兆龍移民原創(chuàng)翻譯 轉載請注明出處

　　引言：2015年1月6日，著名移民律師Ron Klasko在EB-5 NewsBlog上發(fā)表了一封給美國現(xiàn)任移民局長Rodriguez和辦公室主任Colucci的公開信。由于近幾年來美國EB-5投資移民項目一直受到外國投資者的追捧，EB-5移民項目審批程序效率低下的問題也隨著申請人數(shù)的增多而逐漸顯現(xiàn)出來。一邊是美國EB-5投資移民項目為美國經(jīng)濟和就業(yè)所作出的巨大貢獻，一邊卻是廣大外國投資者焦急而漫長的等待。有鑒于此，作者針對審批程序的優(yōu)化，為美國移民局提出了十條既不增加成本、又能使各方共贏的建議，其中包括減少EB-5審批時間、同一項目的I-526一起審批、為面臨者單開隊列等具體措施。這篇長文章雖然措辭比較強硬，但的確揭示了目前美國EB-5投資移民項目的一些不足之處，而且提出的建議也非常中肯和有建設性。在此，兆龍移民特將原文翻譯如下。

　　十條建議提煉：

　　1、美國移民局必須減少美國EB-5投資移民項目申請的審批時間。

　　2、美國移民局應當加快對已獲批項目投資者的I-526申請審批時間。

　　3、移民局應當一起審批同一個項目的所有I-526申請。

　　4、對將會面臨簽證的投資者，應當單獨給他們開一個隊列。

　　5、美國移民局也應當給美國EB-5投資移民直接投資者單獨開一個隊列。

　　6、美國移民局應當對投資項目和區(qū)域中心的律師有所區(qū)分。

　　7、ELIS系統(tǒng)是一個典型的目標美好但運轉不良的反面教材。

　　8、移民局應當設立I-829的審批程序樣板。

　　9、移民局應當為發(fā)生實質性變更的項目提供立即提交I-829樣板申請的途徑。

　　10、移民局應當讓公眾更有效地知曉信息。

　　中英文對照：

　　I was heartened by the remarks of Director Rodriguez at the recent EB-5 stakeholders engagement in which he extolled the virtues of the EB-5 program and emphasized the importance of USCIS’s role in maximizing the benefits to the U.S. economy as Congress envisioned when it created the EB-5 program.

　　最近，Rodriguez局長在EB-5產(chǎn)業(yè)會議上的講話讓我倍受鼓舞。在講話中，他稱贊了EB-5項目的重要價值，并且強調了移民局在最大化EB-5對美國經(jīng)濟的貢獻中所發(fā)揮的舉足輕重的作用。這一作用也是國會在設立EB-5項目之初就已經(jīng)預見到的。
 

　　At the same time, I was struck by the inconsistency between these laudable goals and the continuation of procedures that do not further these goals but rather, in many ways, thwart the efficient processing of EB-5 petitions.

　　但與此同時，現(xiàn)實的情況也讓我震驚：與這些美好的目標相比，與之配套的EB-5申請?zhí)幚沓绦虿粌H長期沒有能夠實現(xiàn)這些目標，反而在很多方面嚴重阻礙了處理速度。
 

　　I have on many occasions suggested changes in policy and in legal interpretation that would improve the EB-5 program. That is not the purpose of this letter. Rather, the purpose of this letter is to suggest purely procedural processing improvements that could, without expending additional resources, significantly improve the EB-5 program in ways that would benefit investors, regional centers, project developers and the U.S. economy. Indeed, I would venture to say that the suggestions below would be beneficial to all parties, including USCIS, and detrimental to none. As such, I sincerely hope that you would reconsider implementing some, if not all, of the below suggestions.

　　在許多場合，我都多次提倡國家對政策和法律適用進行改革，提高整個美國EB-5投資移民項目的水平。但這不是這封公開信的主要目的。我這封信的主要目的，是單純地針對處理程序提出一些建議，讓國家在不需要增加投入的情況下，改革程序以顯著提升EB-5項目的水平，最終能夠造福投資者、區(qū)域中心、項目方以及整個美國的經(jīng)濟。在這里，我鼓足勇氣地說，我認為我的建議會使EB-5中的所有參與方(包括美國移民局)均從中獲益，而不會對任何一方造成減損。有鑒于此，我真心地希望你們(Rodriguez局長和Colucci主任)可以考慮并采納我下面的建議，哪怕只是其中的一部分。
 

　　Here is my list:

　　我的十條建議如下：

　　1、USCIS must reduce processing times for project applications. This is absolutely critical for the success of the program. There is no question that it is to everyone’s benefit – USCIS, project developers, investors – to have USCIS adjudicate an approved project before investors invest and file I-526 petitions. However, this goal will never be achieved if project developers have to wait 8 months, 10 months, 12 months or longer for project approvals before investors can invest and file. It is the rare project that can afford a delay of that length before bringing investment funds into the project. If project developers are not assured of a consistent 4 month processing time, USCIS will continue to double its workload by forcing project developers to proceed to market the project, resulting in investors filings I-526 petitions, while at the same time filing I-924s with exemplar petitions. USCIS then must adjudicate the exemplar projects on I-924s, adjudicate the same projects on I-526s, issue RFEs on I-924s and issue perhaps hundreds of the same or inconsistent RFEs on the project on I-526s. This is the present system in which no one wins, and everyone loses. Eliminating these multiple filings and multiple RFEs would realize a significant saving in manpower and resources, which could enable USCIS to meet the 4 month processing goal without having to add additional staffing.

　　1、美國移民局必須減少美國EB-5投資移民項目申請的審批時間。對整個國家的EB-5投資移民項目的成功而言，這是至關重要的一環(huán)。毫無疑問，在投資者向某一項目投資并且提交I-526申請之前先由移民局審查該項目，這對移民局、項目方和投資者各方而言都是有益的。然而，如果在投資者可以投資并申請之前，項目方要足足等上8個月、10個月、12個月甚至更長的時間才能獲得移民局對項目的批準，那這種益處就變成了空中樓閣。只有極少數(shù)項目在外國投資最終進入項目之前承受得起這么長的審批時間。如果項目方不能確定在四個月內通過審批，移民局反而會讓項目方將項目投向市場，進而增加項目方的負擔。這么做的結果是投資者一邊要提交I-526申請，一邊還要利用申請樣板進行I-924的申請工作。然后，美國移民局就不得不又審批項目的I-924申請樣板，又審批同一項目的一大堆I-526申請，還要對同一項目的I-924申請和I-526申請分別發(fā)出上百個補件通知(RFE)。這種冗雜繁復的狀況，正是我們目前整個體制的現(xiàn)狀，沒有人會從中獲益，但每個人都遭受損失。因此，停止進行這些重復的申請和重復的補件通知，能夠顯著地減少人力和資源的浪費，讓移民局可以在不增加人手的情況下就實現(xiàn)審批時間僅需4個月的目標。
 

　　2、USCIS should expedite I-526 processing for investors in an approved project. In order to encourage project developers to use the I-924 process to obtain project approval, there should be some benefit to the project and its investors. A logical benefit would be to have investors in such projects receive I-526 adjudications far more promptly than investors in other projects. This not only serves the benefit of motivating developers to obtain project pre-approval. It also recognizes that the adjudication process for such investors is far more streamlined and straight forward.

　　2、美國移民局應當加快對已獲批項目投資者的I-526申請審批時間。為了鼓勵項目方通過I-924審批程序獲得項目的批準，必須要給項目方和投資者一定的利好才行。對于投資者來說，一種比較符合邏輯的利好是投資者如果向已獲批項目進行投資，那么他的I-526申請的處理速度就應當大大高于其他非獲批項目的投資者。這樣做不僅僅能鼓勵項目方盡量取得項目的預批準，同樣還能讓這些投資者的申請審批更加流暢和高效。
 

　　The most time consuming aspect of the I-526 processing is the adjudication of the qualification of the project. Once this is completed, a separate dedicated staff of adjudicators whose only role is to adjudicate source and path of funds should be able to complete the adjudication in 3 to 4 months. It only makes sense that these petitions should have a prompter processing time than petitions that require full project adjudication. In fact, if the only issue is source and path of funds, USCIS should be able to reconsider the availability of premium processing for such petitions. Premium processing, in turn, would increase fee revenue, which could produce funds for more adjudicators. This procedure would put EB-5 in line with other family-based and employment-based petition processing since employer I140 petitions and family I-130 petitions are adjudicated separately from permanent residence applications of alien beneficiaries.

　　I-526審批最花時間的部分是審查項目的資質。一旦審查通過之后，專門負責審查資金來源的一批審查員就能在3-4個月內完成整個I-526的審批。但審查資金來源的時間應當短于審查整個項目的時間，否則這么做就沒有意義了。實際上，如果僅僅是審查資金的來源和途徑，移民局應該重新考慮對處理程序進行優(yōu)化。優(yōu)化后的處理程序反過來也能夠提高移民局的費用收益，并可以將這筆收益作為資金雇用更多的審查人員。這種優(yōu)化后的程序，能夠讓美國EB-5投資移民與其他家庭型或職業(yè)型的申請?zhí)幚硐嘁恢�。因為在審查程序上，職業(yè)移民的I-140申請和親屬移民的I-130申請是與外國移民受益人的綠卡申請分開進行的。
 

　　3、USCIS should process all project I-526s together. USCIS has been inconsistent in its application of two different concepts. On the one hand, USCIS at various times has stated that it will process all project I-526s together as a matter of processing efficiency. In fact, there were many examples where later investors in a project were processed far more quickly than earlier investors because all project issues were resolved.

　　3、移民局應當一起審批同一個項目的所有I-526申請。移民局并沒有讓它的承諾與實際相一致。一方面，移民局多次表示他們會將同一項目所有的I-526申請一起審批以提高處理效率。但實際上，有很多例子表明，某一個項目中后來的投資者因為已經(jīng)解決了他的項目問題，而比先來的投資者更快獲批。
 

　　More recently, it appears that this laudable objective has fallen by the wayside in favor of a strict FIFO processing objective. This has resulted in processing inefficiencies whereby adjudicators are looking at investors in a project over a period of many months or sometimes even more than a year. This is also detrimental to many projects which require approval of a certain number of investors before any money can be released to the project. The result is that projects may be held in abeyance until it becomes clear that a minimum number of investors have been approved and their funds released from escrow.

　　而最近，我們離這一美好的目標已經(jīng)越來越遠了，因為移民局開始嚴格按照“先進先出”的處理制度進行審批。在這一原則之下，由于審查員光在一個項目上就要花費幾個月甚至一年多的時間，導致審批效率非常低下。這一現(xiàn)狀對那些在投資者的I-526申請通過之后投資款才會到位的項目也不是個好消息。最終的結果是，在獲批的投資者人數(shù)滿足最低要求并且資金從第三方監(jiān)管機構中放款之前，這些項目不得不處在暫�；驍R置的狀態(tài)。

　　(注：“先進先出”制度，F(xiàn)irst In First Out，即先進入審批程序的申請者先處理，處理完成后才處理下一位申請者。例如在超市排隊結賬，要在前一個人結賬完成后，后一個人才能開始結賬。)
 

　　4、A separate processing queue should be implemented for investors who are subject to quota retrogression. This is another change that would have all winners, and no losers. Investors subject to quota retrogression gain no benefit upon the approval of the I-526 petition. Many suffer a detriment because longer processing times could enable their children to immigrate with them under the provisions of the Child Status Protection Act.

　　4、對將會面臨簽證的投資者，應當單獨給他們開一個隊列。這也是另一個各方共贏且并無減損的改革措施。對于面臨簽證的投資者來說，即使I-526審批成功，對他們來說也不是利好消息。因為審批時間的延長，許多申請者因此不能夠根據(jù)兒童保護法讓他們的子女與他們一起移民。
 

　　Investors not subject to quota retrogression would also win because their petitions could be adjudicated far more expeditiously, and they can actually benefit from the adjudications of the petitions by being able to immigrate to the U.S. sooner.

　　那些不會面臨移民的投資者也是這一改革的受益者，因為他們的申請能夠更迅速的獲得批準，進而能夠更早地成功移民美國。
 

　　USCIS would benefit by devoting its resources in a manner that maximizes benefits to its stakeholders without any need to expand its resources. Such a procedure would not be novel since USCIS has long delayed processing of family-based I-130 petitions in categories with long quota backlogs simply as a matter of allocation of resources.

　　美國移民局同樣是這項改革的受益者，因為它可以將資源按照最優(yōu)化的方式分配，并且不需要另外增加投入。這種改革不是天方夜譚，因為正是資源分配的問題，導致移民局I-130親屬移民申請也存在處理時間漫長的情況。
 

　　5、USCIS should have a separate processing line for direct EB-5 investors. Up until the last year, when USCIS has tried to implement a straight I-526 FIFO processing scheme, direct EB-5 petitions were adjudicated far more promptly than regional center applications. This system made a lot of sense for some of the same reasons mentioned above with respect to I-526 petitions for investors in approved projects. Why should a direct EB-5 investor have to wait in line behind hundreds of investors in projects that require complex adjudication? By contrast, most direct EB-5 projects involve far fewer issues for the adjudicator to deal with.

　　5、美國移民局也應當給EB-5直接投資者單獨開一個隊列。直到去年，在移民局開始嘗試在I-526審批上采用先進先出的處理制度之前，EB-5直接投資者的審批時間是大大短于區(qū)域中心投資者的審批時間的。正如上文所述，這一制度對于已獲批項目的投資者而言具有重要的意義。但為什么一個EB-5直接投資者還得排在眾多需要經(jīng)過繁復審批過程的投資者后面等待審批?畢竟，EB-5直接投資者所需審批的事項并不多。
 

　　There is another reason why direct EB-5 investors should be in a separate – and shorter – queue. Unlike regional center investors, whose presence in the U.S. is not necessary for the development of the investment project, often the direct EB-5 investor is the hands-on manager of the investment project. As such, his presence in the U.S. is critical on a far more expeditious basis.

　　這里還有一個應當為直接投資者單獨開一個更快捷的隊列的原因。與一般不參與投資項目經(jīng)營發(fā)展的區(qū)域中心投資者不同，直接投資者通常都是項目的實際經(jīng)營者。因此，相比較而言，能否更快地成功移民美國對直接投資者而言更加重要。
 

　　6、The attorney for the investment project or the regional center should be recognized by USCIS. There are clearly two parties to an I-526 petition – the project developer and the investor. In many cases, the attorney for the project developer is different than the attorney for the investors. USCIS’ present modus operandi, which recognizes only the investor’s attorney on an I-526 petition, creates various anamolous results. The attorney for the investor has to file a petition consisting mostly of information about a project for which the investor’s attorney is not responsible and often has no knowledge of its veracity. If USCIS has questions about the project, it is in the anamolous situation of issuing an RFE to the investor, who does not know the answer. The project developer is in the anamolous situation of having to hope that the investor or the investor’s attorney sends the information to the project developer. The project developer is reliant on the investor’s attorney to submit its response, unaltered, even though the attorney does not represent the project developer. The present procedure invites different responses from different attorneys to the same RFE about the same project.

　　6、美國移民局應當對投資項目和區(qū)域中心的律師有所區(qū)分。一份I-526申請通常會涉及兩方：一方是項目方，另一方是投資者。在許多情況下，項目方的律師與投資者的律師不是同一個人。而移民局現(xiàn)在在I-526申請中僅認可投資者律師的做法造成了很多奇怪的狀況。投資者律師在制作申請文書時往往涉及許多項目信息，但律師自己既不對這些信息負責，通常也并不了解這些信息的真實性。所以，如果移民局對項目有疑問并向投資者發(fā)出補件通知，這將是一個非常奇怪的情況，因為投資者及其律師并不知道這些問題的答案。相應的，項目方則希望投資者或投資者律師將移民局的要求通報給他們。最終的結果是，雖然投資者律師并不代表項目方，但后者卻需要通過前者對移民局的要求進行回復。因此，現(xiàn)行的程序使得針對同一項目的同一補件通知，不同的律師卻給出了不同的回復。
 

　　Of course, this result would be obviated if USCIS adopts the earlier suggestions in this letter that would result in project issues being dealt with at the I-924 stage – a petition for which the developer’s attorney has filed a G-28. However, unless and until that happens, USCIS should act consistently with other employment-based petitions. In all of the employment-based petitions, USCIS recognizes that the employer may have different counsel than the employee. The I-526 petition is the only example in which USCIS forces two completely independent parties to have the same attorney, to the detriment of everyone.

　　正因為如此，如果移民局采納了前文的建議，就能讓項目方的律師在提交了G-28表格(委托授權表)之后，在I-924審查階段就能將有關項目的這些問題解決，最終解決掉現(xiàn)行程序的弊端。不過，在移民局正式采納并實施這一建議之前，移民局應當至少采取與其他職業(yè)移民申請相一致的做法。在所有的職業(yè)移民申請中，移民局認為雇主的律師可能與雇員的不一致。但I-526申請是唯一一個移民局強行地讓完全獨立的兩方(投資者與項目方)雇用同一個律師的申請，這一做法無益于各方。
 

　　If USCIS recognizes the project developer as a separate party in the I-526 process, it would only be required to issue one RFE for the project instead of, for example, one hundred RFEs for one hundred investors in the project. This is clearly loselose.

　　如果美國移民局將項目方視為I-526申請中的獨立一方，那么針對同一項目，移民局就只需要發(fā)出一份補件通知，而不需要給項目中近百個投資者每人發(fā)一份。這對各方而言無疑都是一種減負的舉措。
 

　　7、ELIS is an example of a laudable goal with a seriously flawed implementation. ELIS should be implemented in such a manner that there is one set of project documents available to investors and their attorneys online. The almost total lack of usage of the system as implemented is proof positive of the user-unfriendly nature of the system as presently implemented. USCIS should work together with stakeholders to develop a system that meets the needs of USCIS and stakeholders. In this situation, those needs should be co-existent.

　　7、ELIS系統(tǒng)是一個典型的目標美好但運轉不良的反面教材。ELIS系統(tǒng)的最佳運轉情況，應當是能為投資者和他們的律師在線提供一整套的項目文件。但是，因為這一系統(tǒng)的用戶體驗實在不夠理想，導致該系統(tǒng)幾乎無人使用。在兼顧各方需求的情況下，移民局應當與各方一道，共同完善ELIS系統(tǒng)以滿足各方需求。
 

　　8、USCIS should create an I-829 exemplar process. Less attention has been paid to the I-829 process, largely because only a small percentage of investors have reached the point of I-829 filing. As more and more such applications are being filed, the same kind of processing inefficiencies that have reared their ugly heads in the I-526 process are manifesting themselves in the I-829 process.

　　8、移民局應當設立I-829的審批程序樣板。很少有人關注I-829的審批過程，主要是因為只有很少一部分的投資者會走到申請I-829這一步。不過隨著申請者人數(shù)的增多，I-526審批程序中的低效率在I-829程序中同樣顯現(xiàn)出來。
 

　　Take a project with 100 investors. 100 different petitions with possibly 100 different attorneys are filed containing documentation of which the investors and their attorneys know very little and cannot certify the veracity. Virtually 100% of the I-829 petition involves documentation that is only available to the regional center and the project developer. Hopefully – but not definitely – all 100 I-829 petitions will contain the same information about the project and its job creation. If USCIS has questions about the job creation or the issue of whether the investors have sustained their investments, USCIS would need to issue 100 Requests for Evidence. Is all of this necessary? Does it really make any sense?

　　我們以一個具有100名投資者的項目為例。100個不同的投資者律師遞交了100份不同的申請文件，而這些文件中卻都包含著投資者和律師所知甚少、且不能保證其真實性的信息。實際上，所有的I-829申請都包含只有區(qū)域中心和項目方才能提供的文件。我們假設(但并不一定發(fā)生)，全部100份I-829申請中關于項目和就業(yè)創(chuàng)造的信息都是相同的。那么如果移民局對就業(yè)創(chuàng)造或投資者維持投資有疑問，移民局就需要發(fā)出100個補件通知。真的有必要這么做嗎?這么做真的有意義嗎?
 

　　This writer believes that the answer to both questions is in the negative. What makes more sense is to have an I-829 exemplar process whereby USCIS can adjudicate all issues relating to the project. This would be filed by the project and its attorney. Any issues specific to the investor could be filed on the I-829 by the investor’s attorney when his filing window is reached. Any issues relating to the project should be adjudicated before most investors file their I-829 petitions.

　　筆者認為，對這兩個問題的答案都是“沒有”。真正有意義的措施，是建立一個I-829的審批程序樣板，這樣移民局就能將與該項目有關的所有問題一并審批。這一樣板可由項目方和律師來提供。任何關于投資者的具體事項都可以在I-829申請階段由投資者的律師適時提供，而任何有關項目的具體事項都應當在大多數(shù)投資者申請I-829之前進行審批。
 

　　Of course, there may be some instances in which there are enough jobs for the early investors at the time they file their I-829 petitions and then more jobs are created by the time later investors file their I-829 petitions. This can be dealt with through a procedure to update or supplement the I-829 exemplar petition.

　　當然，在某些情況下，當在先的投資者申請I-829時創(chuàng)造了足夠的就業(yè)崗位，在后的投資者申請I-829時又創(chuàng)造了更多的崗位。這種情況可以通過更新和補充I-829樣板的程序來處理。
 

　　9、USCIS should provide a procedure for an I-829 exemplar petition to be filed immediately for projects that have been subject to material changes. When there is a material change in a project after the approval of conditional residence, the investor has to wait 21 to 24 months to learn whether the changed project will be sufficient for condition removal. A more efficient system for all concerned would be to have a procedure whereby USCIS could adjudicate the new materially-changed project for EB-5 compliance. If necessary, this would give the investor the opportunity to make a different investment or effectuate whatever changes would be necessary to enable him to remove conditions.

　　9、移民局應當為發(fā)生實質性變更的項目提供立即提交I-829樣板申請的途徑。如果某一項目在已經(jīng)獲得I-526批準之后又發(fā)生了實質性變更，投資者必須要等21-24個月才能確認變更后的項目能否滿足I-829申請的條件。如果能夠建立這樣的一個制度，讓移民局能夠根據(jù)EB-5的規(guī)定及時審查實質性變更后的項目，就可以有效地化解各方的擔憂。如果有必要的話，這一制度還能給投資者提供重新投資或者為了解除臨時綠卡的限制而采取其他行動的機會。
 

　　10、USCIS should make information available to the public. Although this doesn’t clearly fit within the rubric of increasing processing efficiency, it does fit within the theme of no cost win-win fixes. USCIS is rightly concerned with protecting the public against investing in fraudulent projects. Why, then, would it deny the public necessary factual information that would enable investors to make a more informed decision regarding an investment project? Why would USCIS deny investors information regarding which projects have received approvals, and which projects have received denials? Why would USCIS deny investors factual information regarding how many investors have filed I-526 petitions in a project, how many have been approved and how many have been denied? Information could also be supplied regarding regional center statistics, although there is a possibility that such information could be misleading since investors invest in a project and not in a regional center.

　　10、移民局應當讓公眾更有效地知曉信息。嚴格來講，雖然這一建議并不被囊括在提高處理效率的范疇里，但它確實符合本文“各方共贏，無人減損”的中心思想。移民局一直致力于防止公眾向具有欺詐性的項目投資。既然如此，為什么移民局拒絕為公眾提供必要的信息，以便投資者在做出投資決定之前獲得更全面的信息?為什么移民局也拒絕為投資者提供哪些項目已獲批準、哪些項目未獲批準的信息?此外，移民局也應當披露區(qū)域中心的有關數(shù)據(jù)，即使因為投資者是投資給一個項目而非一個區(qū)域中心，進而使這些數(shù)據(jù)可能產(chǎn)生誤導性作用，披露這些數(shù)據(jù)也是非常重要的。
 

　　I appreciate your consideration of these suggestions to make the EB-5 program a more efficient one, a more user-friendly one and a program that is more responsive to the public policy goals of Congress when it enacted the program, all without sacrificing any of USCIS’ important anti-fraud and national security concerns.

　　我由衷地感謝你們對這些建議的關注和考慮。這些建議能夠在不降低移民局對反欺詐和國家安全的重視下，讓整個美國EB-5投資移民項目成為一個更加高效、更加便利的項目，并且能夠更好地達到國會當初設立這一項目時所設定的政策性目標。
 

　　Respectfully yours,

　　此致

　　H. Ronald Klasko