“at risk”要求的反面案例分享|AAO判例分享

2018-04-13 eb5sir

众所周知,按照移民法规的要求,EB-5投资必须“at risk”(置于风险之中),才能满足要求,获批I-526申请,进而拿到绿卡。

移民法提出如下at risk的要求:

To show that the petitioner has invested or is actively in the process of investing the required amount of capital, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital placed at risk. 

需要证明,申请人已经投资了或者正在积极投资,所需数额的资本,并且必须证明申请人已经将该投资置于,以谋取投资回报为目的,的风险之中(at risk)。

移民局依据移民法制定的审案手册中,对于at-risk的要求为:

• The immigrant investor must have placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital placed at risk;

• There must be a risk of loss and a chance for gain;

• Business activity must actually be undertaken; and 

• The full amount of the investment must be made available to the business(es) most closely responsible for creating the employment upon which the petition is based. 

• 移民投资者必须将所需数额的资本置于风险之中,以谋取投资回报为目的;

• 必须有损失的风险以及获得收益的机会;

• 商业活动必须实际上在进行;

• 投资的全部金额,必须提供给那个负责创建申请所依赖的就业最为紧密的企业。

在过去的经历中,见过不少案例,都是因为移民局认为项目不符合“at risk”的要求,而拒绝了投资者的I-526申请。究其原因,都是因为项目方提供了抵押或赎回等条款,使得EB-5资金被认为没有“a risk of loss”。

今天,来看一个反例,移民局认为EB-5资金,没有“a chance for gain-获得收益的机会”。

这是来自于,AAO在过去两个月的几个新判例,拒绝的是几个同项目投资者在AAO就其I-526被拒的申诉。该项目是,一个4000万EB-5融资,即80人规模的酒店项目。

移民局发现:

LP agreement and loan agreement “do not provide the Petitioner with any rights to the NCE’s profits, whether derived from the loan interest or otherwise, and the sole opportunity for the Petitioner to generate a return on the investment is if the general partner elects to pay a 0.05% interest payment upon the NCE’s loan repayment.” 

LP(有限合伙)协议和贷款协议“没有给申请人获得NCE(新商业企业)利润的任何机会,不管是从贷款利息或者其他地方,并且唯一能用EB-5投资产生回报的机会就是,如果在收到JCE(就业创造企业-即项目公司)归还贷款后,GP(普通合伙人-即区域中心)选择支付给LP(有限合伙人-即EB-5投资者)0.05%的利息。

The partnership agreement creates a structure in which, after the NCE receives its annual interest and pays expenses, the general partner is entitled to all residual funds. Because the NCE’s intended return on the investment derives exclusively from the 1.5% interest charged on its loan to the JCE, the NCE’s obligation to pay 1.5% of the loan amount in expenses and general partner management fees does not allow for any proceeds to be allocated to the limited partners. Therefore, any return payable to the Petitioner is unrelated to the purpose of the underlying investment and is wholly discretionary for the general partner to pay from other unspecified sources. 

有限合伙协议创建了一种结构,在NCE收到其年度利息并支付费用后,GP(普通合伙人)有权获得所有剩余资金。 由于NCE的投资回报完全来自于其向JCE贷款收取的1.5%利息,因此NCE有义务用该1.5%的贷款利息来支出费用以及GP的管理费用,也就不可能有任何收益分配给LP。 所以,支付给移民申请人(LP)的任何回报与相关的EB-5投资无关,这只是GP从其他来源支付投资者回报的。

因此,移民局认为:

EB-5申请人,“discretionary chance for return which is unrelated to the investment does not satisfy the regulatory requirement for capital at risk under 8 C.F.R. § 204.60)(2).” 

EB-5申请人,(所获得的)任意的非基于投资的回报机会,不能满足移民法就投资“置于风险之中”的要求。

再梳理一下,用简单的表达方式:

由于根据项目文件,GP大权独揽,在NCE收取JCE的利息并刨除费用之后,LP并没有权利获得EB-5投资收益,因此,就算其小小的0.05%收益被认为是只能来自于其他(非EB5投资)来源,因此EB-5申请人的投资没有“a chance for gain-获得收益的机会”,也就是不满足“at risk”的要求,因而I-526申请被拒。

所以说,项目方老板也不能太抠门,否则连I-526申请都会被拒。

参考材料:

1. https://blog.lucidtext.com/2018/04/10/new-litigation-and-aao-decisions-invest-requirements/(Suzanne博客)

2. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/err/B7%20-%20Immigrant%20Petition%20by%20Alien%20Entrepreneur,%20Sec.%20203(b)(5)%20of%20the%20INA/Decisions_Issued_in_2018/FEB282018_02B7203.pdf (AAO判例)

发表评论

邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注

点击加入AAED会员群