加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！

在加拿大

众所周知，EB-5有两种投资风险：商业经营中的盈亏风险和投资是否创造足够就业带来的绿卡风险。2009年以前，在对待“风险”的态度上，美国移民局基本上不在乎投资移民自己的想法，政策上坚持由移民本人承担一切可能的投资风险。这样一来，移民既可能投资血本无归，也可能因无法创造足够就业而在两年后拿不到永久绿卡，功败垂成。于是，众多的移民总是在问：“我一切按要求投了资，但因为我无法控制的商业风险而亏了本，又没能在解除条件之前创造十个就业，最后被拒绝拿绿卡，这难道公平吗？”随着广大移民对于这个问题的反响越来越强烈，抱怨的声音越来越大，美国政府移民决策层开始认真对待这一问题了。2008年下半年金融危机过后，面对萧条的经济和急需大量就业的现状，美国再不能无视投资移民对就业的贡献而打击国外投资人的投资热情了。2009年初，政府终于开始放下架子，仔细研讨解决问题的方法。方法是有的，执行起来其实并不困难。这个新方案就是：允许第三方对地区中心的投资进行担保，同时大幅度降低对就业条件的限制，让投资人两年后顺利解除临时绿卡的条件（I-829）。 早在2009年初，美国移民局已经不再限制地区中心为投资寻找第三方担保了。现在的市场上，已经有超过10个EB-5项目提供正式的第三方投资担保。担保的单位从私人公司，银行，保险公司直到美国联邦政府在内，一应俱全。在2010年三月于加州拉古那尼格尔举行的美国移民局公开对话会上，移民局的律师明确表示，只要第三方担保不改变投资本身的风险，第三方参与是完全可以的。第三方担保的登场明显改变了盈亏风险的概念，投资人可以不用担心亏钱了。 在2009年的6月和12月，美国移民局先后两次针对EB-5项目发出操作“备忘录”，开始接受市场的呼声，向传统的“十人就业原则”挑战了。 这两份官方的备忘录虽然不可能改变美国的移民法，但从操作角度看确实是翻天覆地改变着美国投资移民的原则，迅速推动了项目与市场的对接，直接满足了移民的根本需求。 在2009年6月17日的备忘录中，移民局针对长期以来对“就业”的概念的含糊提出了明确的定义。令人吃惊的是，随着概念的明确化，大家猛然发现，美国移民局其实开始大幅度放松对就业的审批了！这这份不长的备忘录中，移民局对新就业机会产生的时间做了相当宽松的界定。具体说，就是允许在投资生效后解除条件（I-829）申请提交前任何时候企业产生的就业都可以放入到总共的就业计算中。如果企业在提交解除申请之前一个星期雇佣足够人员也是符合要求的。 真正彻底改变原则的规定是出现在就业审批尺度上。备忘录明确指出，如果在提交解除条件申请之前，企业还没有创造出总共十个就业机会，只要能证明在未来合理的时间内这十个就业可以完成，移民局依然可以给申请人一张永久绿卡，而且移民局并不需要在未来某个时间回来对就业进行核查。英文原文是这样的：当投资人 “has created or can be expected to create within a reasonable time ten full-time jobs for qualifying employees”的时候，申请人的永久绿卡都可以批准。 我们姑且称这个原则为“未来十人原则”吧。所有地区中心的就业都是移民局事先批准的，都具备创造就业的条件，而如果不限制时间，只要公司没有破产，大体上投资都会轻易满足“未来十人原则”。我认为，这一多少有点掩耳盗铃的举措也的确是在不能改变移民法的前提下，聪明人向现实妥协的一种灵活策略吧。随之而来的现象就是，去年（2009）全年的解除条件（I-829）通过率，按美国移民局官方统计，达到了史无前例的86%。而被拒绝的案例应该主要是上半年批的，那时备忘录还没有发布。 应该说，随着经济形势的走低，现在美国投资移民的审批柔韧度和宽容度都达到了历史最高点，它清楚地标志着一个美国投资移民黄金时代的开始。

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 超赞 赏 Y ylyylyGuest 0$(VIP ) 2010-12-08#2 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！您顺便推荐一个项目先？让我们选选

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！您顺便推荐一个项目先？让我们选选点击展开... 有好项目就推荐给大家嘛！

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！那岂不是拿绿卡容易多了吗？咋早点没看到这文章，搞得自己都放弃EB5了。

评论
2011/8/17 香港魁投 ; 8/18 投妥; 9/17 FN2012/5/21 收到等待面试通知 超赞 赏 冰 冰山温泉 0$(VIP 0) 1372010-12-09#5 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！备忘录在哪里看到的？有链接吗？

评论
2011/8/17 香港魁投 ; 8/18 投妥; 9/17 FN2012/5/21 收到等待面试通知 超赞 赏 S s3s2 0$(VIP 0) 1412010-12-09#6 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！路过顶一下。

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！移民局和律师协会会议 备忘录http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=994f81c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

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 超赞 赏 visatousa 0$(VIP 0) 4,2302010-12-09#8 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！I-829 QuestionsQ: Based on the USCIS June 17, 2009 memo regarding EB-5 job creation, it is our understanding that USCIS has accepted the use of economic models that are based on infusion of capital into a particular industry. Please confirm that if such a model is used to calculate job projections at the I-526 stage, an investor would receive credit for job creation at the I-829 stage simply by establishing that he/she invested the requisite amount into the new commercial enterprise, and that the new commercial enterprise spent that capital, regardless of any data about actual job creation.A: This form of capital investment involves more than simply investing a certain amount of investment dollars into a particular industry. An important aspect to any economic analysis model is the feasibility and quality of the business plan that is the basis for determining the appropriate inputs into an economic model, such as RIMS II, IMPLAN, etc. If the infusion of capital occurs according to the approved business plan and economic analysis, and the capital investment scheme comes to fruition in the manner outlined in the business plan, then the economic data provided in support of the Form I-526 petition regarding indirect job creation may be sufficient to demonstrate the creation of the indirect jobs without the submission of further data about job creation at the Form I-829 petition stage. Q: What factors are considered in determining whether the necessary jobs will be created within a “reasonable time” in adjudicating an I-829 petition, per 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(iv)? Section 25.2(e)(4)(D) of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual lists some factors in making the reasonable time determination, but how do CSC adjudicators apply those factors in actual cases? For example, what if a regional center has an approved job creation methodology, proof that the investment has gone into the project, and has leased up the project but the tenants have not moved in when the I-829 is filed? What if the project is almost but not completely leased? Will USCIS approve an I-829 in such a case? If so, what documentation would be required?A: CSC adjudicators follow the guidance put forth in the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) at section 25.2(e)(4)(D), which states:In making the “reasonable time” determination, officers should consider the evidence submitted along with the petition that demonstrates when the jobs are expected to be created, the reasons that the jobs were not created as predicted in Form I-526 , the nature of the industry or industries in which the jobs are to be created, and any other evidence submitted by the petitioner.If after considering the evidence, the officer determines that the jobs are more likely than not going to be created within a reasonable time, Form I-829 should be approved consistent with 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1) if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to have his or her conditions removed. If, however, the officer determines that the jobs will not be created within a reasonable period of time, Form I-829 should be denied consistent with 8 CFR 216.6(d)(2) .CSC adjudicators apply the factors outlined above when analyzing the facts in each individual case using the preponderance of evidence standard. Note: It is not possible to answer “what if” questions such as this question in the abstract. Whether a particular case will be approved is dependent upon the determination of eligibility, based upon the specific evidence of record. Q: If an I-829 petition is denied because of a determination that the jobs will not be created within a reasonable time or because the investor was not aware of the need to file an amended I-526 petition, will the investor be placed into removal proceedings in order to renew the I-829 before an immigration judge? What are USCIS’ procedures to place an EB-5 investor in removal proceedings? We have heard stories of EB-5 investors waiting months before a notice to appear is issued. During that time, what is the investor’s status until the removal proceedings are initiated? If the investor or a family member is outside the United States, what document will be issued to enable the investor or family member to be reunited with the remainder of the family or to appear in the removal proceeding?A: In accordance with 8 CFR 216.6(d)(2), if after review of the petition, the director denies the petition, he or she shall place the investor in removal proceeding by issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA). The investor may seek review of the petition during removal proceedings. Petitions are sent to CSC’s NTA unit after the denial of the petition. The NTA unit prepares the NTA and issues it to the investor via mail. The investor's lawful permanent resident status and that of his or her dependent spouse and children are terminated as of the date of the director's written decision. Generally an NTA is not issued if USCIS determines that an investor or a family member is out of the United States and their status is terminated. If an investor or a family member is out of the United States at the time that their status is terminated, then he or she will be put into removal proceedings at the time of their application for admission. An alien investor retains conditional resident status and is entitled to proof of that status while he or she obtains review of the USCIS termination in removal proceedings. Q: Many USCIS Field Offices refuse to stamp passports of people who have pending I-829s with temporary evidence of permanent resident status with I-551 stamp, on the ground that I-829 receipt notice should suffice for work and travel purposes. However, this view does not take into account the fact that CPB often wants to see temporary stamps. Will you issue a memo to all USCIS Field Offices telling them that all pending I-829 applicants should get their permanent resident stamps in their passports?A: USCIS is in the process of updating the language regarding this issue on the Form I-829 receipt notice which will resolve this issue.

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 超赞 赏 visatousa 0$(VIP 0) 4,2302010-12-09#9 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！I-526 Questions Q: Please clarify what constitutes a “new commercial enterprise” and “creation of an original business” for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h). That regulation states that the establishment of a new commercial enterprise may exist in three circumstances, including the “creation of an original business.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) defines “new” as being established after November 29, 1990. Assume a company was created in 1991 and has been in existence ever since. An EB-5 investor plans to invest in the company now. Does the investor's investment qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(1) (creating an original business) without needing to meet the requirements of expansion of an existing business under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3) or restructuring/reorganization under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2)? Is it correct that expansion of an existing business under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3) or restructuring/reorganization under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2) are only necessary to meet when the business entity was created after November 29, 1990? Also, must evidence of restructuring or expansion be submitted with the I-526, or should this evidence be submitted with the I-829?A: Section 11036 of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law No. 107-273, eliminated the requirement than an EB-5 alien must be involved in the establishment of a new commercial enterprise. Rather, the amended statutory requirement only requires that the alien investor must invest in the new commercial enterprise. As a result, while the regulation at 8 CFR 204.6(h) is longer in effect with regard to the establishment of the new commercial enterprise, the regulatory requirement regarding what constitutes a “new commercial enterprise” remains in effect.This question has several parts to it, as follows:a. Q: 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) defines “new” as being established after November 29, 1990. Assume a company was created in 1991 and has been in existence ever since. An EB-5 investor plans to invest in the company now. Does the investor's investment qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(1) (creating an original business) without needing to meet the requirements of expansion of an existing business under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3) or restructuring/reorganization under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2)?A: The alien investor does not have to have been involved in the creation of the commercial enterprise as noted above. Yes, the alien’s investment would qualify without the need to show that the “new” commercial enterprise was “expanded” or “restructured/reorganized” under 8 CFR 204.6(h)(2) and (3).b. Q: Is it correct that expansion of an existing business under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3) or restructuring/reorganization under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2) are only necessary to meet when the business entity was created after November 29, 1990?A: The expansion of an existing business under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3) or restructuring/reorganization under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2) are only necessary to meet when the commercial enterprise was created before, not after, November 29, 1990?c. Q: Also, must evidence of restructuring or expansion be submitted with the I-526, or should this evidence be submitted with the I-829?A: The evidence must be submitted with the Form I-526 petition, and if the transaction is not yet completed at the time of the filing of the Form I-526 petition, then additional evidence must be provided in support of the Form I-829 petition to show that the commercial enterprise that was established prior to November 29, 1990 was expanded, or restructured/reorganized in accordance with 8 CFR 204.6(h)(2) and (3).​ Q: Please confirm how USCIS treats job creation where the new commercial enterprise purchases the assets of a distressed corporation for the purposes of revitalization. For example, if the new commercial enterprise purchases a commercial property, such as a shopping mall, that at the time of purchase has only 20% of its tenants in operation because the other 80% went out of business, please confirm that the job creation requirement would be met by showing that alien investment into the new commercial enterprise resulted in the creation of 10 jobs per investor, provided only that the job count does not include jobs associated with the tenants that were in operation at the time the shopping mall was purchased.A: It is not possible to confirm whether the job creation requirement would be met, based on the limited information provided above. Such a case would have to be evaluated by a review of the specific evidence in the record, which may or may not establish that the job creation requirement would be met. Further, based on this fact pattern, such an investment would have to be made through a petition affiliated with a regional center as the job creation appears to depend on the crediting of indirect jobs. Q: What factual scenarios have been approved as a "restructuring or reorganization" sufficient to create a new commercial enterprise under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2)? For example, if an EB-5 investor buys a company that was created before Nov. 29, 1990 and then folds it into his own holding company as a subsidiary, is that a restructuring or reorganization? If not, what counts as a restructuring or reorganization?A: USCIS does not maintain records independent of the individual EB-5 case files that document the factual scenarios that have been approved for a particular EB-5 eligibility requirement. However, it was held in Matter of Soffici, that the petitioner in that case did not show the degree of restructuring and reorganization required by 8 CFR 204.6(h)(2). In that case, the commercial enterprise was a hotel that had always been operated as a Howard Johnson and was still a Howard Johnson at the time of the issuance of the decision. Matter of Soffici also held that a few cosmetic changes to the decor and a new marketing strategy for success did not constitute the kind of restructuring contemplated by the regulations, nor did a simple change in ownership. It is not possible to state whether the abbreviated scenario outlined above would be qualifying. The question may not be answered in the abstract without a review of the specific evidence of record. Q: Please confirm that if a new commercial enterprise’s business operations involve acquiring (out of bankruptcy or bank foreclosure portfolio) and renovating an incomplete or abandoned commercial building, completion or renovation of the building by the new commercial enterprise will be treated as a new business for EB-5 purposes. If not, what arrangements would be necessary to allow the project to be treated as a new commercial enterprise?A: See the response to question #32 for a description regarding what constitutes a “new” commercial enterprise. Acquiring assets that are not currently being used in business operations by any other entity is unrelated to whether a commercial enterprise is “new” for EB-5 purposes. Q: 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1) states that an I-526 petition must be accompanied by evidence that the EB-5 investor has invested “or is actively in the process of investing” the required money. Similarly, 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(ii) requires an investor at the I-829 stage to show that he has invested or “was actively in the process of investing” the required capital. The quoted langue would seem to indicate that an investment of $100,000 cash before filing the I-526 petition, plus a promise to pay another $400,000 (payable before the I-829 must be filed) would satisfy the EB-5 regulations. What is the USCIS’ position on this question?A: EB-5 capital investment and job creation requirements typically involve a separate analysis. However, if the job creation is predicated on the infusion of EB-5 capital into a given capital investment project in order to realize indirect job creation, then the economic analysis would have to account for the timing of the infusion of capital in order to demonstrate that the indirect jobs would be created within a reasonable time. Any “promise to pay” due at a date in time post-filing of the I-526 petition must meet the requirements for promissory notes specified in Matter of Izumii and Matter of Hsiung, and must show that at the time of filing the I-526 petition that the capital is at risk, the lawful source of the capital, and that the alien has legal ownership of the capital per Matter of Ho. Q: Please explain how USCIS applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating lawful source of funds in I-526 petitions.A: As we stated at a previous stakeholders meeting, in adjudicating all eligibility requirements in EB-5 related petitions, officers use the preponderance of the evidence standard. It is difficult to answer this question in the abstract without looking at the specific evidence of record.As we stated previously, if for example, an officer issues an RFE related to the lawful source of funds, the petitioner should respond to the request in a timely manner. The petitioner may choose not to provide all of the requested evidence and request a decision on the merits if he or she believes that eligibility has been established by the evidence already in the record or that the request is not proper. See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(11).Separately from the adjudicative process, if there are repeated cases in which you believe that an RFE is improvidently issued, you may send an e-mail to the EB-5 mailbox. USCIS will investigate the matter and, if necessary, will take appropriate action.

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 超赞 赏 visatousa 0$(VIP 0) 4,2302010-12-09#10 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！下次会议时间The next engagement will take place on December 16, 2010, at 1:00PM (Eastern Time).

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 超赞 赏 穿 穿着马甲说实话 0$(VIP 0) 3632010-12-09#11 回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！非常好的消息,cheers!

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！我的态度是：投资者仍应从严选择项目，一旦项目发生不测，最后还能通过打擦边球的方式获得绿卡，算是复活节彩蛋。一开始就选择打擦边球的项目.........那就...好吧，2年后接到电话，“这里是非常6+1，李咏帮你砸金蛋...”

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！最近手机经常收到在非常6+1中奖的短信，哈哈。

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！另，强烈求楼主所说的，由政府担保还款的项目名称！啥代为发行政府债券啥的大忽悠除外.

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！我的态度是：投资者仍应从严选择项目，一旦项目发生不测，最后还能通过打擦边球的方式获得绿卡，算是复活节彩蛋。一开始就选择打擦边球的项目.........那就...好吧，2年后接到电话，“这里是非常6+1，李咏帮你砸金蛋...” 哈哈哈 幽默！

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！大中介最好自己开发风险可以控制的RC

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关大中介最好自己开发风险可以控制的RC点击展开... 但是这并没有从机制上限制问题的产生。因为可能大中介本身就是风险。哈哈哈

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！众所周知，EB-5有两种投资风险：商业经营中的盈亏风险和投资是否创造足够就业带来的绿卡风险。2009年以前，在对待“风险”的态度上，美国移民局基本上不在乎投资移民自己的想法，政策上坚持由移民本人承担一切可能的投资风险。这样一来，移民既可能投资血本无归，也可能因无法创造足够就业而在两年后拿。。。方法。方法是有的，执行起来其实并不困难。这个新方案就是：允许第三方对地区中心的投资进行担保，同时大幅度降低对就业条件的限制，让投资人两年后顺利解除临时绿卡的条件（I-829）。 早在2009年初，美国移民局已经不再限制地区中心为投资寻找第三方担保了。现在的市场上，已经有超过10个EB-5项目提供正式的第三方投资担保。担保的单位从私人公司，银行，保险公司直到美国联邦政府在内，一应俱全。在2010年三月于加州拉古那尼格尔举行的美国移民局公开对话会上，移民局的律师明确表示，只要第三方担保不改变投资本身的风险，第三方参与是完全可以的。第三方担保的登场明显改变了盈亏风险的概念，投资人可以不用担心亏钱了。 在2009年的6月和12月，美国移民局先后两次针对EB-5项目发出操作“备忘录”，开始接受市场的呼声，向传统的“十人就业原则”挑战了。 。。。-829）通过率，按美国移民局官方统计，达到了史无前例的86%。而被拒绝的案例应该主要是上半年批的，那时备忘录还没有发布。 应该说，随着经济形势的走低，现在美国投资移民的审批柔韧度和宽容度都达到了历史最高点，它清楚地标志着一个美国投资移民黄金时代的开始。点击展开... 顶这种专业讨论！老师好！eb-5本身就是个怪胎。右抱琵琶半遮面的。很多律师提议取消2年后的审核，一步到位。 现行eb-5法律别别纽约的挺讨厌。比如对RIMS的就业算法在I-829的步骤有备忘录做执行标准。但对风电类的花费型算法，在I-829这一步的审核完全无章可循。连个备忘录都没有。完全subject to explanation of adjudicators。这种不确定性是最讨厌的。

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！顶这种专业讨论！老师好！点击展开...想来美国的人太多了，再过两年就排队了。要办移民，就赶快，干啥没风险，只要尽最大努力降低风险就好了，前往大前门的KFC买烤鸡还可能被撞呢。。风险到处都是。 看准了，就赶快办吧。

评论
回复: 美国移民局在EB-5投资移民政策上的妥协！可以避免很多圈钱的项目，保证了中介公司关键信息的知情权，首先保证绿卡的安全，而不是项目的收益，这一点中介和客户的利益是一致的。届时项目发行费，律师费都可以降下来。

  ·中文新闻 澳大利亚发出紧急警告称大型200毫米雨弹即将袭击
·中文新闻 《我的厨房规则》获奖者西蒙娜和薇薇安娜打破了对作弊谣言的