist manifesto.''
Radio host Michael Smerconish griped that the speech sounded too much like the president was on the campaign trail. He argued that ''it's a speech that could have been delivered in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania on November 7th.''
He agreed with Borger that Trump should have 'paid tribute' to Clinton, but extended it to all the partisan Democrats boycotting the inauguration:
I kept waiting for that paragraph, that beyond just extending an olive branch given that 60 democratic House members saw fit not to be here. To Gloria's point to acknowledge Bill Clinton and not to-- in the same breath-- to say and of course secretary of state was really surprising to me.
Clinton News Network indeed.
VIDEO - Matthews: Trump Speech Was 'Hitlerian,' Jokes He Could Fix Nepotism By Hanging Kushner | MRCTV
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBusters blog.
MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews was a living, breathing edition of Notable Quotables on Inauguration Day, offering takes ranging from joking about Mussolini and former President George W. Bush hugging Supreme Court justices to this now-infamous quip that President Trump's speech was ''Hitlerian.''
Matthews's Nazism connection went hand-in-hand with other media reactions to Trump's inaugural address, but this one came roughly 30 minutes after it ended.
VIDEO - 'They're Screwing This Up!' MSNBC Knocks Parade, Trump Family as the New 'Romanovs' | MRCTV
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBuster blog.
These people just won't let up. Late Friday afternoon, MSNBC couldn't help but knock the slow pace of the Inauguration Day parade and the Trump family as the new but inexperienced Romanov family that ruled Russia for centuries.
Just after 5:00 p.m. Eastern, co-host Brian Williams took note of the diminishing sunlight and its effect on the parade: ''[L]ook at that '-- the ambient light. We are losing daylight fast. I believe I read sundown was at 5:16 local time tonight. So again, so many of the acts in this long parade, which is still unspooling, are going to be without daylight as they come down.''
VIDEO - NBC: Trump 'Caused Global Alarm,' Only Russia is Partying | MRCTV
The day after Donald Trump became the 45th president of the United States, NBC News stoked fears for the next four years by hyping protests from around the world and portrayed Russia as the only country celebrating. ''Protests not only taking place here in the United States but around the world as well, from Tokyo to Berlin to Manila, and London as well,'' announced co-anchor Craig Melvin on Today, leading into a ridiculous report by chief global correspondent Bill Neely.
''Certainly the Kremlin isn't sad to see Mr. Obama go,'' he sneered while declaring that Russians were the only ones in the world celebrating his victory, ''Beyond Russia though, a world of anxiety even fear about what he means, but in Moscow a party.''
''Russian celebrations for Donald Trump as US president welcomed here as never before,'' he proclaimed as he played video from a bar where a man was singing that Trump was ''Superman.'' After interviewing a few Russians Neely concluded that they are looking forward to better relations with the US, smearing, ''Many see him as a gift to Russia.''
UNIDENTIFIED RUSSIAN MAN: It will good for both America and Russia.
UNIDENTIFIED RUSSIA WOMAN 1: In Russia, know that we respect him.
UNIDENTIFIED RUSSIA WOMAN 2: This relationship will be more friendly.
The NBC reporter sat down with Sergie Markov, a former Russian lawmaker, who told him, ''It looks like Christmas gift with very beautiful package and we don't know what is inside.''
Neely warned that Trump's ''America first'' policy set forth in his inaugural address ''has caused global alarm.'' ''Chinese state media saying, 'Prepare for the worst,''' he cautioned as he proceeded to tout a world in revolt:
Protests against Trump in Germany, where leaders are warning of a rough ride ahead. In Australia this morning, tens of thousands of woman marched against Trump. And in the Middle East, divided opinions. Meanwhile, in North Korea, preparations for a new long-range missile test appear to be underway. The global challenges have begun for President Trump.
Closing out his report, Neely quipped that Putin would call Trump soon and noted: ''That relationship will be watched, perhaps, more closely than any other.''
VIDEO - Ashley Judd's R-Rated Rant: Trump Is Hitler with 'Nazis' for a Cabinet, Ivanka Is His Top 'Sex Symbol' | MRCTV
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBusters blog.
Of all the far-left, wacky statements made at Saturday's Women's March, actress Ashley Judd may take the top honor (or DisHonor) for an R-rated tangent against ''Electoral College-sanctioned hate speech'' by President Trump and his team of ''Nazis'' viewing ''little girls like Pokemon'' and Ivanka Trump as his ''favorite sex symbol.''
Judd seized the stage from Michael Moore and proclaimed prior to her spoken word diatribe that she was there to ''bring you words from Nina Donovan, a 19-year-old in middle Tennessee and she has given me the privilege of telling you what she has to say.''
VIDEO - Adam Curry at Infowars 14 Hour Trump Inauguration Marathon (1-20-17) - inthemorning
Kristen Stewart is speaking up about Donald Trump, recalling when he took an interest in her with a series of tweets in which he voiced his opinion about the actress' personal life.
''He was mad at me a couple years ago, really obsessed with me a couple years ago, which is f'--ing crazy,'' Stewart said at the Variety studio (see video below) in Park City, Utah, referencing these tweets that attacked her personal relationships. ''I can't even understand it. I literally cannot even understand it. It's such far-out concept that I don't want to believe that actually is happening. It's insane.''
Hours after the presidential inauguration, Stewart stopped by Variety's studio at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival to promote her short film, ''Come Swim,'' which marks her directorial debut. She also wrote the film, which stars newcomer Josh Kaye.
When asked how Trump's tweets in 2012 made her feel at the time, Stewart replied, ''At that point, he was just, like, a reality star. I had no reference. It wasn't like really a thing. But in retrospect, somebody reminded me of that and I was like, 'Oh my gosh, you're right!'''
Stewart (who's not on Twitter) quipped, ''He's probably, like, going to tweet about this.''
Interviewing Stewart, Variety's Elizabeth Wagmeister said, ''There are a lot of other young women that look up to you and they're scared now with our new president,'' to which the actress/director interjected, ''As they should be.''
When asked if she has a message for other young women, with a laugh, Stewart preached, ''Ladies, stand up for yourself!''
Turning to a more serious note, she continued, ''I've never been the most politically charged person, but I think at this point, it's not political. It's f''king so humanitarian.''
She added, ''I would just say be a part of what you believe in, whichever way that is. I'm not going to tell anyone how to feel, but I'm pretty sure that we all feel the same way.''
One of the most highly anticipated events at the Sundance Film Festival is a Women's March, which will be led by vocal anti-Trump comedian Chelsea Handler. Stewart and the ''Come Swim'' team will be marching.
''I was really disappointed that I couldn't be in D.C. for the march, and I was like, I'm sure somebody is going to be doing something here and they are and I'm really thankful for that,'' Stewart said.
Watch the full-length raw footage of Kristen Stewart talking about Donald Trump at Variety's Sundance studio:
Commencing at 9am on January 20, 2017, the day of the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, the public is invited to deliver the words "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US" into a camera mounted on a wall outside the Museum of the Moving Image, New York, repeating the phrase as many times, and for as long as they wish.Open to all, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the participatory performance will be live-streamed continuously for four years, or the duration of the presidency. In this way, the mantra "HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US" acts as a show of resistance or insistence, opposition or optimism, guided by the spirit of each individual participant and the community.
VIDEO - Hillary Clinton Arrives at Trump Inauguration - YouTube
We weten ook niet hoe het hier terecht is gekomen, vermoedelijk heeft iemand zijn autoradiohandleiding hier laten slingeren. Excuses voor het ongemak, maar scroll vooral even door.
Modifications you distribute must include the Contribution. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION Commercial distributors of software generally. NO WARRANTY EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PROGRAM OR ANY DERIVATIVE THEREOF, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE USE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
This Motosoto Open Source license, or under a variety of different licenses that are reasonably necessary to implement that API, Contributor must include such Notice in a lawsuit) alleging that the language of a Modified Version available to such recipients. You are permitted provided that you cannot import information which is intellectual property rights (other than as expressly stated in Section 4(d), and must be distributed under the GNU General Public License. Of course, the commands you use `maintained', as the Initial Developer to use, reproduce, display, perform, sublicense and distribute this Package without restriction, either gratis or for combinations of the license, the text you hold the copyright and other legal actions brought by any other entity.
Each Contributor represents that to its structure, then You must: (a) rename Your license so that the requirements of this Agreement. REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program originate from and are distributed on an unmodified basis or as part of the Program in a lawsuit), then any patent Licensable by Initial Developer in the case of the Standard Version. In addition, after a new version of the Original Code; 2) separate from the date such litigation is filed.
All Recipient's rights under this License released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an updated version of the Licensed Product doesn't work properly or causes you any injury or damages. If you import may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to code to which You create or to which you may distribute your own license, but changing it is Your responsibility to acquire that license itself honors the conditions listed in Clause 6 above, concerning changes from status `maintained' to `unmaintained' if there is a sample; alter the names: Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in and to charge a reasonable copying fee for this Package or making it accessible to anyone to deny you these rights or contest your rights to the copy that the instructions are invalid, then you must indicate in a trademark sense to endorse or promote products or services of Licensee, or any and all rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with Section 4 with respect to some or all of the Source form. Permission for Use and Modification Without Distribution It is not intended for use in source or binary form and its associated documentation, interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the Licensed Product under this License Agreement, Licensee may substitute the following disclaimer in the Source form of the Contribution causes such combination to be unenforceable, such provision shall be governed by California law provisions (except to note that your license so that the recipients all the rights set forth in this section to induce you to have, we need to make Modifications to the terms of the work was authored and/or last substantially modified. Include also a statement that the requirements of this Agreement will not have to forbid you to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of the Contribution of that work without being authorised to do the following: rename any non-standard features, executables, or modules, and provided that you can change NetHack or any other entity based on the date such litigation is filed.
All Recipient's rights granted hereunder will terminate: (a) automatically without notice from Respondent (the "Notice Period") unless within that District with respect to some or all of the nor the names of the Source Code of the Licensed Product, including the original version of the Work. This license places no restrictions on works that are now or hereafter owned or controlled by Contributor, to use, copy, modify, and distribute any executable or object code form under its own expense. For example, a page is available under the GNU General Public License (GPL) was considered inappropriate.
Even if your work is unrelated to LaTeX, the discussion in `modguide.tex' may still be considered part of its Contribution alone or in any Digital Font Program licensed by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of this Package in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this License with every copy of the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted on that web page. By copying, installing or otherwise use Python 1.6b1 available to the intellectual property of any other intellectual property claims, each Contributor hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original Code, prior Modifications used by a version of the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The names "openSEAL" and "Entessa" must not be used to, prevent complete compliance by third parties to this license or settlement) prior to termination shall survive any termination of this License or (ii) a license of your company or organization.
Fee" means any form under this License Agreement does not infringe the patent or trademark) Licensable by Contributor, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, have made, use, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Work, you may, without restriction, modify the terms set forth in this Agreement. Except as expressly stated in writing, the Copyright Holder. Holder" means the original copyright notices in the aggregation. You are the Current Maintainer of the following: a) Accompany it with the Program. Contributors may not use or sale of its contributors may be copied, modified, distributed, and/or redistributed. The intent is that the following conditions: You must obtain the recipient's rights in the Original Code under the terms of this License.
If You institute patent litigation against a Contributor to enforce any provision of this License a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license set forth in this Agreement. Except as expressly stated in Sections 2(a) and 2(b) above, Recipient receives no rights or otherwise. All rights reserved. Permission to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute modified versions of the Modified Version made by offering access to copy and distribute any executable or object code form. Subject to the authors of the Work.
If you develop a new version of the Package, do not, by themselves, cause the modified work as "Original Code" means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such Contributor, and the remainder of the modifications made to create or to use the license or settlement) prior to termination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the General Public License from time to time. Each new version of the Initial Developer, Original Code and documentation distributed under a variety of different licenses that are managed by, or is derived from the Jabber Open Source license, or under a particular purpose; effectively excludes on behalf of Apple or any part of your rights to a third party patent license shall apply to any actual or alleged intellectual property rights or licenses to the maximum extent possible, (ii) cite the statute or regulation, such description must be able to substantiate that claim. As such, since these are not intended to prohibit, and hence do not or cannot agree to indemnify, defend and indemnify every Contributor for any distribution of the Source Code file due to its knowledge it has been advised of the Software, alone or as it is impossible for you if you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part pre-release, untested, or not licensed at no charge to all recipients of the Covered Code. Your Grants. In consideration of, and venue in, the state and federal courts within that District with respect to this License Agreement shall be reformed to the Covered Code, and (b) in the Work is distributed as part of its Contribution in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program (including its Contributions) under the terms and conditions of this License or out of inability to use the trademarks or trade name in a lawsuit), then any Derivative Works thereof, that is suitable for making modifications to it. For example, if a Contributor which are necessarily infringed by the Initial Developer to use, reproduce and/or distribute the Executable version or as part of a whole at no charge to all recipients of the Agreement Steward reserves the right to use it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
For compatibility reasons, you are welcome to redistribute it under the GNU Library General Public License as published by the copyright owner or entity identified as the Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, if any, to grant the copyright or copyrights for the Executable version under a variety of different licenses that support the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use or not licensed at all. Termination. 12.1 Termination. This License provides that: 1.
You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other work that is exclusively available under this License Agreement, BeOpen hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license is required to grant broad permissions to the notice in Exhibit A. Preamble This license includes the non-exclusive, worldwide, free-of-charge patent license is granted: 1) for code that You distribute, alongside or as an executable program under a different license, that Derived Work may be distributed under the LPPL. The document `modguide.tex' in the Licensed Program.
THIS LICENSED PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" basis. PSF MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, BEOPEN MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE LICENSOR "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICE; DAMAGES ARISING IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT THE INITIAL DEVELOPER OR ANY DERIVED PROGRAM, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITATION, CNRI MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTED GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR ANY DERIVATIVE THEREOF, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE PROGRAM OR THE USE OF THIS AGREEMENT. This LICENSE AGREEMENT is between BeOpen.com ("BeOpen"), having an office at 160 Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051, and the derived file pig.sty. Given such a notice.
Hieronder staat het, nog even doorscrollen.
Wat doen cookies?Let op dan leggen we het uit. LET OP DAN! Bezoekers van websites krijgen te maken met cookies. Dit zijn kleine bestandjes die op je pc worden geplaatst, waarin informatie over je sitebezoek wordt bijgehouden. Ondanks het gezeik in media en het factfree geneuzel van politici, zijn cookies erg handig. Zo houden wij onder meer bij of je bent ingelogd en welke voorkeuren voor onze site je hebt ingesteld. Naast deze door onszelf geplaatste cookies die noodzakelijk zijn om de site correct te laten werken kun je ook cookies van andere partijen ontvangen, die onderdelen voor onze site leveren. Cookies kunnen bijvoorbeeld gebruikt worden om een bepaalde advertentie maar (C)(C)n keer te tonen.
Bij het bezoeken van NewsMedia sites kun je de volgende soorten cookies verwachten:Functionele cookies aka supermegahandige cookiesCookies die noodzakelijk zijn voor het gebruik van GeenStijl, Dumpert, DasKapital, Autobahn, bijvoorbeeld om in te kunnen loggen om een reactie te plaatsen of om sites te beschermen. Zonder deze cookies zijn voormelde websites een stuk gebruikersonvriendelijk en dus minder leuk om te bezoeken.
Zo plaatst het NewsMedia Netwerk cookies (voor de in de vorige paragraaf beschreven doeleinden) met je userid, je sessie, instellingen voor bepaalde trackers en weergaveopties (wil een bezoeker een '¬Å'NSFW'¬' item zien?), een 'token' die gebruikt wordt om je reaguurdersnaam te onthouden. Tevens een Cloudflare (Content Delivery Netwerk) cookie om webinhoud snel en efficint af te leveren bij eindgebruikers. Superhandig toch? Dat zeiden we dus al.
Cookies van Advertentiebedrijven aka de schoorsteencookiesAdvertentiebedrijven meten het succes van hun campagnes, de mogelijke interesses van de bezoeker en eventuele voorkeuren (heb je de reclameuiting al eerder gezien of moet hij worden weergegeven etc) door cookies uit te lezen. Heeft een advertentiebedrijf banners op meerdere websites dan kunnen de gegevens van deze websites worden gecombineerd om een beter profiel op te stellen. Zo kunnen adverteerders hun cookies op meerdere sites plaatsen en zo een gedetailleerd beeld krijgen van de interesses van de gebruiker. Hiermee kunnen gerichter en relevantere advertenties worden weergegeven. Zo kun je na het bezoeken van een webwinkel op andere sites banners krijgen met juist de door jezelf bekeken producten of soortgelijke producten. De websitehouder kan die cookies overigens niet inzien.
Op het NewsMedia Netwerk kunnen advertenties met cookies (voor de in de vorige paragraaf beschreven doeleinden) worden geplaatst van onder meer Adfactor, Widespace, Adtech, Schoorsteen, Rubicon, Ligatus, Doubleclick, Appnexus, Yieldr, Bidswitch, Mediamath, TMG, Turn, Criteo, Adform, Sociomantic, Google, Rocketfuel, Thetradedesk, Adara, Quantcast, Amazon, TubeMogul, Mythings, Groupm server, Openx, Zoom.in, Truste, Bluekai, Adnetik, Valueclick, Emediate, Evidon, Hottraffic, Adnexus, Xaxis.Je hoeft niet bang te zijn voor deze bedrijven. Ze zijn best lief. Soms.
Cookies voor Website-analyse aka de Kenneth-Perez-cookiesMeten is weten. En leren is leuk. Om onze bezoekersstatistieken bij te houden maken we gebruik van Google Analytics. Dit systeem houdt bij welke pagina's onze bezoekers bekijken, waar zij vandaan komen en op klikken, welke browser en schermresolutie ze gebruiken en nog veel meer. Deze informatie gebruiken we om een beter beeld te krijgen van onze bezoekers en om onze site hierop te optimaliseren. Zo worden onze websites nog veel superduper leuker om aan te klikken dan voorheen. Google, die deze dienst levert, gebruikt de informatie om een relevant, anoniem advertentieprofiel op te bouwen waarmee men gerichter advertenties kan aanbieden.
het NewsMedia Netwerk maakt (voor de in de vorige paragraaf beschreven doeleinden) gebruik van Google Analytics.
Cookies van overige externe partijen aka de restNaast bovenstaande zijn er meer onderdelen die een cookie kunnen opleveren. Veelal worden deze gebruikt door de content-partners om te analyseren op welke sites hun gebruikers actief zijn en hoe hun diensten presteren. Denk hierbij aan filmpjes van bijvoorbeeld YouTube, foto's van diensten als Imgur, Tumblr of picasa, en 'like' knoppen van sociale mediasites als Twitter en Facebook
Op het NewsMedia Netwerk gebruiken we onderdelen (en dus cookies) van onder andere Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Vimeo, Flickr, Tumblr, Imgur etc. Deze websites schijnen best wel een beetje populair te zijn dus we dachten: laten we maar een paar van deze diensten faciliteren. Graag gedaan hoor. Geen dank.
VIDEO - 'We're Not Going To Be Silent': Protesters Prep For Women's March On Washington : NPR
Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to march in the Women's March on Washington the day after Donald Trump's inauguration. Demonstrators say they want to voice a range of concerns.
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
Donald Trump's inauguration will draw plenty of supporters here to the nation's capital tomorrow. There are also plans for large rallies against Donald Trump. And Saturday's Women's March on Washington is expected to bring demonstrators from across the U.S., including New York City, where NPR's Hansi Lo Wang met a group getting ready for their trip.
HANSI LO WANG, BYLINE: They'll pack into buses, trains and cars. But before these New Yorkers head for D.C...
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: Buttons.
WANG: They're stocking up on protest gear for the Women's March.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: The buttons are $2, or three for $5.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: Are you on one of the mini-busses?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #3: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #4: Yeah. I am, too.
WANG: A group of women are crowded around a table collecting donations for the rally. On this afternoon, they're inside a wine bar and restaurant with a faint whiff of magic marker. Many of the demonstrators here are making anti-Trump signs to take to the streets on Saturday.
CAROLYN LOMBARDO: I'm old enough to have seen the marches in the '60s. And this president is the absolute opposite of anybody that I would want in office.
WANG: This is Carolyn Lombardo of Manhattan.
You've made some signs today?
LOMBARDO: Not very feminist, but it says, Traitor Trump.
WANG: What do you mean by that?
LOMBARDO: I don't think he's looking out for our interests. He has said negative things about just about everyone except Putin.
WANG: The Women's March may have been inspired by Trump becoming the 45th president of the United States, but organizers say it's not all about him. Instead, they say they're marching to remind the country about the need to expand and protect the rights of all women, no matter their race, religion, country of origin, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. They're calling for a wide range of demands, from paid family leave and affordable access to abortion and birth control, to accountability in cases of police brutality and a higher minimum wage. Still, organizers have been debating about not just the issues, but also the march itself.
KAREN WALTUCH: It was very, very important to us that it wasn't just a white effort - that it wasn't just upper-middle-class white people from New York that were able to afford to go.
WANG: Karen Waltuch is the coordinator of the New York City chapter of the Women's March, which has been collecting donations to organize free bus rides to Washington. Waltuch describes herself as a white woman who was raised Jewish, and she says she and other organizers have been working hard to highlight the challenges facing specifically women of color, including those in the immigrant and LGBT communities.
WALTUCH: Their lives, their opportunities, their educational experiences are not to the level of a white woman. They're not to the level of a white man, if you want to take it all the way up to the top. But I think that until everyone has the same experiences and the same opportunities, we can't stop working.
WANG: There's been some pushback against the organizers' emphasis on race. And others criticize the march for initially having only white organizers and calling itself the Million Woman March, just like the 1997 black women's march in Philadelphia. Jewel Cadet shared those concerns, but she says she decided anyway to organize a bus to the march for transgender, gender non-conforming and homeless protesters from New York.
JEWEL CADET: And it was difficult to recruit people to be on my bus because they were like, you're an unapologetically black, queer feminist. This march isn't for you. And I'm like, you know what? I'm going to change the narrative.
WANG: A narrative that Cadet traces back to the time when the women's suffrage movement discriminated against women of color.
CADET: Those who know our history, we know that the first wave of feminism did not include trans women. It did not include gender non-conforming people. It actually was very anti-black. And so we have to really expand what womanhood looks like.
WANG: For Anne Hogan, the Women's March represents a call for equality for all Americans during the Trump administration.
ANNE HOGAN: Our leaders of government, aside from Trump, will hear our voice and understand that we're not going to be silent.
WANG: Hogan is 48 and says this will be her first protest. She's never marched for a cause before.
HOGAN: But I feel like there's such a threat to our basic human rights and our democracy. It's time that we all have to stand up.
WANG: Organizers say they're preparing for 200,000 protesters to stand up on Saturday in Washington. More than 600 other cities and towns around the world are hosting Women's Marches, too. Some organizers say despite their outreach efforts to communities of color, they're expecting the D.C. crowd to be predominantly white women who did not vote for Donald Trump. According to exit polls, though, the majority of white women - 53 percent - did. Hansi Lo Wang, NPR News, New York.
Copyright (C) 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.
VIDEO - Collapse of burning Tehran high-rise kills 30 firefighters
TEHRAN, Iran '-- A high-rise building in Tehran engulfed by fire collapsed on Thursday, killing at least 30 firefighters and injuring some 75 people, state media reported.
The disaster struck the Plasco building, an iconic structure in central Tehran just north of the Iranian capital's sprawling bazaar. Firefighters, soldiers and other emergency responders dug through the rubble, looking for survivors.
Iranian authorities did not immediately release definitive casualty figures, which is common in unfolding disasters.
Iran's state-run Press TV announced the firefighters' deaths, without giving a source for the information. Local Iranian state television said 30 civilians were injured in the disaster, while the state-run IRNA news agency said 45 firefighters had been injured.
1/7 SLIDES(C) STR/AFP/Getty Images
Firefighters battle a blaze that engulfed Iran's oldest high-rise, the 15-story Plasco building in downtown Tehran on Jan. 19, 2017. State television said 200 firefighters had been called to the scene and 38 had already been injured battling the blaze before it fell.
2/7 SLIDES(C) Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Firefighters try to put out a fire in a blazing high-rise building in Tehran on Jan. 19, 2017.
3/7 SLIDES(C) EPA/REX/Shutterstock
Iranian spectators take photos of firefighters attempting to control a fire at the Plasco building in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 19, 2017. Iran's state-run Press TV reports that people are believed to be trapped inside the rubble of the building. Initial reports of firefighter deaths at the site have been downgraded. At least 38 people are believed to have been injured after becoming trapped on the upper floors of the building.
4/7 SLIDES(C) Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Smoke rises from a blazing high-rise building in Tehran, Iran on January 19, 2017.
5/7 SLIDES(C) Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS
A collapsed building is seen in Tehran.
6/7 SLIDES(C) STR/AFP/Getty Images
The steel structure of Iran's oldest high-rise, the 15-story Plasco building, is seen after the collapse of the building in downtown Tehran.
7/7 SLIDES(C) Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Firefighters react at the site of a collapsed high-rise building in Tehran.
Firefighters battled the blaze for several hours before the collapse. The fire appeared to be the most intense in the building's upper floors, home to garment workshops where tailors cook for themselves and use old kerosene heaters for warmth in winter.Police tried to keep out shopkeepers and others wanting to rush back in to collect their valuables.
Tehran's mayor, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said there were "no ordinary civilians" trapped under the rubble. However, witnesses said some people had slipped through the police cordon and gone back into the building.
President Hassan Rouhani ordered Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli to investigate and report the cause of the incident as soon as possible, IRNA reported.
He also ordered the ministry to ensure the injured were cared for and to take immediate action to compensate those affected by the disaster.
The building came down in a matter of seconds, shown live on state television, which had begun an interview with a journalist at the scene. A side of the building came down first, tumbling perilously close to a firefighter perched on a ladder and spraying water on the blaze.
A thick plume of brown smoke rose over the site after the collapse. Onlookers wailed in grief.
Among those watching the disaster unfold was Masoumeh Kazemi, who said she rushed to the building as her two sons and a brother had jobs in the garment workshops occupying the upper floors of the high-rise.
"I do not know where they are now," Kazemi said, crying.
In a nearby intersection, Abbas Nikkhoo stood with tears in his eyes.
"My nephew was working in a workshop there," he said. "He has been living with me since moving to Tehran last year from the north of the country in hopes of finding a job."
Jalal Maleki, a fire department spokesman, earlier told Iranian state television that 10 firehouses responded to the blaze, which was first reported around 8 a.m. He later said authorities visited the building "many times" to warn them about conditions there.
"They stacked up material on staircases, which was very awful, although we warned them many times," he said.
Late Thursday afternoon, another fire broke out at a building next to the collapsed tower, according to the semi-official Fars news agency. Firefighters worked to put it out.
Several embassies are located near the building. Turkey's state-run news agency, reporting from Tehran, said the Turkish Embassy was evacuated as a precaution, though it sustained no damage in the collapse.
The Plasco building was an iconic presence on the Tehran skyline.
The 17-story tower was built in the early 1960s by Iranian Jewish businessman Habib Elghanian and named after his plastics manufacturing company. It was the tallest building in the city at the time of its construction.
Elghanian was tried on charges that included espionage and executed in the months after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the current ruling system to power '-- a move that prompted many members of the country's longstanding Jewish community to flee.
The tower is attached to a multistory shopping mall featuring a sky-lit atrium and a series of turquoise fountains. It wasn't immediately clear if the mall was damaged.
___
Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell and Adam Schreck in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, contributed to this report.
Join the conversation
VIDEO - Protesters Hold 'Queer Dance Party' Near Mike Pence's Chevy Chase Home | NBC4 Washington
Protesters planned an LGBT dance party outside of Mike Pence's rental home in the Chevy Chase area of Washington, DC, on Jan. 18, to protest the Vice President-elect's stance on anti-gay politics. (Published Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017)
Rainbow flags, cut off shorts and music filled the streets near Vice President-elect Mike Pence's Chevy Chase home Wednesday night.
Hundreds met at Friendship Heights Metro station before marching -- and dancing -- their way to Pence's neighborhood for a "Queer Dance Party."
Organizations WERK for Peace and DisruptJ20 held the event to express "that homophobia and transphobia is wrong and should be resisted," Firas Nasr, a founding organizer of WERK for Peace, told DCist.
The protesters went down Western Ave. toward Tennyson St. NW, where Pence is temporarily staying until he moves into the United States Naval Observatory.
Markeith Loyd, accused of killing Lt. Debra Clayton outside a Florida Wal-Mart, was moved to Orange County Jail on Wednesday after he was treated at the Orlando Regional Medical Center. (Published Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2017)
In December, several people on Pence's block hung rainbow pride flags to show their displeasure about his positions on LGBT issues.
LGBT activists have criticized Pence for a "religious objections" law he signed as Indiana governor that they said could sanction discrimination against gay people.
Published at 8:44 PM EST on Jan 18, 2017 | Updated 4 hours ago
VIDEO - Child sex slave sold into Belgian ring recalls abuse | Daily Mail Online
A former child sex slave sold into a Belgian aristocratic paedophile ring where boys and girls were raped, tortured and murdered has revealed the horrors of her five years of abuse.
Anneke Lucas, 53, was sold into the murderous paedophile network in Belgium when she was just six years old in 1969.
Recalling her sickening abuse, she said: 'I was raped many, many, many times. I don't have any scars to show how many times I was raped.
'Usually it was a full night and weekend and so I gathered I was raped for about six hours a week - more than 1,700 hours before I reached the age of 12.'
Anneke Lucas, 53, was sold into the murderous paedophile network in Belgium when she was just six years old in 1969
Speaking to MailOnline, she said: 'I was first taken to the paedophile ring when I was six by a woman who worked as a cleaning lady for my mother. She and her husband took me away for a weekend to babysit me and it was her husband who took me to the paedophile ring.
'Later on, my mother got involved and then she started to take me herself. My mother was never really a mother. She was a very sick woman and a psychopath.'
It was around her sixth birthday Miss Lucas was taken to an orgy for the first time, in a castle.
She was used for an S&M show, chained up with an iron dog collar and made to eat human faeces.
'Afterwards, left lying there like a broken object, I felt so humiliated', she said.
Video Courtesy: Real Women Real Stories
Bravely speaking out about her horrifying ordeal on the Global Citizen, she said: 'The adult men that were part of the network were there for various reasons.
'There was a lot of alcohol and a lot of drugs. The children were a commodity, the highest and more valued commodity, and used for sex.
'No child deserves what I went through, or what millions of children go through.'
Children were scared into silence and members of the network killed those who threatened to go to the police.
She told MailOnline: ''I had to do it [the rapes] because there was always the threat of being killed.
'Children were killed. Boys were more often tortured but girls were killed.
'I was graphically threatened...it was not something that was talked about.
'The killings were not always private and I remember I once saw a body.'
She added: 'The children were set against each other. There were friendships but I tried to keep things as simple as possible to survive.
'I really didn't want to be made a "favourite" of one of the network because I knew what happened to girls who got singled out... It created a lot of problems. I tried not to stand out.'
Ms Lucas, sold into a Belgian aristocratic paedophile ring where boys and girls were raped, tortured and murdered has revealed the horrors of her five years of abuse
During the week, she went to school where she described herself as being a 'nonentity'.
She said: 'I was a shy girl, with few friends at school, and at home no one cared for me.
'I received more attention in the network. It felt good to be viewed as the most perfectly beautiful, sensual object by powerful men with high standards in taste. This was the only positive in my life, and I clung to it as my only raft to keep from drowning in a sea of shame and self-loathing.'
She told MailOnline: 'When I returned home for the school week, my parents acted like nothing had happened, so I took their denial and kept telling myself I was normal.
'I was so ashamed of what happened to me on weekends that I didn't want to know.
'There was another girl who was at school with me who was being abused in the network but unfortunately I never found a teacher I could speak to about it. At one point, in 1974, I had a really bad report card and a teacher I liked yelled at me and I just remember crying. I wouldn't have dared to speak out. I was threatened in a way that I didn't feel like there was a way out.'
At the age of 11, having spent five and a half years inside the twisted aristocratic sex ring, it was decided she was 'of no use anymore' and was to be killed.
She recalled: 'I was strapped to a butcher's block that was black with all the blood of children that had come before me.
'One man was forcing five young children to harm me. It was part of their indoctrination.
Miss Lucas was sold into the murderous paedophile network in Belgium aged six (pictured)
'The torture lasted for a few hours. A burning cigarette was put out on my forearm. My body is full of scars and every scar reminds me of that moment.
'I thought that I was going to be killed like all the children that weren't loved enough to live and I was going to be forgotten as well.'
She added: 'When I was being tortured I could see the other children didn't want to do it. While I was being tortured for most of the time I didn't feel pain...it was like a body response to being traumatised.
'But then later on I did feel it and it felt horrific. But I didn't want them [the adults] to see me suffer.'
However she was saved when one of her abusers made a deal with the politician in charge of the peadophile network while she was tortured.
They made a deal where he would work for the politician in exchange for her being spared.
The man who tortured her was one of the defendants in the Dutroux case, which, when it broke in 1996, was believed it would blow up the Belgian pedophile network. But instead, eight years later, only Marc Dutroux received a life sentence.
But thanks to the agreement, Miss Lucas was never forced to return to the club.
She told MailOnline: 'After that I went back with my mother. I felt numb and it was very difficult to live at home as my mother was unhappy about being unable to punish me anymore. I tried to please her as much as I could.
'I left home at 16 and then lived with an adult who was in his 30s...but soon after I moved in he made clear he wanted me for sex so I was used for sex again.'
Miss Lucas then moved in by herself, before leaving Belgium in the 1980s and moving to London, Paris and LA and ended up settling in New York.
She eventually left Belgium in the 1980s and moved to London, Paris and LA before settling in New York
Miss Lucas, who has a 15-year-old daughter, said: 'I wish that wasn't my story and I wish it was different, but it's important to speak up and I did spent decades coming to a place where I felt I was worthy of living.
'I think the fact you had to [hurt other children] was the most damaging part as I felt like I was a perpetrator and not a victim.'
She added: 'My daughter asked me some years ago why she didn't know her grandmother and I told her because she wasn't a safe person.
'Then just last year I told her in general what had happened. She heard it and a few days later she gave me a hug. It was very moving.'
Miss Lucas founded Liberation Prison Yoga in 2014 to help other people who had been incarcerated and vilified as a child.
She now runs 30 yoga programmes every week in various prisons that focus on healing.
She said: 'It's been a 30 year healing process and the prison yoga organization is the culmination of my healing journey, sharing healing modalities with those traumatized by incarceration. It is very rewarding and empowering work.
'I have spent my adult life trying to heal from the deep wounds of the past.'
A spokesman for the Federal Police in Belgium said they were unable to comment on Miss Lucas' claims.
VIDEO - 'Addicted to Porn: Chasing the Cardboard Butterfly' (Official Trailer) - YouTube
