兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时刻及其影响剖析-律师版,守望先锋

欢迎订阅微信大众号“EB5美国出资移民一点通”(USA-EB-5),中立深度及时,让EB5Sir与您共享EB-5中文第一手资讯。如需转载,请回复“版权声明”查阅。

今日,咱们再回到EB-5变法,EB-5新提案。最近有个问题越来越杰出,虽然参议院6月3日推出的新提案,各方争议特别大,可是究竟是重量级议员提出来的,经过的或许性(或许说在退让修正之后)仍是比较大的。

那问题来了,这份新提案,关于项目、区域中心和出资者有几个要害的改动,在9月30日之前,乃至9月30日之后,将带来哪些影响。从现有的律师们的分析,以及提案条文来看,一旦提案经过并收效,那么就当即关于几个要害革新,如:工作发明条款、TEA(方针工作区)的确认、最低出资额和资金来源,发作至关重要的改动,而在这4个严峻革新中,TEA和最低出资额,或许会因Grandfather(延用旧律)条款而持续沿袭老的法案。

今日,EB5Sir找来了两篇文章,别离本篇是Ronald Klasko律师的文章,另一篇是是Peng & Weber律所的文章。就这两篇解读而言,Peng & Weber律所的文章愈加简洁明了易于了解,Ronald Klasko律师的解读愈加专业详尽,朋友们可以参阅阅览。事前声明下,假如越读越模糊,别忧愁,究竟立法者自己没有说话,USCIS(移民局)没有 发声,都是律师们的个人解读。当然,关于出资道德在者来说,早点递案,防止不确认要素,也是仅有可以操控的。

关于EB-5提案收效时间的解读

就参议院的EB-5提案,咱们将在接下来的时间内发表文章对其持续解读。虽然咱们以为提案中的内容并不会终究悉数成为法令,但在国会给区域中心项目长时间延期之前,咱们坚信EB-5项目必将面对一场立法上的变革。

不管终究经过的法令规则的内容是什么,EB-5项目的改动一旦发作,它的收效日期都将是一个重要的问题。因而,虽然咱们以为终究经过的法令的具体内容或许会和现行提案有所区别,但现行提案中关于收效日期的规则有或许在终究经过的法令中保留下来。根据这一原因,也考虑到项目中心,敞开商和出资人一定是期望在法令收效日之前采纳必要的举动,因而本篇文章旨在谈论参议院EB-5提案的收效日期的相关兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋规则。

在谈论之前,作为一位已将提案中关于收效日期的规则重复研读多遍的律师,我想先论述一下我关于这一问题的观感。在我看来,提案中关于收效日期的规则,有些当地不清晰,有些当地无法操作,有些当地不合逻辑,有些当地又不共同。虽然如此,我仍是期望尽最大的或许就参议院提案中关于收效日期的规则作一个总结。我会把我的谈论侧重放在项目方,出资人,和区域中心这三个方面。

项目方

整体而言,提案中规则关于项目方的改动在法令经过之日起开端收效。那么,关于那些在法令经过日之前递送样本请求,但在法令经过日当天该请求尚在审理的项目意味着什么呢?就这一点而言,提案的规则好听的说是不明晰,刺耳的说便是无法操作。假如关于项目的改动(比方,关于发明工作的改动)对正在检查的样本请求收效,那么其间许多乃至大多数请求都将无法经过。最最少,这些项目都需求为了满意新法令的要求作出实质性的改动,然后或许导致样本请求无法被经过。为了满意新法令的要求作出的改动还或许导致项目文件与该项目下其他出资人现已递送乃至现已获批的请求中的项目文件的不共同。这些法令上的改动或许导致某些项目的出资人不再能获批,然后阻止项目进一步的展开,而危害到那些现已出资的出资人的利益。因而,提案中关于法令经过当日即对正在审理的样本请求收效的规则有必要改动。不然,将会带来非常严峻的移民法和证券法的问题。

咱们应该可以确认的是,最少就出资额以及指定工作区域(TEA)的界说这两块内容,假如样本请求在法令收效日期前递送,那么递送日其时的相关规则会被祖父化而保兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋留下来。请注意这并不意味着假如在递送日当天项目方在TEA内,那么法令收效之后他依然就会被界说为在TEA内。而是,当下关于TEA的界说将会在将来出资人对项目进行出资时依然适用。也便是说,假如该项目契合当下现行的TEA界说——咱们假定他运用的是衔接人口统计区域和州政府认证——那么50万美金的出资额将会对该项目的未来出资人收效。而新提案中更为苛刻的TEA确认将对没有经过递送样本请求而被祖父化的项目的出资人收效。

但是,参议院提案中要求在任何出资人出资之前,项目方需求经过一个和现行的样本请求准则根本相似的获批程序。这一规则会在法案经过之日起收效,而且适用于一切在法案经过日之后递送的I-526请求。

那么,这一规则在一个现已祖父化的样本请求的状况下又怎么适用呢?在这一点上提案的具体规则和目的依然不清晰。虽然如此,从文字的解读上看,提案好像规则在法令经过日之后,样本请求有必要获批的要求适用于一切出资人,不管该出资人出资的是否是现已祖父化的项目。因而,祖父化项目的出资人或许需求等候祖父化的样本请求再次获批才干递送该项目的I-526请求,而这或许需求比及法令经过的几个月乃至几年之后。虽然如此,一旦祖父化的项目获批,那么出资人就可以以现在的出资额进行出资,虽然这或许是法令经过的几年之后。

出资人

出资人的I-526请求并不能祖父化一个项目,因为只要区域中心递送的样本请求才干将项目祖父化。虽然出资人的I-526请求的规范应当适用在出资人递送I-526请求时现行的法令,但提案中的规则好像不能保证会发作这一成果。相反,提案的内容好像可以解读为任何新的改动会对一切正在审理中的I-526请求收效。这或许导致一个极点失常的现象呈现:出资人出资某个在递送时可以经过但因为法令的改动而导致无法经过的项目,而此刻他们一般没有取得还款的途径。假如咱们对现提案的内容的解读是正确的,那么这应该不是也不该该是国会的原本目的。那么,对提案的内容作出必要的修正来保证这一状况不会呈现就非常要害。

提案一起在什么是合法的出资资金来源上有很大Richtofen的改动。在之前的文章中咱们从前指出,假如提案被全文经过,在现行法令准则下可以被承受的许多资金来源方式将不再被承受。提案从文字解读上来说好像要求这些改动在法令经过之日起对一切正在审理的I-526请求适用。毋庸置疑,这将是一个不能承受的成果,因为包含赠与,借款等许多财政上的买卖正如出资资金相同是不可逆的。这将导致许多出资人无法取得出资款返还,或许取得请求同意。因而,修正提案内容,然后清晰界定一切关于资金来源的法令改动仅适用于法令收效日之后递送的请求也就尤为重要。除非而且直到这一修正发作,咱们以为为了稳妥起见,一切新递送的I-526请求都应该依照参议院提案的新要求为准。

提案一起也给了出资人一些优惠,包含可以在递送I-526一起递送I-485调整身份请求,以及可以经过运用245(k)条款在出资人失掉移民资历的180天内依然递送调整身份请求。这些规则将对一切正在审理的I-526请求收效。

最终,提案要求政府在同意I-829之前进行实地考察。这一要求会在法案经过两年后收效。

区域中心

提案中有许多区域中心以及其负责人的新规则。这些变鲁斯兰娜化包含合规的要求,何时可以递送修正请求,区域中心实地考察,区域中心负责人的规则,证券法的规则,关于区域中心商场宣扬的规则等等。一切的改动将在法令经过日对正在审理的区域中心请求收效。虽然如此,关于在法令收效日之前经过的区域中心,在法令收效日一年内该陈长芹法案不会收效。这也就意味着那些现已存在区域中心将有一年的时间来满意提案中的苛刻规则。

因为不同的收效日期的规则充满着不共同和不合逻辑的当地,咱们现在仅有能给出的清晰的主张便是:区域中心在法令收效前需求递送样本请求,以及现在递送I-526的出资人防止运用提案中不认可的某些借款和赠与的资金来源类型。

以上一切关于收效日期的问题咱们都会向国会进行很多的反应和争夺。期望这会在法案正式经过前带来一个可实践的关于收效日期的具体规则。

原文作者:H. Ronald Klasko律师,原文出处:www.blog.klaskolaw.com。

Effective Dates in Senate EB-5 Bill

June 29th, 2015 by H. Ronald Klasko

We are in the process of publishing a number of Client Alerts and blogs on the Senate EB-5 Bill. Although we do not believe that the Bill will pass in its present form, we do believe that there will be some legislative reforms to the EB-5 program before a long term extension of the regional center program is passed by Congress.

No matter 兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋what is contained in the final Bill, the effe詹芳珍ctive date of any changes in the EB-5 program is a critical issue. It is certainly possible that, although the provisions of the Bill may change, the effective date scheme may remain. F康永堂or that reason, and because regional centers, project developers and investors may want to take action before the effective date of any change, I have prepared this Alert to summarize the effective date provisions in the Senate EB-5 Bill.

Before doing so, ho高玉君wever, I want to express my opinion as someone who has read and reread the effective date language many times. That opinion is that the language is at some points unclear, at some points unworkable, at some points illogical and at some points inconsistent. With that said, here is my best attempt to summarize the effective date scheme in the Senate Bill. I will divide my summary into Projects, Investors and Regional Centers.

Projects

The general rule is that the changes regarding我的自豪无可救药 projects are effective on the date of enactment of the law. What does this mean with respect to a project for which an exemplar is filed before the date of enactment and is still pending on the date of enactment? The Bill is at best unclear; at worst, unworkable. If the changes (宁欢燕七爱吃鱼for example, the job解救马疯子 creation changes), were to apply to pending exemplar petitions, many, if not2017韩国道德电影 most, of them would not be approvable. At the very least, the projects would require material changes in order to comply with the new law, which could render the exemplar petitions unapprovable. Changes to comply with the new law would also make the project documents inconsistent with project documents that may have already been filed by investors in the project and for which investors may have already been approved. The legislative 姜异康最新去向changes may render the project no longer approvable for EB兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋-5, which could prevent the project from going forward, to the detriment of investors whose money has already been disbursed. It is critical that the language of the Bill be changed to have the law in place at the time of exemplar filing apply t被黑人o pending exemplar petitions. Otherwise, there could be serious potential immigration and securities issues.

It is fairly clear that a project for which an exemplar is filed before the effective date of the law would be grandfathered at least with respect to the amount of the investment and the definition of Targeted Employme兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋nt Area in effect on the date of filing. Note that this does not mean that the project would be considered to be in a TEA if it is in a TEA on the date of filing. Rather, the same definition of TEA as exists today would be applied at the time a future investor invests in the project. If the project qualified under the present definition of a TEA – presumably including census tract aggregation and state certification – the $500,000 investment level would apply to future investors in the project. The new, far more restrictive definition of a TEA would apply to investors investing in projects that were not grandfathered by the filing of an exemplar petition.

The Senate 孔德薇Bill would require that a project be pre-approved – through an equivalent of the present exemplar system – before any investor could invest in the project. This provision would be effective on the date of enactment and apply to any petition filed after the date of enactment.

How does this fit with the concept of a grandfathered exemplar petition? Again, the language and the intention are not clear. However, the language in the Bill seems to indicate that the requirement for the exemplar petition to be approved would apply to all investors after the effective date of the law, even investors in a grandfathered project. Therefore, investors in a grandfathered project would have to wait for the approv兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋al of the grandfathered exemplar – perhaps many months or even years after the effective date – before being able to file an I-526 petition in the grandfathered project. However, once the grandfathered project is approved, the investor – even if many months or years later – would still be able to invest at the present investment levels.

Investors

An investor’s I-526 petition does not grandfather a project – only an 草朋刀exemplar petition filed by the regional center g兰溪,EB-5提案之收效时间及其影响分析-律师版,守望前锋randfathers a project. Although the law in effect when an investor files an I-526 petition should be applied to that petition, it is not at all clear that the statutory language produces this result. Rather it appears that changes in the law would apply to pending petitions. This could lead to completely anomalous results whereby investors invest in a project – often with no ability to get their investment money back – that was approvable when filed but could become u荷西我喜欢你napprovable as a result of a change in the law. If, in fact, that is the result of the present language, it would appear that it is not the result that Congress could have or should have intended. A change in the language of the statute to make it clear that this result is not intended is critical.

The Bill also changes what is considered to be a proper source of capital for an investment. As indicated in our prior Client Alerts, many sources of capital that are acceptable under the present law would not be acceptable if this Bill were to become law. The language of the Bill seems to indicate that these changes would apply to all I-526 petitions pending on the date of enactment. Again, this would be an unacceptable result since many of the financial transactions – gifts, loans, etc. – cannot be reversed just as the capital investment cannot be reversed. This would render many investors unable either to get their money back or to get their petitions approved. I女性性交t is critical that the language of the Bill be amended to clarify that changes in the law relating to an investor’s source of funds apply to petitions filed after the date of enactment. Unless and until that happens, the prudent course is to comply with the language of the Senate Bill for all newly-filed I-526 petitions.

The Bill provides some benefits to investors, such as the ability to concurrently file an I-526 petition with an I-485 adjustment of status application and the ability to take advantage of Section 245(k) which allows for the approval of an adjustment of status application even if the investor has been out of status for up to 180 days. These provisions applycanzuk to pending I-526 petitions.

Finally, the Bill would require Government site visits prior to approval of an I-829. This provision would go into effect two years after the date of enactment of the law.

Regional Centers

There are many changes affecting regional centers and their principals. There are changes in the compliance requirements, when an amendment must be filed, regional center site visits, regional center principal requirements, securities issues, rules affecting marketing of regional center projects and various other provisions. All of these changes apply to all new regional center applications that are pending on the date of enactment. However, they will not apply for one year after the date of enactment for any regional center that is approved before the date of enactment. This means that already existing regional centers will have one year to meet the far more rigorous standards contained in the Senate Bill.

Given this amalgamation of different effective dates that are inconsistent and in many cases illogical, the only advice that can clearly be given is for regional centers to file exemplar petitions before the effective date of the change in law and for investors to file I-526 petitions avoiding the use of loans and gifts that would be prohibited if the new law were to pass.

All of these effective date issues will be the subject of significant amounts of advocacy that will hopefully result in a 马鹿超话workable scheme before any bill is signed into law.

微信回复“目录”检查首要文章,或点击左下角“阅览原文”,进入www.eb5sir.com查阅一切过往文章。如有任何问题定见或主张,可进入大众号留言,也欢迎在文章右下角的写谈论,互动谈论。

点击展开全文

上一篇:

下一篇:

相关推荐