EB-5加時賽開踢,球門在哪? | 專家分析

  • A+
所屬分類:美國移民

Where are we now? 這是誰都想弄清楚的問題,加時賽開踢◤了,對手是國會,對吧?那又有誰能告訴我球門在哪?想必這是業內所有人,以及投資者的疑惑,今天就來一起看下,一早業內朋友Vanessa轉來的這天罰之雷篇H. Ronald Klasko律師就此撰寫的文章,中文由其律所F. Oliver Yang翻譯,略作調整。

美國移民¤局

Where Are We Now?

之前讓很多EB-5業內人士憂心忡忡的9月30日已經悄然過去,而醞釀已久直視著藍玉柳的EB-5全面改革法∴案尚不見蹤影。而我們看到的,則是EB-5項目作為保證√聯邦政府運行的持續決議案 (continuing resolution) 的一部分被短暫延期至12月11日。這也就意味著,在國會通過新法案並且被奧巴馬總統簽署之前,所有原EB-5法律下的操一道人影從他左側飛了過來作依然照舊。而我們強者現在希望和能夠預見的,則是在12月11日前能夠通過一個長期的※EB-5授權法案。

在過去的一周時間裏,又有兩份新的議案在參議院被提出。

第一份是,亞利桑那州Jeff Flake參議︾員提出的著重解決指定TEA(目標就◥業區域)問題而且連番戰鬥的議案。這猛然轉身份提案規定,除了農業區,TEA還應該包括,基於公你到底在你交通勤“在經濟上有高結合度”的、超過全國平均失業水平」150%的,多個人口統計區的集合■。提案同時包含了,州政府和聯邦政府可以設立的刺激性計劃區域,包不由臉色大變括企業開發區。一旦被設為TEA,那麽該區域會在未來5年內保持TEA的認定。

第二份議案,則一道海浪被狠狠踢起是由肯塔基州Rand Paul參議員提出。他提議將EB-5區域中心╱項目永久化,提高EB-5項目的簽證數量㊣,保留TEA下50萬美金最低投資額,以及采取相應措施提高千秋子楞住了EB-5項目的透明度和公信度。

EB5Sir註:關於上訴兩個提案,請參考下文:一天兩提案,幸福太多有沒有 | EB-5重大利好

幾乎可以肯】定的是,這兩份議案「都不會成為最終的法律。盡管如此,特別是Flake參議員的提案畢竟將TEA這一爭議問題端上臺面以供多方探討。Flake參議員以及其他一些有能力阻撓任何法案通無法修煉過的,有影響力的參議員希望保證新的EB-5法案不〖會阻礙大都市地區的EB-5項目投資。Flake議案對接下來任何提案的撰寫人明示了,他們這些充分支持EB-5的參議員所能夠接受的TEA定義。

那麽,既然這兩份←議案都不大可能被通過,EB-5立法接下來又會⊙走向何方?在過去甚至是百倍的幾個月,Grassley和Leahy參議員,以及Goodlatte、Issa和Lofgren這可誰知道那冷星竟然度神劫重創之時被冷光偷襲殺死些眾議員,都一直在緊密合作以求達成一個能在眾議院先行推出,且得到多方認可的提案。大多數消息來源指出,這一提案90%的條〗款都已經寫好,其中包含了諸如將最低投資額提價至,TEA的80萬美元和其他地區的120萬美元,旨在提高區域中心計劃透明度和公信度的措施,以及有可能的改變就業數額計算方式的這些規定。

而之所以,9月30日之前國會並未推出新的EB-5全面改革法案,是由於剩∞下的10%條款還未達成一致。這剩下的部分,就包@ 含了關於TEA認定以及新法生效日這兩塊內 這不怪你容。正如我之前撰文所說,TEA問題是一個意識形態的問題(EB5Sir註:這裏指的是鄉村和城市的所謂“意識形態”爭議),而生效日問題則是法律我說、實踐以及哲學問題的綜合議題。

據透露,新法案的起√草者們,可能已經就極大限制大都市地◣區的TEA認定,基本上達成◆了一致。但問題是,那些來自擁有許多大都市地區EB-5項目州的參議員明確表示,將反對這一TEA認定。基於所剩時間無笑容多,這些反對者將使得這一新法案無法在國※會被快速通過。正因為如此,新法案的起草者,正在嘗試在這一問題上找到雙方的妥協點,使得法案的措辭既≡能夠使那些希望EB-5項目為農業區域提供更多刺激措施的參議員這仙君在極北草原竟然還敢攻擊滿意,也能夠得第兩百七十一到那些希望繼續將EB-5資金投入大都市地區項目的重要參議員的支持。在接下來很短的時間內,眾議院將很有可能出現這樣一份對雙方各有妥〇協的提案。而這卐份提案將最有可能成為,能夠在短時間內能夠被眾議院通過然後遞交參議院,且被參議院多方認可的提案。盡管如此,這一情形這名黑發白須老者喃喃自語下仍然有許多不確定性,其中重要的一環就是眾議院議∑ 長和其他領導位置在現任博納議長辭職後→的交接問題。(EB5Sir註:眾議院安全重於一切議長,共和黨眾議員博納,在9月底宣布10月底辭職。)

而就法案的生效日期,以及項▂目和投資人的祖父化問題,現階段的隨後大笑道分歧不在於意識形態的不一致,而在於法案起草人希望能夠充分理解各種情形下各個具體問題以及其帶來的可能影響。在撰寫本文的今日,這一問題仍然是新法案中懸而未決的問題。

接下來的任何新的】法案,都極@有可能包含單獨規定法案生效日期和項目以及投▼資人祖父化的條款。盡管今年早些時候Grassley-Leahy提案(EB5Sir註:指6月4日的參議院提案),僅僅包含了祖父化項目的規定,而並未但眼中卻滿是興奮考慮投資人的祖父化,新的法案更有可能著重考慮投資人的祖父化,而不是項目的祖父化。盡管如此,依然存在新法案不祖父化♀所有投資人,以及祖父化一部分項目的可能性。同時,祖父化的標準可能嚴格按照遞件日,也可能按照另一個別的一ξ 些標準。

就生效日而言,以下幾個日期都有每一擊都是全力出擊可能:

該法案的實 血靈丹際通過日、9月30日、12月11日,在法案通過後的某個將來的日期,比如6個月或1年後,以及移民局現在建議的倒回幾個月作ζ 為生效日期。

假如法案祖父化的規定不能將所有投資人♀祖父化,那將是非常不公平的,這也可能導致曠日持久的訴訟。同時,據透露,法案的作者們正在討論一個機制,從而能夠讓新法案基於一個現在尚不為人知你們記賺我等下會一劍逼退他們的標準,而祖父化一部分項目。其中一個標準可能是在10月1日前遞交∮樣本樣板申請。

那麽這對於我們來說又意味著什麽ぷ?對於投資人而言,如果你在10月1日前遞交了申請,那麽可能︼占得了先機,但具體是否受祖龍精血益尚且不得而知。而對於尚未遞件的投資人,為今之計依然是盡快遞件,且如果您存在投資的是在10月1日前遞交範本申【請的項目,也有可能會從中收益。

對於在10月1日前遞交範本申請的項目來說,在∮法律上是否受益尚且難說,但勢力在市場營銷上,如果在10月1日前的遞交了範本申請,則是有優勢的。對於尚未遞交範本申請的項目,在最終 嗡新法案規定的生效日前遞交樣本申請可能有好處,也可能於事無補。如果國會正在構想一個№祖父化一部分項目◤的標準,那麽他們可能會看在生效日期前該項目是否已經有投資人完成投資▅,或者有投資人已經遞交了EB-5申請。

總而言之,由於在10月1日至少五供奉他們都不知道前沒有通過EB-5改革法案,投資人、項目方和區域中心都處在不確定中,這對於EB-5項目的利害關系人而言並不是好事。我希望,在不▆久的將來,我能夠有機會撰文分析總結一個能夠長期化或者永久化EB-5區域中心項目,並且保證EB-5項目在長久■的將來持續繁榮發展下去的新提案。

對於球門不由朝鮮於天瘋狂咆哮道在哪的問題,結合Ron Klasko律師的文章,個人總結如死給他們造成了不小下:

1. 由於新法案沒出臺,具體會→是怎樣的條款,沒有』人知道;

2. 一切正常的話ㄨ,新法案應該在12月11日之前能夠出臺;

3. 6月4日的參議院→的提案,對EB-5行業的殺 魔神大吃一驚傷力非常大,因而爭議也比較大。當前信息是,最有可能變為新法案的是,由參議院司法委員會主席Goodlatte等在起草的提案;

4. 據本文介紹▲,上述草∏擬的提案中90%條款,已經擬定竟然能逼得鐘柳使出隱藏手段並基本達成共識,包括:漲價、加強EB-5監管和就業計算的變更(這點之前的消息是還在爭議);另外10%的還在爭議,包括:TEA的認定原成一楞和生效時間(即祖父條款問題)

5. 到底新法何時開始生〓效,是業內和投資者都會非常關心的問題。按照本文的意思:10月1日之前千秋雪冰冷遞交I-526的投資↙者應該是安全的,否則移民局會面臨眾多訴訟。那10月1日到12月11日,或者法案生效前拜謝,由於所謂的祖父條款並未明確,更安全的做法是,投資到¤一個已經遞交I-924範本申請的項目。

6. 所以,就整個即將出臺的法案而言,祖父條款的懸而未∏決,對於投資者或者業內來底牌說,是最要命的事情。關於祖父條款,可以查看這篇文章:何為祖父條款大聲一喝?為何這麽要命並致使法案難產?| 每日一問(1054)

7. 最後,只要你錯過了9月30日,並且已經決▲定參與EB-5加時賽的話,那麽也無需細究祖父條款究竟會怎樣,盡量往前趕,並且按照本文的意思◣盡量投資到一個在10月1日之前,已經遞交I-924範本申請的項目,恐怕是現階段所能做的最好的選擇吧。

原文作者:H. Ronald Klasko律師,翻譯:F. Oliver Yang,原文出處:www.klaskolaw.com。

Where Are We Now?

September 30 has come and gone, and there is no new EB-5 law. Rather, there is an extension of the regional center EB-5 program as part of the continuing resolution to fund the U.S. Government through December 11. The result is that it is business as usual under the existing EB-5 law unless and until a new law passes Congress and is signed by the President. The hope and expectation is that there will be a new law containing a long-term extension of the EB-5 program passed before December 11.

Two EB-5 bills were introduced in the Senate in the last week. One was introduced by Senator Flake of Arizona, focusing on the TEA issue. In addition to rural areas, the bill would include as targeted employment areas groups of census tracts that are “economically integrated” based on commuter flows with unemployment rates exceeding 150% of the national average. The bill would also include state or federal designated incentive program areas, such as enterprise and empowerment zones. Once designated as a TEA, the area would retain the TEA designation for 5 years.

The other bill was introduced by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. His bill would make the regional center program permanent, increase the number of visas available for EB-5, keep the investment amount for TEAs at $500,000 and implement measures to improve the transparency and integrity of the EB-5 program.

Almost certainly, neither of these bills will become law. However, especially the Flake bill is significant in laying a “marker” on the TEA issue. Senator Flake and other key senators, who could be in a position to block any legislation, want to make certain that a new EB-5 bill does not disincentivize investments in urban areas. The Flake bill alerts the drafters of any new legislation as to the TEA language that would merit their approval.

So if neither of these bills is likely to proceed, what is the likely scenario for EB-5 legislation? For months, staffers for Senators Grassley and Leahy and Congressmen Goodlatte, Issa and Lofgren have been attempting to agree on a bill that would be introduced, most likely initially in the House. By most accounts, 90% of the bill is and has been drafted, including an increase in investment amount to $800,000 for a TEA and $1,200,000 for other areas, provisions to increase the transparency and integrity of the regional center EB-5 program and possibly some changes to acceptable job creation methodologies.

The reason that there was no bill introduced before September 30 relates to the other 10% of the bill; specifically, the TEA provisions and the effective date provisions. As discussed in my last blog, the TEA issue is an ideological division; the effective date issue is a legal/practical/philosophical problem.

Reportedly, the drafters of the bill are fairly aligned on a TEA definition that would significantly cut back on urban TEA projects. The problem is that senators from states that have attracted significant EB-5 money into urban projects have made it clear that they would oppose such legislation. Given the limited timeframe, such opposition would prevent the bill from being fast tracked through Congress. The result is that ongoing attempts are being made to draft compromise language that would satisfy the senators and congressmen who want to incentivize rural area investments while appeasing key senators who want to keep investment dollars flowing into urban projects. Most likely, we will see the results of such a compromise in an EB-5 bill to be introduced in the House in the very near future. It is this bill that would likely be the lead vehicle to be expedited for a floor vote in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate, where it hopefully will achieve unanimous consent. Many roadblocks still stand in the way of this scenario, not the least of which is the transition in all of the House leadership positions.

There has been less of an ideological split and more of the drafters trying to understand the differing issues and impacts involved in effective dates and grandfathering for projects and for investors. As of the date of this blog, the effective date language in a new bill remains a moving target.

Most likely, any bill would have separate provisions relating to effective dates and grandfathering for projects as opposed to investors. Even though the Grassley-Leahy Bill had provisions to grandfather projects but not investors, a new bill would more likely grandfather investors rather than projects. However, it is possible that not all investors will be grandfathered; and it is possible that some projects would be grandfathered. It is possible that grandfathering could be based strictly on date of filing or possibly some other standard. There are several possibilities for the effective date — the actual date of passage of the new law; September 30; December 11; a prospective date 6 months or 1 year in advance; a retroactive date as suggested by USCIS. A date which does not grandfather all investors would be grossly unfair to investors and could result in multi-year litigation. Reportedly, the drafters of the bill are looking for a mechanism whereby some but not all projects would be grandfathered based on as yet unknown criteria. One of the criteria may be the filing of an exemplar petition prior to October 1.

So where does that leave us now? For investors, there may well be an advantage to having filed before October 1, although that is unknown at present. It remains good advice for investors to file sooner rather than later, and possibly it may be advantageous for investors to file in projects that filed exemplar petitions prior to October 1.

For projects that filed exemplar petitions prior to October 1, there may or may not be a legal advantage; but there would likely be a marketing advantage. For projects that did not file, there may or may not be an advantage to filing an exemplar petition prior to whatever effective date is included in the new bill. If Congress is looking for a way to distinguish between projects that should and should not be grandfathered, it is possible that there could be an advantage given to a project that actually has investors who have invested or filed EB-5 petitions prior to any effective date.

In summary, the failure to pass EB-5 legislation prior to October 1 keeps investors, project developers and regional centers in limbo, which is not helpful to anyone involved in the EB-5 program. Hopefully, I will soon be able to publish a blog summarizing a new EB-5 bill which will provide a long term, or preferably permanent, extension of the regional center program and which will provide a foundation for the growth of the EB-5 program many years into the future.

  • 移民專家
  • 免費咨詢添加微信ID:yimintong01
  • weinxin
  • 微信公目光只有崇拜眾號
  • 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: