加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析

在加拿大

TENANT OCCUPANCY!!Q: In a case where the EB-5 business is a real estate development, which leases space to tenant businesses who then hire employees, do the following factors increase the likelihood that those tenant’s jobs can count toward satisfying the job requirements of the development’s EB-5 investors: 如果EB-5 企业是房地产开发，把地产租赁给客户企业，客户企业将雇佣员工， 下边那种因素会增加租赁客户的企业的就业可以满足项目中EB-5投资人创造就业的要求？ a. The tenant business is a new business which did not merely move from another locationb. The tenant business received cash from the development for tenant improvementsc. The tenant business received a loan from the developmentd. The tenant received free rent or rent reductionse. The tenant received an equity investment from the development A:移民局回答 a. The tenant business is a new business which did not merely move from another location ？租赁的客户企业是新企业，不是简单的从别的地方搬来的？ This is not acceptable. None of the EB5 capital would be flowing to the jobs created by the tenant.这种情况是不允许的。任何EB-5的资金都不可以投入租赁客户的就业上。 b. The tenant business received cash from the development for tenant improvements租赁客户的企业从项目方获得资金用于装修？ This is not acceptable. The tenants would still be responsible for creating the jobs. The EB-5 capital would simply be improving/outfitting/customizing the structure already owned by EB-5 capital.这种情况是不允许的。还是租赁客户负责创造就业。EB-5的资金只是用作EB-5资本拥有的建筑的装修上了。 c. The tenant business received a loan from the development 租赁客户企业从项目方获得贷款？ This is acceptable with caveats. This effectively represents the co-mingling of capital. Similar to the quid pro quo expenditure agreement referenced above, however, this will render the agency vulnerable to fraud because the tenants could form an agreement beyond the adjudicative scope of USCIS to funnel the funds back to the developer. In addition, USCIS would need to define the constraints of the loan amounts and duration. Otherwise, the developer could loan $0.01 to a tenant to take credit for any jobs created. Finally, the tenant business must verify that the jobs are new jobs not transferred from elsewhere. 这种情况可以允许，但有排除条款。这个方式实际上是资金混杂。但是，和上边提到的等价花费协议一样，这种方式会导致移民局要面对欺骗手段。因为租赁企业可以和项目开发方达成协议，把钱再回流到项目开发方，让其超过移民局审查的范围。另外，移民局需要明确这种贷款的额度和周期。不然，项目开发方可以借给租赁客户企业一美分，然后把所有的工作算给项目开发方。最后，租赁企业必须举证，所有的工作都是新就业，而不是从别的地方转过来的。 d. The tenant received free rent or rent reductions 租赁客户企业接受免费缴租或减租的方式？This is acceptable with caveats. Similar to (b) above, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as the free rent/rent reductions acts as a loan. The same caveats apply here as in (b) above. In addition, this will cause a significant decrease in rental income for the EB-5 NCE, which should be an investment at-risk, not at-loss. USCIS would still need to define the constraints of the rental discount required, which effectively serves as a loan. It is highly unlikely, however, that the free rent or rent reduction over a 2.5-year period would sum to a total amount that could be considered a substantial investment in the tenant business。 这种情况可以允许，但有排除条件。和上边(b)一样，这实际上是资金混杂，免租金或减租金和贷款是一样的。所以排除条款和上边的(b)一样。 此外，这样做，EB-5的新企业的租金收入大大减少。EB-5新企业的投资要求有风险，不是要求受损。 即使如此，2.5年的免租或减租的资金总和也难当作租赁客户企业的重要投资。 e. The tenant received an equity investment from the development 租赁企业从项目开发方得到股权投资？This is acceptable with caveats. Again, this effectively represents the co-mingling of capital as in (b) above. The same caveats apply here。这种切开可以允许，但有排除条款。同样，这种方式实际是和如上述的(b)方式一样，是资金的混杂。同样排除条款使用这种情况。

评论
回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析估计接下来会有一些免2.5年租金的地产上市，哈哈，ZOEMA，是不是我以后有机会租上这样的房子？开发商没准还能给我点贷款？

评论
回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析实际上移民局把租赁就业的项目快给封锁了。免2.5的租金都不好使。玩租赁就业实际就是撞枪口。 因为移民局要明确项目开发上给租赁客户企业的资金数量，估计是移民局要项目方倒贴给租赁企业。蔷薇，你会倒得到补贴，做你的生意的。

评论
回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析实际上移民局把租赁就业的项目快给封锁了。免2.5的租金都不好使。玩租赁就业实际就是撞枪口。因为移民局要明确项目开发上给租赁客户企业的资金数量，估计是移民局要项目方倒贴给租赁企业。蔷薇，你会倒得到补贴，做你的生意的。点击展开...哇塞，对我来说是利好啊。言归正传，既然移民局要动刀了，这种租赁项目还是少碰吧~~

评论
回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析过去的几年，不良的区域中心一直耍着移民局玩，各种不招边的就业计算都往里扯。现在移民局终于有头脑清晰的人，让游戏规则趋于合理。对投资人是好事。

评论
回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析移民局新请的经济学家可能由于比较紧张，在一些问题上出了岔子，他们把几个问题搞混了，不恰当的做出了不是他们本意的表述。移民局事后有对个别问题进行了澄清。 说的就是这个会议，这件事。 移民局的经济师回答错误或者是表述不当很明显的。 The bigger problem is that USCIS often refuses to issue clear policies and then flip-flops on these issues and does not give stakeholders advance warning. USCIS then applies their changed policies retroactively. All this leads no absolutely zero predictability. I bet even CSC examiners don’t even know what is the current policy of USCIS on many EB-5 issues.

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关回复: 移民局问答 -租赁就业最新解析V大又出现了~

  ·中文新闻 悉尼学生因佩戴巴勒斯坦围巾被禁止参加12年级正式课程
·中文新闻 二十年来，联邦政府一直向澳大利亚非法商人收取费用