加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？

在加拿大

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites any interested individuals to participate in a Conversation with the USCIS Director on use of the tenant-occupancy economic model in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program on Friday, April 27, 2012 from 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm. This small group discussion will complement the next regularly-scheduled quarterly EB-5 engagement, which will take place on May 1, 2012, by allowing for a more in-depth dialogue on this discrete issue related to the EB-5 program.

评论
浏览：www.jbfym.com 看了就知道不一样！U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites any interested individuals to participate in a Conversation with the USCIS Director on use of the tenant-occupancy economic model in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program on Friday, April 27, 2012 from 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm. This small group discussion will complement the next regularly-scheduled quarterly EB-5 engagement, which will take place on May 1, 2012, by allowing for a more in-depth dialogue on this discrete issue related to the EB-5 program.点击展开... 按照移民局一贯作法，这说明移民局应该对此议题已经有了些见解，这里再征集一下各方意见，相信在2~3个月内会有一个新的备忘录出台，明确这类EB-5项目的处理办法。

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？按照移民局一贯作法，这说明移民局应该对此议题已经有了些见解，这里再征集一下各方意见，相信在2~3个月内会有一个新的备忘录出台，明确这类EB-5项目的处理办法。点击展开... 通知说5月一号就定下标准。

评论
浏览：www.jbfym.com 看了就知道不一样！ 超赞 赏 G go2northamerica 0$(VIP 0) 5472012-04-23#4 回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？The USCIS EB-5 Stakeholder meeting scheduled for May 1, 2012, at the California Service Center may be too far off with too large and general an agenda to effectively address this matter. Those impacted by the new interpretation currently feel adrift in uncertainty on what USCIS is trying to achieve it is new policy and how to meet the potential new requirements, and therefore cannot wait until the May 1 meeting for clarification.IIUSA requests immediate public engagement with the policy makers and implementers at USCIS related to “tenant occupancy.” As evidenced by the number of questions and concerns set out in the appendices attached hereto, we urge USCIS to adhere to its commitment to transparency and seek public input in the formulation and implementation of new policy in order to avoid or mitigate the risk of Program uncertainty. The very integrity of the Program is at stake when such uncertainty is introduced to a regulated capital formation marketplace.We share your commitment to have the Program contribute to sustaining the national economic recovery and we stand ready to work with you and your colleagues at USCIS in proper rulemaking procedures and effective public engagement.

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？The regulation at 8 CFR 204.6(m)(7) implements this section of the statute, although it does not reflect the expansion beyond exports as basis for indirect job creation, and in that respect is superseded by the statutory language. 8 CFR 204.6(m)(7)(ii) states more generally:(ii) Indirect job creation. To show that 10 or more jobs are actually created indirectly by the business, reasonable methodologies may be used. Such methodologies may include multiplier tables, feasibility studies, analyses of foreign and domestic markets for the goods or services to be exported, and other economically or statistically valid forecasting devices which indicate the likelihood that the business will result in increased employment.The four items listed by Congress reflect Congress’ intention to recognize indirect job creation through a wide variety of approaches. The reference to “reasonable methodologies” implies that there is some objective standard for the methodologies to be used, and ostensibly that standard is rooted in what is normally accepted among authoritative economists and those who rely on them, including various levels of governments.For many years USCIS consistently has approved Regional Center filings and investor petitions based on predictions of indirect job creation using well accepted methodologies (e.g., IMPLAN, RIMS II, REMI, REDYN, etc.) applied to projected tenant uses from expenditures on building space. Suddenly, on February 17, 2012, without any prior rulemaking, policymaking process, or stakeholder discussion, USCIS announced the new policy via circulation of the Notice, followed by adjudicators issuing a series of RFEs expressing non-acceptance of “tenant occupancy” jobcreation models and imposing new standards of “excess demand” never before used or explained in USCIS practice.

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？反对的声音很多，能不能短期内定下政策，还不一定！ The concept of “excess demand” implies that such excess is temporary and that markets will, over time, revert to “equilibrium.” It is based upon several theories and principles of economics, as follows: Say’s Law (J.B. Say) , Walras’ Law (Leon Walras), Keynsian theory (John Maynard Keynes), and modern economic theory that places value on the cost of capital6. All of these theories posit that “excess demand” is by its nature transitory. It follows that a requirement to measure excess demand as of a moment in time (particularly in the context of stringent EB-5 project and investor processing timelines) is simply not very useful or informative. Thus, the requirements set forth in the Notice and the many RFEs that have been issued based this new requirement are, in IIUSA’s view, counterproductive in that they do not provide USCIS with meaningful data, to say nothing of the fact that they are contrary to both legislative direction and USCIS’ own well-publicized intention to make the Program more effective. The role of government and its capacity to reduce the amplitude or momentum of a business cycle has a theoretical limit which has caused a wave of discussion about how much government should be involved in the economy. Most theories of capitalism, going back to Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations and The Federalist Papers written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, posit that it is private persons expecting that their investment risk will have benefit to them that drives the economy and the wealth of a nation. Logically, therefore, a private decision to invest capital has inherent demand risk which cannot be removed (and so should be not attempted by any government agency). The temporary nature of excess demand conditions and the contribution that capital investment has to aggregate demand are components or considerations in the investment decision made. Therefore, no government agency should define excess demand as a requirement for the investment of capital, nor, in a free market system, should it in any way constrain the decisions of private persons to take on investment risk.

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？AILA 给USCIS局长的信（摘要） For all of these reasons, the change announced on February 17, 2012 and implemented by subsequent requests for evidence, is gravely flawed as a matter of law and policy. We ask you to consider withdrawing and reconsidering your position on this. If USCIS decides to move forward with this change, we ask that there be public comment prior to implementation. If this is not done, we ask that USCIS notify stakeholders regarding the applicability of the change in policy to developers and investors as specified in this memorandum. The only way that the new policy would not have the harmful effects of retroactive application is if it is applied only to new regional center applications filed after appropriate notice and opportunity to comment in accordance with the APA.Applying the change in policy in this manner, and not in a manner that negatively impacts existing stakeholders in the EB-5 process, is absolutely critical to the future viability of the EB-5 program.

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？移民局长已经答复了, 除了I-924批准函中明确的具体项目,有具体地点具体计划, 其他项目都要符合租赁就业原则.投资者在选择这类项目的时候, 要索要924批准函原件验证. 现在 80%的EB-5项目都被否决了,所以AILA和IIUSA在大喊呢.Transcription of the opening statement by Director Mayorkas We are focused this morning on the tenant occupancy economic methodology. We appreciate the fact that there is a lack of certainty in the community with respect to how our agency is addressing EB-5 applications and petitions that are predicated on that methodology to prove the required job creation. We thought we should have this engagement to address the uncertainty.Our intention this morning is to clarify for you what we have done and are doing with respect to cases that are predicated on the tenant occupancy methodology. It is not, I should say at the outset, it is not my intention to discuss the intricacies of the economic methodology itself, though we will certainly listen to your concerns and address them as and when appropriate.First, if I can provide you with some assurances. We well understand the law, that there is no requirement to present a particular methodology in support of a petition. Rather, the law requires a “reasonable” methodology. Whether or not the tenant occupancy methodology is reasonable in proving job creation in a particular case is a fact-specific and fact-dependent inquiry. We have not changed any policy with respect to the tenant occupancy methodology, nor have we changed the applicable criteria.This is, instead, what we have done. In response to the request of adjudicators and your ― stakeholders’ ? request ? and a very appropriate request ― we have hired full time economists and business analysts to improve the analysis of EB-5 petitions and the quality of our work. I should note also that we have announced or are about to announce other positions as well such as a hiring of corporate attorneys to interpret the many legal documents that petitions often include. Our new experts have reviewed cases, not previously adjudicated, that are predicated on the tenant occupancy methodology, and based on the specific facts of those cases have raised questions as to whether the evidence presented proves the required job creation, or instead merely establishes job relocation, for example. We have issued Requests for Evidence to obtain additional evidence that our experts will review and analyze.A decision, as I mentioned, on the economic methodology presented in the EB-5 case, including the tenant occupancy methodology, is very fact specific. Consistent with our deference policy, we are communicating to our adjudicators that they are to accord deference to prior adjudications. Our adjudicators should rely on a previous determination that the economic methodology is reasonable when the economic methodology is presented to us in later a proceeding based on materially similar facts.For example, if we approved a Form I-924 Regional Center Application based on a specifically-identified project, including the specific locations and industries involved, we will not revisit the determination that the economic model and underlying business plan were reasonable when adjudicating related Form I-526 petitions, Form I-485 applications, or Form I-829 petitions. If we approved an I-526 petition for an immigrant investor based on a specifically-identified project, not associated with a Regional Center, we will not revisit the determination that the business plan was reasonable when adjudicating the investor’s related I-485 or I-829 petition. If, however, the facts underlying the application of the economic methodology have materially changed, then we will conduct a fresh review of the new facts to determine whether the petitioner or applicant has complied with the requirements of the EB-5 program, including the job creation requirement.That is, in summary, what we have done, and what we have not done.​

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？看来购物中心形式的房地产项目在EB-5市场没有立足之地了？

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？移民局长暗示以往租赁就业项目的批准有背EB-5的原则. 以后不会一错再错. LUCIDTEXT 博客记载了解情况5/1移民STAKEHOLDER 会议. 会后她不禁悲哀区域中心的未来前途.I have uploaded my recording of the call to Dropbox, but I don’t recommend it, except for the eloquent appeals expressed by members of the EB-5 community. After the moderator had ended the meeting, the mic caught a private comment that I interpret to be Sasha Haskell saying aside: “I think we’re doing fine, and I don’t care what they say.” I’m almost certainly mishearing, but if Ms. Haskell did say that, it is consistent with the dense, unaccommodating attitude that was apparent throughout the meeting, and that bodes ill for any future improvement. I am sad. The EB-5 Regional Center program has so much promise, and yet this meeting brought up problem after problem arising in management of the program, not to mention point after point of confusion, and no indication that the problems or confusion will be seriously addressed by USCIS or go away any time soon. I spent the weekend at the IIUSA conference talking to people with exciting proposals for solid projects involving real job creation and significant economic development, and today’s “engagement” doesn’t leave us any closer to knowing whether it’s safe for business people to use EB-5 to support those plans.

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？是说已经批准的区域中心就可以继续用这个模式吗？移民局长暗示以往租赁就业项目的批准有背EB-5的原则. 以后不会一错再错. LUCIDTEXT 博客记载了解情况5/1移民STAKEHOLDER 会议. 会后她不禁悲哀区域中心的未来前途.I have uploaded my recording of the call to Dropbox, but I don’t recommend it, except for the eloquent appeals expressed by members of the EB-5 community. After the moderator had ended the meeting, the mic caught a private comment that I interpret to be Sasha Haskell saying aside: “I think we’re doing fine, and I don’t care what they say.” I’m almost certainly mishearing, but if Ms. Haskell did say that, it is consistent with the dense, unaccommodating attitude that was apparent throughout the meeting, and that bodes ill for any future improvement. I am sad. The EB-5 Regional Center program has so much promise, and yet this meeting brought up problem after problem arising in management of the program, not to mention point after point of confusion, and no indication that the problems or confusion will be seriously addressed by USCIS or go away any time soon. I spent the weekend at the IIUSA conference talking to people with exciting proposals for solid projects involving real job creation and significant economic development, and today’s “engagement” doesn’t leave us any closer to knowing whether it’s safe for business people to use EB-5 to support those plans.点击展开...

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？5/1 Stakeholder Non-EngagementMay 1, 20121 CommentHere’s what came out of today’s hotly-anticipated in-person EB-5 stakeholder meeting at the California Service Center:USCIS did not allow questions about and did not comment on the “tenant occupancy” issues.USCIS did not provide a PowerPoint presentation, and did not address the stakeholder questions solicited and provided in advance of the meeting. (This may have been an error of organization, as it was announced at the beginning of the call that the panelists had prepared to answer the questions submitted in advance.)Although quite a few senior staff were present at the meeting, they said little. Sasha Haskell of Service Center Operations did nearly all the talking.USCIS acknowledged comments on but expressed no specific plan or goals to improve processing times.USCIS acknowledged comments on but expressed no specific plan or goals to improve communication through the public engagement mailbox or through the I-924 applicant email lines.USCIS acknowledged comments on but expressed no specific plan or goals to communicate expectations and standards in a more open manner.USCIS provided the usual EB-5 statistics, and promised that stats will be published consistently in the future.USCIS suggested that a new draft of the EB-5 policy memo will be emerging “in a few weeks,” and that the service is not currently deferring to the draft memo or implementing the “material change” guidance included.USCIS confirmed that, as indicated in yesterday’s general email from the Office of Public Engagement, applicants who were issued a “tenant occupancy” RFE will be contacted with a notice that their deadline for response will be extended. However, there were no promises of forthcoming guidance related to the RFE.

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关是说已经批准的区域中心就可以继续用这个模式吗？点击展开... 所有的区域中心都不可以在有租赁就业了。 唯一的例外是区域中心依靠一个具体商业开发项目批准的。只有这个商业项目的526才可能通过，前提是不能有一点变化。

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？所有的区域中心都不可以在有租赁就业了。 唯一的例外是区域中心依靠一个具体商业开发项目批准的。只有这个商业项目的526才可能通过，前提是不能有一点变化。点击展开...THANKS

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？所有的区域中心都不可以在有租赁就业了。唯一的例外是区域中心依靠一个具体商业开发项目批准的。只有这个商业项目的526才可能通过，前提是不能有一点变化。点击展开... 这个例外的依据是什么？多久之前批准的都行吗？

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 E EB5fan 0$(VIP 0) 6192012-05-02#16 回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？投资人为保险起见，尽量不要选择类似购物中心，大型商场类的项目。

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？移民局长已经答复了, 除了I-924批准函中明确的具体项目,有具体地点具体计划, 其他项目都要符合租赁就业原则.投资者在选择这类项目的时候, 要索要924批准函原件验证. 现在 80%的EB-5项目都被否决了,所以AILA和IIUSA在大喊呢.<B>Transcription of the opening statement by Director Mayorkas ​</B>We are focused this morning on the tenant occupancy economic methodology. We appreciate the fact that there is a lack of certainty in the community with respect to how our agency is addressing EB-5 applications and petitions that are predicated on that methodology to prove the required job creation. We thought we should have this engagement to address the uncertainty.Our intention this morning is to clarify for you what we have done and are doing with respect to cases that are predicated on the tenant occupancy methodology. It is not, I should say at the outset, it is not my intention to discuss the intricacies of the economic methodology itself, though we will certainly listen to your concerns and address them as and when appropriate.First, if I can provide you with some assurances. We well understand the law, that there is no requirement to present a particular methodology in support of a petition. Rather, the law requires a “reasonable” methodology. Whether or not the tenant occupancy methodology is reasonable in proving job creation in a particular case is a fact-specific and fact-dependent inquiry. We have not changed any policy with respect to the tenant occupancy methodology, nor have we changed the applicable criteria.This is, instead, what we have done. In response to the request of adjudicators and your stakeholders’ request and a very appropriate request we have hired full time economists and business analysts to improve the analysis of EB-5 petitions and the quality of our work. I should note also that we have announced or are about to announce other positions as well such as a hiring of corporate attorneys to interpret the many legal documents that petitions often include. Our new experts have reviewed cases, not previously adjudicated, that are predicated on the tenant occupancy methodology, and based on the specific facts of those cases have raised questions as to whether the evidence presented proves the required job creation, or instead merely establishes job relocation, for example. We have issued Requests for Evidence to obtain additional evidence that our experts will review and analyze.A decision, as I mentioned, on the economic methodology presented in the EB-5 case, including the tenant occupancy methodology, is very fact specific. Consistent with our deference policy, we are communicating to our adjudicators that they are to accord deference to prior adjudications. Our adjudicators should rely on a previous determination that the economic methodology is reasonable when the economic methodology is presented to us in later a proceeding based on materially similar facts.For example, if we approved a Form I-924 Regional Center Application based on a specifically-identified project, including the specific locations and industries involved, we will not revisit the determination that the economic model and underlying business plan were reasonable when adjudicating related Form I-526 petitions, Form I-485 applications, or Form I-829 petitions. If we approved an I-526 petition for an immigrant investor based on a specifically-identified project, not associated with a Regional Center, we will not revisit the determination that the business plan was reasonable when adjudicating the investor’s related I-485 or I-829 petition. If, however, the facts underlying the application of the economic methodology have materially changed, then we will conduct a fresh review of the new facts to determine whether the petitioner or applicant has complied with the requirements of the EB-5 program, including the job creation requirement.That is, in summary, what we have done, and what we have not done.​点击展开... 移民局局长4/27在租赁就业沟通会上的开场白就澄清了。上边的红字那段就是唯一的例外，大家好好读读吧。

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？不能把Mayorkas讲话和举例作为“唯一的”例外！ 如果这个 specifically-identified project, 是较早之前批准的I-924，又恰好涉及tenants occupancy问题，移民局会不会放它们一马？

评论
回复: 区域中心项目：项目租户是否创造就业？不能把Mayorkas讲话和举例作为“唯一的”例外！ 如果这个 specifically-identified project, 是较早之前批准的I-924，又恰好涉及tenants occupancy问题，移民局会不会放它们一马？点击展开... 如果你能看懂上边的英文的话，就知道这个speccifically-identified project, 虽涉及租赁就业，移民局会让项目的526通过。

  ·生活百科 Sungrow 8kW逆变器
·生活百科 即时气体与热泵