引言：在著名律師、前美國移民律協(xié)主席 Ron Klasko 1月7日發(fā)表針對美國移民局的公開信(兆龍移民此前已將全文翻譯發(fā)出)之后，美國投資移民領(lǐng)域掀起了的熱烈討論。兩天之后，另一位著名律師Robert C.Divine針對這封公開信也發(fā)表了自己的看法和意見。對Klasko律師公開信中的10條建議，Divine律師有褒有貶。他非常贊同對于“打包申請”和電子化申請程序的建議，以及增設(shè)對I-829申請的及時更新機制。但他也指出，其中一些建議的理論意義大于實際意義，而諸如公開區(qū)域中心數(shù)據(jù)的建議甚至是弊大于利的。總的來說，Divine律師又從另一個視角為我們提供了關(guān)于EB-5審批程序改革的觀點，而業(yè)界熱烈的探討也有利于提高美國移民局對美國EB-5投資移民改革的重視，最終讓美國EB-5投資移民項目向更良性的方向發(fā)展，因此，我們很有必要持續(xù)關(guān)注近期業(yè)內(nèi)的探討情況。在此，兆龍移民特將Divine律師的原文翻譯如下。

　　評論：

　　長期以來，美國移民局的EB-5審批程序一直飽受各方詬病。尤其是近些年來隨著美國EB-5投資移民申請人數(shù)的增加，業(yè)界呼吁移民局改革審批程序、提高審批速度的呼聲一浪高過一浪。而Ron Klasko律師在2015年新年伊始的公開信，被稱為一張寫給移民局的“大字報”，十條言之鑿鑿、措辭強硬的建議，不僅受到了業(yè)界的贊揚，也再次激起了業(yè)界對 EB-5項目冗雜審批程序的不滿。但是，Robert C. Divine律師通過表達自己的看法和意見，讓我們重新冷靜地審視這封公開信的內(nèi)容。的確，兩位律師都認(rèn)為，移民局現(xiàn)有的審批程序存在許多的問題，尤其是效率低下問題確實成為了EB-5發(fā)展的掣肘。通過電子申請系統(tǒng)和“打包申請”制度，確實能夠提高效率，將復(fù)雜的問題簡單化。

　　但既然改革是為了提高效率，那么在Divine律師看來，公開信的有些建議，雖然乍一看很有道理，但實際實施起來，不是可行性低，就是弊大于利。例如，對投資者和開發(fā)者的律師加以區(qū)分，會使得新企業(yè)也會單獨作為一方進入申請當(dāng)中，這只會使事態(tài)更加復(fù)雜，反而變成了畫蛇添足。再如，目前移民局一直不公開區(qū)域中心的數(shù)據(jù)，雖然被認(rèn)為是降低信息透明度，但Divine律師認(rèn)為，這么做是為了避免這些數(shù)據(jù)可能產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo)或者被別有用心的人濫加使用，最終還是為了保護投資者。同時，在本文中Divine律師還對個別問題進行了更深的探討。例如，針對在I-829階段如何應(yīng)對項目實質(zhì)性變更的問題，作者認(rèn)為，最核心的問題不是建立即時變更申請的途徑，而是在前期就確立“實質(zhì)性”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，或者讓移民局直接判定變更后的項目是否還符合EB-5的要求。

　　總的來說，Divine律師的這篇文章，讓我們從Klasko公開信激起的高漲熱情中走出來，重新冷靜、客觀地來審視EB-5的程序改革問題，特別是從另一個角度來了解和評價現(xiàn)有程序。固然，現(xiàn)有的審批程序存在著諸多的問題，但它并不是一無是處的。某些手續(xù)的冗長和繁復(fù)，的確拖慢了整個審批的節(jié)奏，但它確實是為了減少投資和項目的風(fēng)險而存在的。同樣，不論是對Ron Klasko律師的觀點，還是對Robert C. Divine律師的觀點，我們都要一直保持一個冷靜、專業(yè)、客觀的態(tài)度。畢竟兼聽則明，對任何一方的觀點，我們認(rèn)可其言之有理之處，探討其有待商榷之處，才能全面地看待整個EB-5的改革，真正把握EB-5項目的未來發(fā)展趨勢

　　著名律師 Robert C.Divine對Klasko 律師公開信的意見

　　作者： Robert C. Divine

　　翻譯：兆龍移民(轉(zhuǎn)載請注明來源)

　　中英文對照版：

　　I appreciate Ron Klasko's suggestions posted yesterday for procedural improvements to USCIS' administration of the EB-5 program. For the sake of USCIS' consideration and stimulating further discussion, I lodge publicly and to USCIS my reactions to those suggestions.

　　我非常感謝Ron Klasko先生昨天向美國移民局提出的對 EB-5項目處理程序的建議。為了使移民局能夠更重視這件事情，也為了拋磚引玉，促進大家對此的研討，在這里，我向大眾和移民局表達我對這些建議的感受和意見。
 

　　Most importantly, I agree with suggestions 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. USCIS should shift resources to adjudicate within 3 months (not 4) an exemplar petition for the approval of a project. This should be filed electronically to form the basis of a "deal package" through a process that needs improvement from the cumbersome present mechanics. If USCIS has questions, it can ask them to the right party once on the front end, not to 100 investors who already subscribed. Upon approval, the "new commercial enterprise" (NCE) can market the approved project and subscribe investors whose petitions should be filed electronically to link to the approved "deal package" and should be expedited because they only need review of source and path of that investor's funds. make it easier for regional centers to post "deal packages." Yet, USCIS should allow investors to file I-526 petitions and link to deal packages without waiting for project approval if they want, and any systematic expediting of the petitions could be implemented electronically when the linked deal package becomes approved.

　　首先，我個人非常贊同Klasko先生的第1、2、3、7、8條建議。移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)重新分配資源，將審批開發(fā)項目樣板申請的時間壓縮到3個月以內(nèi)(而非4個月)，且這一申請應(yīng)當(dāng)采用電子形式提交。同時，移民局還要對現(xiàn)有的冗雜繁復(fù)的審批機制加以改革和運用，以便形成“打包申請”。如果移民局對項目有任何問題，它們就能只向正確的對象發(fā)出一次詢問，而不是向已投資的100名投資者每人都問一次。而在取得開發(fā)項目的批準(zhǔn)之后，這一新企業(yè)( NCE)就能將項目推向市場，并且投資者可以通過電子方式提交申請，并與“打包申請”連接起來。對這些投資者的申請應(yīng)當(dāng)以更快的速度完成審批，因為這些申請只需要審批資金的來源和途徑，同時也讓區(qū)域中心能夠更容易地推出“打包申請”。但與此同時，如果投資者不想等開發(fā)項目獲批之后再投資，移民局也應(yīng)當(dāng)允許他們直接提交I-526申請并將其與“打包申請”相連接。并且當(dāng)某個“打包申請”整體獲批之后，與之相關(guān)聯(lián)的所有I-526電子申請審批速度都能整體加快。
 

　　The same approach needs to be applied to I-829 filings to save thousands of trees. Because early-immigrating investors can end up filing I-829 petitions long before others and while the project is still developing, the electronic system needs to facilitate layered updating of the "deal package" equivalent for the I-829 stage in order to allow the developer to show an ever-increasing job count to cover the increasing number of investors as they file their I-829s corresponding to the project package.

　　同時，在I-829的申請上也應(yīng)采用與上文同樣的方式以減少樹木砍伐(兆龍注：即采取電子方式提交申請)。因為先辦移民手續(xù)的投資者可以比其他人提前很久就完成I-829的申請，所以現(xiàn)有電子申請系統(tǒng)應(yīng)當(dāng)允許在I-829階段對“打包申請”進行分層更新，這樣項目方就能及時將崗位增加的信息更新上去，進而滿足新增投資者的I-829申請條件。
 

　　These proposals are not new, and for the most part USCIS in fact already included them in a "Proposal for Comment" published on May 19, 2011 with fanfare and introduced by then Director Alejandro Mayorkas himself (now DHS Deputy Secretary). USCIS proposed to adjudicate "shovel ready" projects in 4 months and to allow "premium processing" (3 weeks for extra $1225) for related I-526 petitions. Other parts of that proposal-- regarding email communications about regional center filings and a review board before regional center project denials-- have been implemented. It seems plain that USCIS held back on the rest in the swirl of program leadership and location changes and allegations of favoritism and national security vulnerabilities in the meantime. Three weeks might be too fast given some security vetting USCIS may conduct, but generally expediting such petitions would encourage everyone to use the sensible exemplar process. USCIS has not even referred to the proposals in any ensuing stakeholder meeting. They need to get back to it and get it done.

　　這些建議并不是新提出的。實際上， 2011年5月19日，移民局在公開發(fā)布的、并由時任移民局局長Alejandro Mayorkas(現(xiàn)為國土安全部副部長)所介紹的“供公眾研討的建議”中已經(jīng)涉及到了這些內(nèi)容。移民局打算將針對即將動工的項目的審查時間限定在4個月以內(nèi)，并且允許對相關(guān)聯(lián)的I-526申請優(yōu)先進行審查(另行支付1225美元，時間縮短至3周)。移民局的其他建議，例如通過電郵方式與區(qū)域中心交涉申請事宜，以及在拒絕批準(zhǔn)區(qū)域中心項目之前提供一個異議機制等建議，也已經(jīng)實施了。不過，顯而易見的是，美國移民局依然繼續(xù)維持其在EB-5項目其他方面的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，并且同時顯示出了對部分申請者的偏袒和對國家安全的擔(dān)憂。用3周的時間進行相關(guān)的國家安全審查對移民局來說可能有些太快了，但是總的來說，加速審批時間才會真正鼓勵大家使用這個有效果的樣板處理程序。不過，在之后的所有多方會議上，移民局對這些建議甚至提都沒有再提到過。所以，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)重新著眼在這些建議上，并且盡力讓它們落到實處。
 

　　Proposal 4-- for USCIS to deliberately hold petitions of investors with children subject to age out until their visa number would be available-- is intriguing but much trickier to implement than it sounds and therefore deserving of more comment by others. First, many projects hold funds in escrow until I-526 approval, and this proposal would frustrate the funding needs of such projects. Developers would need a way to require investors choosing for delayed adjudication to forego escrow. Second, the availability of visa numbers is an ever-shifting phenomenon, and USCIS has no control over the advancements and retrogressions that tend to occur, so it is unclear how USCIS could know how long to hold an I-526.

　　第4條建議——即讓移民局特意將子女可能超齡的申請者的I-526申請暫時擱置起來，直到輪到他們可以辦理簽證申請的時候(兆龍注：這樣可以變相鎖定子女年齡，避免子女超齡)——是一個表面上看起來不錯，不過實施起來非常復(fù)雜的建議。因此，這條建議還有待各方研討。首先，許多項目的投資被保管在第三方的機構(gòu)當(dāng)中，直到I-526申請獲批之后資金才能被放出來，因此這項建議將會使許多項目的資金來源出現(xiàn)問題，項目方不得不想辦法能讓申請者選擇推遲I-526審批，進而先把投資款放出來。第二，可以辦理簽證的時間總是在變的，而移民局對這一時間的提前和倒退是無法控制的。所以，移民局實際上無法確定應(yīng)將這些I-526申請擱置多長時間。
 

　　I disagree with proposals 5, 6, and 10.

　　除此之外，就我個人而言，我對Klasko先生的第5、6、10條建議不太贊同。
 

　　As to proposal 5, the law actually gives USCIS authority to speed regional center-sponsored petitions over others, not the other way around, and USCIS should not reverse enacted congressional policy. Instead, USCIS should be more reasonable in its requirement/ of "substantial steps" taken by investors in small investor-managed projects /before filing an I-526 petition in light of the inability of the investor to be here to manage them. As long as the requisite investment funds are committed and a business plan to use them for job creation is shown, that should be enough. USCIS should quit extending the import of the first section of the precedent Matter of Ho decision (22 I&N Dec. 206 (BIA 1998)) beyond its actual holding-- that /a deposit of funds in a corporate account /and signing an assignable lease/ without any credible plan for how to spend the requisite capital in the job-creating business /is not enough.

　　就建議5而言，美國法律實際已經(jīng)賦予了移民局加快區(qū)域中心投資者審批速度的權(quán)力，因此移民局也不能與法律和政策相違背。相反，對某些投資者自己運營的小型項目而言，針對這些投資者申請I-526之前的“實質(zhì)性步驟”要求，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)讓其更加合理，因為這些投資者的確無法親臨美國運營這些項目。在我看來，只要所需資金到位，創(chuàng)造就業(yè)崗位的計劃也已經(jīng)成型，滿足這些條件就已經(jīng)夠了。另外，移民局不應(yīng)當(dāng)在自己實際控制能力之外繼續(xù)擴大對 Matter of Ho案(22 I&N Dec. 206 (BIA 1998)) 第一部分的援引，也就是說，即使在沒有確信的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造資金使用計劃的前提下，移民局也不能認(rèn)定從一個公司賬戶中放款并簽署可轉(zhuǎn)讓的借款合同是屬于不滿足條件的情況。
 

　　At times I have argued for proposal 6, but as Ron says if USCIS implements proposals 1, 2 and 3 the need for separate representation of regional center and investor in an I-526 essentially goes away. And one can argue that the NCE, which might be quite separate from the regional center, has at least as much stake in the I-526 and should be able to be represented as well. Let's avoid the complication by doing the most sensible things.

　　我還曾經(jīng)多次討論過建議6的內(nèi)容，但如果像Klasko先生所說，如果移民局采納了第1、2、3條建議，那么區(qū)域中心和投資者就不再需要在I-526當(dāng)中各自單獨成為一方了。要是真這么說，那么有人就還會認(rèn)為，因為與區(qū)域中心相獨立的新企業(yè)(NCE)在I-526中也具有重要的地位，因此它也應(yīng)該單獨成為一方。所以，我們應(yīng)該做最有意義的事情，而不是讓事態(tài)變得更加復(fù)雜。
 

　　I think proposal 9-- to provide a procedure for premature I-829 exemplar filing for approval of material changes-- is unnecessary in light of USCIS' policy in its May 30, 2013 memorandum that changes at I-829 stage are not deemed "material" and don't prevent I-829 approval if the changed project meets the ultimate investment and job creation requirements of the EB-5 program. The more substantive problem to be fixed is what happens with "material" changes that occur before an investor immigrates as a conditional resident, because USCIS says that results in denial or revocation of the I-526 petition and prevents conditional residence. There needs to be a way to determine whether or not a change is considered "material" in the early stages so that an investor facing some change can know whether the change requires starting over or not. Such a review process even should offer an advisory opportunity, so that investors (and their project developers) could seek review before making the change and avoid the change if it might be found material. As with later-stage changes, USCIS should clarify that the question for materiality of pre-immigration change should be whether the revised plan actually meets EB-5 requirements or not, not whether the changes could affect eligibility. And the implications of change to a plan that originally was not ineligible should not include loss of priority date and consequent loss of a child's immigration due to age-out, so USCIS stop denying and revoking changed approvable petitions and should by policy and regulation at least recognize the same priority date preservation rule for subsequent EB-5 petitions that it does for subsequent EB-1, 2 and 3 petitions.

　　此外，我認(rèn)為建議9的實際作用不大。建議9的內(nèi)容是，為已提交的I-829樣板申請?zhí)峁┻M行實質(zhì)性變更申請的途徑。根據(jù)移民局在2013年5月30日備忘錄中的內(nèi)容，如果某一項目在I-829階段的變更不是實質(zhì)性的，并且變更后的項目最終符合EB-5項目的投資與創(chuàng)造就業(yè)要求，這一項目的獲批就不會受影響。不過，我們真正要解決的核心問題在于，如果在一名投資者獲得臨時綠卡之前，項目就發(fā)生了實質(zhì)性變更，那么該怎么辦?因為根據(jù)移民局的規(guī)定，這種情況會導(dǎo)致投資者的I-526申請被拒絕或者被駁回，進而無法取得臨時綠卡。因此，在I-526申請的前期階段，我們需要制定一個衡量變更的“實質(zhì)性”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這樣投資者面對項目變更時，就能知道這些變更會不會導(dǎo)致重頭開始I-526的申請。這個程序甚至還需要增加在變更前獲得建議的機會，這樣投資者和項目方在對項目進行變更之前就能再次評估，并且避免可能發(fā)生的實質(zhì)性變更。而對于I-526申請的后期階段，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)明確回答變更后的項目是否滿足EB-5項目的要求，而不是項目變更是否影響申請資格的問題。而對于項目的變更，如果一項變更被移民局認(rèn)為導(dǎo)致申請者喪失申請資格，那么移民局不得因此也取消該申請者的優(yōu)先日，進而也不能以子女超齡問題剝奪其子女共同移民的權(quán)利。所以，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)停止拒絕和撤銷變更后的申請，并且依據(jù)政策與法規(guī)，移民局至少應(yīng)當(dāng)和后續(xù)的EB-1、EB-2、EB-3申請一樣，對后續(xù)的EB-5申請采用同樣的優(yōu)先日保留制度。
 

　　Proposal 10-- to publish regional center statistics-- sounds more attractive in the abstract than in reality. Most importantly, regional centers are not the NCEs, and increasingly are not in charge of NCEs, so a track record of the regional center is not necessarily reflective of the investment enterprise, good or bad. An NCE might need to use a regional center uniquely approved for the project's location, and could be unfairly disadvantaged in marketing by the regional center statistics. Perhaps more importantly, the statistics would be confusing. Some regional centers who encountered one of USCIS' infamous hard-line approaches to the "no redemption" requirement might have experienced massive denials followed by swift approval of all of the same investors, skewing the statistics in an unfair direction. Others who faced the same problem might have withdrawn petitions and re-filed, so the same essential results would look very different in approval rates. An investor can ask a regional center or developer about past success and should get meaningful answers. The rules prohibit securities issuers from misrepresenting such things as regional center track records, and that's enough, especially if the SEC spot checks some issuer claims. I'm usually for transparency, but proposal 10 would do more harm than good.

　　第10條建議——公開區(qū)域中心相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)——只是在理論上比較有看頭而已。首先，區(qū)域中心不是新企業(yè)，區(qū)域中心也不管理新企業(yè)，所以區(qū)域中心的相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)并不能有效反映所投資企業(yè)運營狀況的好壞。新企業(yè)唯一需要借助區(qū)域中心的地方只是需要區(qū)域中心批準(zhǔn)企業(yè)的所在地，因此區(qū)域中心的數(shù)據(jù)會間接地影響新企業(yè)的市場推廣狀況。而更重要的一點在于，區(qū)域中心的相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)可能具有誤導(dǎo)性。有的區(qū)域中心可能會遭遇到移民局臭名昭著的“無法恢復(fù)”的要求，然后在大量的投資者申請都被拒絕之后，這些投資者的申請又迅速地通過了。這種情況會歪曲數(shù)據(jù)的指導(dǎo)性。而對于其他面對同樣狀況的申請者來說，他們可能會取消申請并重新提交，所以雖然最終結(jié)果相同，但申請批準(zhǔn)率會產(chǎn)生非常大的差別。投資者通過了解區(qū)域中心或者開發(fā)者過去的記錄，就可以獲取到有用的信息，而不需要通過公開數(shù)據(jù)來多此一舉。同時，現(xiàn)有的規(guī)則還避免了證券發(fā)行商通過區(qū)域中心數(shù)據(jù)發(fā)布錯誤信息，這一作用已經(jīng)非常大了，特別是當(dāng)證監(jiān)會抽查一些證券發(fā)行商的時候。我一直認(rèn)為信息的透明度是非常重要，但是第10條建議確實是一條弊大于利的建議。
 

　　來源：

　　http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?3922-Article-Divine-s-Tweaks-to-Klasko-s-EB-5-Process-Proposals-By-Robert-C-Divine