文章由兆龍移民翻譯整理

　　兆龍編者按：以下是我們兆龍移民的小編為大家翻譯的Klasko律師關于EB-5改革提案的評論。兆龍移民的美國律師團隊與各著名移民律師就該EB-5提案進行了深入交流，目前來看，930后EB-5的走向很大程度上取決于TEA的認定標準的松緊。相信目前提案中嚴苛的認定標準會在國會遭到一些議員的激烈反對，但最后能通過一個什么樣的TEA標準，還是未知數，一定會比目前的嚴苛很多，也一定會比提案中的寬松一些，平衡點在哪里，決定了EB-5的未來，也一定程度上決定了很多家庭的未來。未雨綢繆，做好計劃，面對變化!

　　EB-5 Reauthorization bill - What is the big picture?

　　EB-5再授權提案的重點

　　Webinar on June 24, 2015 titled: Implications of the Grassley Leahy Bill

　　2015年6月24日舉行的網絡研討會：Grassley Leahy提案可能帶來的影響

　　Discussion w/ Ron Klasko, Angelo Paparelli, John Tishler, Ozvaldo Torres and Michael Kester

　　討論參與者：Ron Klasko、Angelo Paparelli、John Tishler、Ozvaldo Torres和Michael Kester

　　Angelo Paparell: What is the big picture here? What is this bill going to do to the industry? There's a restriction on the amount of capital that can be raised from non-EB5 funds; there are disclosure requirements and the tax return submission requirements are now 7 years.

　　Angelo Paparell：提案的重點何在?會給EB-5行業帶來怎樣的影響?提案對于非EB-5資金的融資額度作出了限制，且提出了跨度達7年的披露和提交納稅申報單的要求。

　　What are these changes going to do to the industry? Some have suggested that USCIS is now authorized to hire more expensive staff to review these applications and petitions. But what if the industry dries up because there isn't a big enough appetite and other nations offer more attractive citizenship or residency options. I'd like some predictions on where we're going.

　　這些變化會給EB-5行業帶來怎樣的影響?有人指出美國移民局現已獲得授權可以投入更多資金招募人員以審理申請案件。但假使EB-5行業由于沒有足夠的吸引力而枯竭，同時其它國家提供了更具吸引力的公民身份和居留權政策，情況會如何呢?我想要獲得關于未來走勢的預測。

　　Ron Klasko: I think there are two key parts to this bill that if they were enacted in their present form would at the very least do very serious harm to the EB5 industry and render many and possibly most present projects unable to use EB5 money.

　　Ron Klasko：如果提案以目前的形式予以頒布，那么其中有兩個關鍵部分將會在最低限度上對EB-5行業造成嚴重傷害，并使許多最近推出的項目無法使用EB-5資金。

　　First is the TEA provision. There's a very clear rural vs. urban aspect to this bill. The two sponsoring senators are both from rural states and this bill clearly favors rural states, which is one of the reasons that many of the senators from non-rural states are not going along with it.

　　首先是有關目標就業區(TEA)的規定。提案中很清晰地分成農村和城市兩部分進行闡述。提案的兩名發起人都來自農村占主導的州，因而這份提案明顯偏向他們所屬的州，這也是許多來自非農村主導州的議員不同意該提案的原因之一。

　　Basically what it would say is that the only thing that is a TEA and the only thing that prevents the investment amount from going from $500,000 to $1,200,000 is if you're a rural area or a single census track, high-unemployment area. I have a whole bunch of economists who've been looking at this and probably more than 90% of the present urban projects that are TEA’s using census track aggregation are not currently in a census track with an unemployment rate of 150% of the national average, and this is because the concept of census track aggregation, using contiguous census tracks, takes into account where the workers are coming from and the commuting distance concept.

　　簡單來說，提案中規定只有農村地區或單個人口普查區，且擁有高失業率的地區才可以被認定為TEA并使投資額保持在50萬美元而非120萬美元。我手下有一批經濟學家正在研究這個問題，而很可能出現的情況是，目前超過九成的擁有組合人口普查區的城市TEA項目都不位于失業率超過全國平均水平150%的人口普查區內，這是因為組合人口普查區合并了相鄰的兩個普查區，并將勞動者的所屬地區及通勤距離等因素都囊括在內。

　　If you eliminate that as this bill does and only allow single census track TEAs, virtually no urban project would be in a TEA. You’d have to assess the value of the program when the minimum investment is going up 140%.

　　假設如提案所規定的那樣，不承認組合人口普查區的做法，而只允許單個人口普查區的TEA存在，那么幾乎所有城市項目都不位于TEA之內。如果最低投資額增長140%，那么我們就必須對EB-5計劃的價值予以評估。

　　The other thing that will have a very serious effect on the EB5 industry is vast changes in what counts for job creation. If you put them together, many of the existing projects today would have very little job creation that would count and many if not most of the projects today would not be able to use EB5 in the future.

　　另一個會給EB-5行業帶來嚴重影響的方面就是就業創造認定的巨大變化。如果所有這些變化得以全部實施，許多現有的項目將只能夠創造極少被認可的就業，且目前的大多數項目都將無法在未來使用EB-5資金。

　　There's three different aspects to the changes in the job creation. There's a 90/10 rule, a 50/50 rule and there's a 30/70 rule.

　　關于就業創造認定的改變可以分為三個不同的方面。目前提出的有九比一、五比五以及三比七這三種規定。

　　1.The 90/10 rule says, that at least 10% of the total jobs that you can count for EB5 must be direct jobs. The way I read the language of this bill is it says it has to be direct jobs of the commercial enterprise (NCE), which in most cases is the lending company which never has any jobs to speak of. Well let’s say what they really meant and if they amend the language what it's going to say would be, well it can be W2 jobs of the job creating enterprise or the borrower in the lending model. Well that's okay, but in most of the projects that are successful in today's marketplace, most of the jobs are construction jobs, which from an immigration point of view are indirect jobs of the job creating enterprise (JCE). The language would then have to be amended to allow for direct construction jobs, which are not W2 employees of the job creating enterprise. That's a mess. Unless that's changed, it would render most projects no longer approvable.

　　1.按照九比一的規定，所有創造的EB-5就業崗位中必須至少有10%屬于直接就業崗位。根據我對提案的理解，這些直接就業崗位必須是新商業企業(NCE)的就業崗位，而大多數情況下作為貸款方的NCE通常是沒有任何就業崗位可言的。而提案真正的意思，或者說提案人想要表達的想法是，這些直接就業崗位可以是就業創造企業或借貸模式中借款人的W2類(直接雇傭類)工作。雖然這樣的說法行得通，但目前市場上大多數成功項目所創造的就業多數為建設就業，而這在移民的角度來看是就業創造企業(JCE)的間接就業崗位。這樣一來，提案就必須被修改為承認直接建設就業，而這些就業是就業創造企業的非W2類工作。這樣就全亂套了。除非提案得以改變，否則將會致使大多數項目都無法得到批準。

　　2.The 30/70 provision in the bill that many of us who have read many times don't completely understand but what it seems to say is that if a project does not have mostly EB5 money in the capital stack, it’s going to have very severe limitations on the number of jobs that can be counted. If EB5 money is not more than 70% of the capital stack, then the job count is limited. There may be a limitation that only 30% or less of the jobs that presently count for EB5 would count if this bill were to become the law. This clearly favors projects that are mostly or solely EB5 money in the capital stack, which is exactly the opposite of what's marketable in China in today's market, which are big projects where there's a lot of developer money in and EB5 is a smaller part of the capital stack.

　　2.至于提案中的三比七規定，我們中有許多人讀了數遍但仍然沒有完全理解其含義，但看起來該規定想要說的是，如果一個項目的資本結構中EB-5資金沒有占到大多數，那么該項目將在創造就業數量的認定上受到嚴格限制。如果EB-5資金沒有占到項目總資本的七成以上，那么在就業創造認定上就會受到限制。如果目前的提案成為正式法律，那么目前被承認的EB-5就業崗位中可能只有30%或更低比例的就業能夠被承認。這顯然有利于那些EB-5資金占多數或全部使用EB-5資金的項目，而這恰恰與目前中國的市場行情格格不入，因為在中國銷售的許多大項目中，開發商的資金往往占到多數而EB-5資金的比例則相對較低。

　　3.The 50/50 changes to the job creation, which may have a little bit less effect is a determination of whether the jobs that are created can be created outside the TEA. Basically what it says is that if a project is in a TEA and the TEA is in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a CSA, then 50% of the jobs must be in the MSA or CSA. If the project is not in an MSA or a CSA, then 50% of the jobs must be in the same or adjacent county. This clearly limits a projects that has indirect and induced jobs that are not in the local area.

　　3.相比之下，五比五的規定帶來的影響可能稍小些，因為該規定判定的是所創造的就業是否能夠在TEA之外得到創造。簡單來說，如果項目位于TEA內，且TEA位于大都市統計區(MSA)或組合統計區(CSA)之內，那么所創造的就業中必須有50%位于MSA或CSA內。如果項目不位于MSA或CSA內，那么所創造的就業中必須有50%位于同一或相鄰的縣內。這顯然對那些不在局部地區擁有間接和引申就業的項目進行了限制。

　　You put those three changes of counting job creation together, along with the reduction in what would be TEAs, and the impact on the EB5 industry would be very, very, very substantial. The good news is that the chances of all of that happening, certainly from the involvement I've had in the advocacy of this in Washington, are not very good. I think there is a lot of opposition.

　　如果我們將以上三個就業創造認定的變化與TEA認定標準的收緊合并來看的話，EB-5行業所遭受的影響是非常非常巨大的。好消息是，從我在華盛頓參與的倡議活動來看，所有這一切成為現實的可能性并不大。我相信提案必定會遭到許多反對。

　　Doug Edwards, EB-5MA

　　Doug Edwards，馬薩諸塞州EB-5就業有限公司

　　‎2015‎年‎7‎月‎8‎日‎ ‎5‎:‎04‎:‎18

　　Hi Kurt and Folks,

　　Kurt和Folks，

　　I had responded to your request for comment last week concerning the Leahy-Rural Tea response. Which agreed with this week's comment by Ron Klasko. We've been in the creative TEA sector of our industry for 6 years or more. Let me suggest an even more ominous possibility for those virtually non existent one-census tract TEAs. Even if the TEA is realized as conforming to the original census tract sharing precepts of TEA creation, mathematically, the chances are very great that the single census tract will be more volatile and thus more apt to be forced out of said TEA status (unless Grandfathered) due to changing economic factors within a small geographic area. Meaning, those projects originally granted TEA status would sooner or later lose the required unemployment rate that originally was granted. This would make it virtually untenable for any legitimate developer to wait then understand that they might lose the TEA designation during the raise period. Not Good! Could make this program look like a sad imitation of what the Program has overcome during the past 25 years. WOW! * There is so much more to discuss but the obvious problems that have been exacerbated are looking ominous for our industry.

　　根據你們的請求，我已經于上周回復了關于Leahy議員對于農村地區TEA問題所作回復的看法。Leahy議員的回復與本周Ron Klasko律師給出的見解不謀而合。我們已經在EB-5行業獨創的TEA領域干了6年或更久。我想在此提出一個關于那些幾乎不存在的單個人口普查區的TEA的不利前景。即便TEA遵照原先的人口普查區分享規定得以建立，但可以肯定的是，單個人口普查區極有可能將會更不穩定，且會由于較小地理區域內的多變經濟因素而更容易失去TEA狀態(除非免受新規約束)。也就是說，那些原先獲得TEA認可的項目將會遲早失去原先認可的所需失業率水平。這樣的話，就會造成任何合法的開發商等待而后得知他們將在融資期間失去TEA指定的事實，而實際上這是說不通的。這顯然是壞消息。EB-5將會遺憾地重蹈過去25年間所經歷的種種困難的覆轍。需要討論的問題還有許多，但是那些已經呈加劇態勢的明顯問題對于EB5行業顯然是不利的。

　　Best

　　Peace to all

　　一切安好

　　Doug Edwards

　　CEO/President

　　首席執行官/總裁

　　EB-5 Jobs For Massachusetts RC

　　馬薩諸塞州EB5就業區域中心