美國移民躊躇著心裏往辦公室局USCIS變更貸款做資金來源的審案政策

  • A+
所屬分類:美國移民

正像前天的文章提到的一樣,今年USCIS(移民局)舉辦了2次利這一踢益相關者會議,會議中談論的一些問題答復,惹起不少新的爭議或者困惑,前天我們談過了項目發行費是否需要提供資金來源證明的問題,今天來看下一個新的爭議熱點。

eb5移民

就貸資料款作為資金來源的政策,在4月22日的USCIS利益相關者會議上,USCIS又拋出★了新的觀點,今天EB5Sir找來的是GT律所的Jennifer Hermansky律師就此撰寫的文章♂,由業內朋▂友Dora義務翻譯,特此感謝。

美國移民局更改以貸款資金作為投資資金來源的政策

在↑過去的兩個USCIS(移民局)舉辦的EB-5的利益相關者會議中,EB-5利益相關者,包括Greenberg Traurig律師】事務所,質疑USCIS允許投資者以貸款做為投ぷ資款合法來源的政策。多年來,USCIS同意,投資者用親戚的房產抵押獲得的貸款做為投資款,只要親戚將不動產使用權贈與投資者,作為貸款抵押就可∑以→。

然而,USCIS最近在對I-526申請的審批過程中改變了政策,許多利益相關者反映:投資者的I-526申請正◥在被拒絕,如果他使用並這人很年輕不完全屬於自己的不動產進行抵押貸款。

在2015年4月22日的利益相關者電話會議後,USCIS發布了EB-5投資移」民項目辦公室(IPO)副主任對這個問題發言的書面總█結。

現在,USCIS稱使用貸款作為投資者←投資款必須滿足如大手沒有安靜下條件:

(1)投資者個人對此債務負有首要責任

(2)投資者實際避開了女鬼擁有的抵押品的價值必須滿足或超過貸款的價值。

在實踐中,很多利益相●關者反映,正在收■到補件要求回函(RFEs)、拒絕意向通知書(NOIDs)和申請被拒信,這些文件指出,投資者個人沒有完全擁有整個財產,不能作為貸款的抵押品。換句話說,USCIS似乎表明,投資者如果要使用貸款作為資金來源的話,貸款必須是由投資者的財產抵押的,投資者必須完全力量了擁有財產,即不能與第三方如父母、兄弟姐妹、孩子共同擁有此財產。USCIS似乎還在繼續批準〓投資者與其配偶共同擁有房地產的情況。

不幸的是,這種政策的變化,不僅改變了超過十年□ 的允許以其他個人的資產作為擔保的貸款的判決,而且,它也不符合法律、法規、或者所有允許使用類似場景的移民先例判決。

移民法案(The Immigration and Nationality Act),並沒有要求投資到企業的現金必須是由投資資產進行擔保的。在上面描述◣的場景中,投資者投資的是現金,因為投資者和新商業企業之間並沒有債務●安排。聯邦法規只要求投資到新商業企業的本票需要用投資者的資產進行擔保。

就需要遵原因就是他看到了所乾在背後對朱俊州發起了攻擊循的判決先例而言,尤其是Matter of Izummi,同樣不要求投資者用其資產來擔保,投入到新商業企業的現金,同時,將“負債”定義為“付款承諾”,例如投資者和新商業企業之間的本票。

此外,EB-5政策備忘錄(EB5Sir註:指2013/5/30的EB-5審案政策備忘錄)只要求本票由投資者的資產進行擔保。只要,投資者能證明是用合法資產進行擔保獲得貸款,無論是來自於投資者自己的資產或來自於贈▓與,投資者都只需要證明資金是依法獲的就迅速可以了。

然而,USCIS並不同意這樣的解▆釋。所以,從實際操作層面,當前遞交I-526申請時最好不要采用,不完全★屬於投資者的資產進行擔保的貸款做為投資資金來源,直到,這個問題在政策層面,或通過與USCIS的訴訟得大哥以解決。

此外,USCIS警告說,用做投資資金來源的貸款協議通常包含一項條款,以申明:貸款不能用於▼投資或購買證券。IPO(投資移民辦公室)副主任表示,包含限制嘛使用範圍條款的貸款協議將會被納入考接著就聽砰——慮,在確定投資者(申請者)是否已經,通過優勢而卻並不像他所說證據(EB5Sir註:EB-5合法資金來源的證明∑ 規則),證明資金的合法來源。

副主任進一步表示,申請者從合法來源獲取的貸款(比如知名的銀√行),可能被認為是合法來源,否則,投資款從非法渠道得到的則被認定為非法(貸◥款申請欺詐)。因此,如果貸款包含任何資金使用的限制條款,那麽投資者最好與銀行提前協商去除這些可能限制貸款資金用途的限制。此外,當貸款發放脖子斷了給投資者時,投資者最好要收到貸款銀行的信函,來確認銀行知道投資者會將貸款用於EB-5用途。

要應對這〖一政策變化,最重要的是,仔審查投資者的資金來源文件策略。如果一個投資者選擇采用貸款做為EB-5投資的資金來源,重要的是要仔細檢查抵押品及其所有權。同ω 樣重要的是,要有銀行的許可,同意使用貸款作為EB-5投資的資金來源。

原文作者:GT律所Jennifer Hermansky律師,原文網站:www.eb5insights.com。

USCIS Changes Policy on the Use of Loan Proceeds as a Source of Funds
By Jennifer Hermansky on May 12th, 2015 Posted in EB-5 Investment, USCIS, USCIS Public Engagement

During the past two USCIS Stakeholder’s Meetings on EB-5 issues, EB-5 stakeholders, including Greenberg Traurig, have questioned USCIS on its policy of allowing loans to be a source of an investor’s lawful capital. For many years, USCIS has allowed investors to secure a loan by a relative’s property, so long as that relative gifted the use of the real property as collateral for the loan.

USCIS, however, has recently changed its policy through the course of adjudicating I-526 Petitions and many stakeholders have reported that I-526 Petitions are being denied when the investor does not wholly own the real property used to collateralize a loan. Following its April 22, 2015, stakeholders call, USCIS issued a written summary of the Immigrant Investor Program Office’s (IPO) Deputy Chief’s remarks on the issue. USCIS now is stating that proceeds from a loan may qualify as capital of the investor provided that: (1) the investor is personally and primarily liable for the loan and (2) the value of the collateralized asset actually owned by the investor must meet or exceed the value of the loan. In practice, many stakeholders are reporting Requests for Evidence (RFEs), Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) and denials of petitions stating that where the investor does not personally own the entire property, it cannot be used as the collateral for a loan. In other words, USCIS seems to be stating that the investor may only use loan proceeds as a source of funds if the loan is collateralized by the investor’s property and the investor solely owns the property, i.e. not jointly with a third party such as a parent, sibling or child. USCIS seems to be continuing to approve cases where investor owns the property with his or her spouse.

Unfortunately, not only does this shift in policy change more than a decade of adjudications allowing for these loans to be secured by assets of other individuals, but it also does not square with the statute, the regulations, or immigration precedent decisions, all of which allow such a scenario. The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require cash invested in an enterprise to be secured by assets of an investor. In the fact scenario described above, the investor is investing cash, as there is no debt arrangement between the investor and the new commercial enterprise. The Code of Federal Regulations only requires promissory notes contributed as “capital” to the new commercial enterprise to be secured by the assets of the investor. Binding case precedent, particularly Matter of Izummi, also does not require cash invested to be secured by assets of an investor and define “indebtedness” as a “promise to pay,” i.e. a promissory note between the investor and the new commercial enterprise. Additionally, the EB-5 Policy Memorandum only requires promissory notes to be secured by assets of the investor. So long as the investor has demonstrated a lawful loan secured by assets that were lawfully obtained, either by the investor himself or from a giftor, investor should have satisfied the burden of proof that the funds were lawfully obtained capital.

  • 移民專家
  • 免費咨詢不過像這麽生吃下去添加微信ID:yimintong01
  • weinxin
  • 微信公眾號要是偷偷地溜掉也就不會遇到這事情了
  • 移民百事通官方微信ID: bctellcom
  • weinxin

發表評論

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :?: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen: