引言：在著名律師、前美國(guó)移民律協(xié)主席 Ron Klasko 1月7日發(fā)表針對(duì)美國(guó)移民局的公開(kāi)信(兆龍移民此前已將全文翻譯發(fā)出)之后，美國(guó)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(duì)這封公開(kāi)信也發(fā)表了自己的看法和意見(jiàn)。對(duì)Klasko律師公開(kāi)信中的10條建議，Divine律師有褒有貶。他非常贊同對(duì)于“打包申請(qǐng)”和電子化申請(qǐng)程序的建議，以及增設(shè)對(duì)I-829申請(qǐng)的及時(shí)更新機(jī)制。但他也指出，其中一些建議的理論意義大于實(shí)際意義，而諸如公開(kāi)區(qū)域中心數(shù)據(jù)的建議甚至是弊大于利的�？偟膩�(lái)說(shuō)，Divine律師又從另一個(gè)視角為我們提供了關(guān)于EB-5審批程序改革的觀點(diǎn)，而業(yè)界熱烈的探討也有利于提高美國(guó)移民局對(duì)美國(guó)EB-5投資移民改革的重視，最終讓美國(guó)EB-5投資移民項(xiàng)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(píng)論：

　　長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，美國(guó)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(lái)隨著美國(guó)EB-5投資移民申請(qǐng)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(guò)一浪。而Ron Klasko律師在2015年新年伊始的公開(kāi)信，被稱(chēng)為一張寫(xiě)給移民局的“大字報(bào)”，十條言之鑿鑿、措辭強(qiáng)硬的建議，不僅受到了業(yè)界的贊揚(yáng)，也再次激起了業(yè)界對(duì) EB-5項(xiàng)目冗雜審批程序的不滿(mǎn)。但是，Robert C. Divine律師通過(guò)表達(dá)自己的看法和意見(jiàn)，讓我們重新冷靜地審視這封公開(kāi)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(wèn)題，尤其是效率低下問(wèn)題確實(shí)成為了EB-5發(fā)展的掣肘。通過(guò)電子申請(qǐng)系統(tǒng)和“打包申請(qǐng)”制度，確實(shí)能夠提高效率，將復(fù)雜的問(wèn)題簡(jiǎn)單化。

　　但既然改革是為了提高效率，那么在Divine律師看來(lái)，公開(kāi)信的有些建議，雖然乍一看很有道理，但實(shí)際實(shí)施起來(lái)，不是可行性低，就是弊大于利。例如，對(duì)投資者和開(kāi)發(fā)者的律師加以區(qū)分，會(huì)使得新企業(yè)也會(huì)單獨(dú)作為一方進(jìn)入申請(qǐng)當(dāng)中，這只會(huì)使事態(tài)更加復(fù)雜，反而變成了畫(huà)蛇添足。再如，目前移民局一直不公開(kāi)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(hù)投資者。同時(shí)，在本文中Divine律師還對(duì)個(gè)別問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了更深的探討。例如，針對(duì)在I-829階段如何應(yīng)對(duì)項(xiàng)目實(shí)質(zhì)性變更的問(wèn)題，作者認(rèn)為，最核心的問(wèn)題不是建立即時(shí)變更申請(qǐng)的途徑，而是在前期就確立“實(shí)質(zhì)性”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，或者讓移民局直接判定變更后的項(xiàng)目是否還符合EB-5的要求。

　　總的來(lái)說(shuō)，Divine律師的這篇文章，讓我們從Klasko公開(kāi)信激起的高漲熱情中走出來(lái)，重新冷靜、客觀地來(lái)審視EB-5的程序改革問(wèn)題，特別是從另一個(gè)角度來(lái)了解和評(píng)價(jià)現(xiàn)有程序。固然，現(xiàn)有的審批程序存在著諸多的問(wèn)題，但它并不是一無(wú)是處的。某些手續(xù)的冗長(zhǎng)和繁復(fù)，的確拖慢了整個(gè)審批的節(jié)奏，但它確實(shí)是為了減少投資和項(xiàng)目的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)而存在的。同樣，不論是對(duì)Ron Klasko律師的觀點(diǎn)，還是對(duì)Robert C. Divine律師的觀點(diǎn)，我們都要一直保持一個(gè)冷靜、專(zhuān)業(yè)、客觀的態(tài)度。畢竟兼聽(tīng)則明，對(duì)任何一方的觀點(diǎn)，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(gè)EB-5的改革，真正把握EB-5項(xiàng)目的未來(lái)發(fā)展趨勢(shì)

　　著名律師 Robert C.Divine對(duì)Klasko 律師公開(kāi)信的意見(jiàn)

　　作者： Robert C. Divine

　　翻譯：兆龍移民(轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明來(lái)源)

　　中英文對(duì)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(guó)移民局提出的對(duì) EB-5項(xiàng)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(jìn)大家對(duì)此的研討，在這里，我向大眾和移民局表達(dá)我對(duì)這些建議的感受和意見(jiàn)。
 

　　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(gè)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(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目樣板申請(qǐng)的時(shí)間壓縮到3個(gè)月以?xún)?nèi)(而非4個(gè)月)，且這一申請(qǐng)應(yīng)當(dāng)采用電子形式提交。同時(shí)，移民局還要對(duì)現(xiàn)有的冗雜繁復(fù)的審批機(jī)制加以改革和運(yùn)用，以便形成“打包申請(qǐng)”。如果移民局對(duì)項(xiàng)目有任何問(wèn)題，它們就能只向正確的對(duì)象發(fā)出一次詢(xún)問(wèn)，而不是向已投資的100名投資者每人都問(wèn)一次。而在取得開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)目的批準(zhǔn)之后，這一新企業(yè)( NCE)就能將項(xiàng)目推向市場(chǎng)，并且投資者可以通過(guò)電子方式提交申請(qǐng)，并與“打包申請(qǐng)”連接起來(lái)。對(duì)這些投資者的申請(qǐng)應(yīng)當(dāng)以更快的速度完成審批，因?yàn)檫@些申請(qǐng)只需要審批資金的來(lái)源和途徑，同時(shí)也讓區(qū)域中心能夠更容易地推出“打包申請(qǐng)”。但與此同時(shí)，如果投資者不想等開(kāi)發(fā)項(xiàng)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(qǐng)并將其與“打包申請(qǐng)”相連接。并且當(dāng)某個(gè)“打包申請(qǐng)”整體獲批之后，與之相關(guān)聯(lián)的所有I-526電子申請(qǐng)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(shí)，在I-829的申請(qǐng)上也應(yīng)采用與上文同樣的方式以減少樹(shù)木砍伐(兆龍注：即采取電子方式提交申請(qǐng))。因?yàn)橄绒k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(qǐng)，所以現(xiàn)有電子申請(qǐng)系統(tǒng)應(yīng)當(dāng)允許在I-829階段對(duì)“打包申請(qǐng)”進(jìn)行分層更新，這樣項(xiàng)目方就能及時(shí)將崗位增加的信息更新上去，進(jìn)而滿(mǎn)足新增投資者的I-829申請(qǐng)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(shí)際上， 2011年5月19日，移民局在公開(kāi)發(fā)布的、并由時(shí)任移民局局長(zhǎng)Alejandro Mayorkas(現(xiàn)為國(guó)土安全部副部長(zhǎng))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(duì)即將動(dòng)工的項(xiàng)目的審查時(shí)間限定在4個(gè)月以?xún)?nèi)，并且允許對(duì)相關(guān)聯(lián)的I-526申請(qǐng)優(yōu)先進(jìn)行審查(另行支付1225美元，時(shí)間縮短至3周)。移民局的其他建議，例如通過(guò)電郵方式與區(qū)域中心交涉申請(qǐng)事宜，以及在拒絕批準(zhǔn)區(qū)域中心項(xiàng)目之前提供一個(gè)異議機(jī)制等建議，也已經(jīng)實(shí)施了。不過(guò)，顯而易見(jiàn)的是，美國(guó)移民局依然繼續(xù)維持其在EB-5項(xiàng)目其他方面的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，并且同時(shí)顯示出了對(duì)部分申請(qǐng)者的偏袒和對(duì)國(guó)家安全的擔(dān)憂(yōu)。用3周的時(shí)間進(jìn)行相關(guān)的國(guó)家安全審查對(duì)移民局來(lái)說(shuō)可能有些太快了，但是總的來(lái)說(shuō)，加速審批時(shí)間才會(huì)真正鼓勵(lì)大家使用這個(gè)有效果的樣板處理程序。不過(guò)，在之后的所有多方會(huì)議上，移民局對(duì)這些建議甚至提都沒(méi)有再提到過(guò)。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(shí)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(qǐng)者的I-526申請(qǐng)暫時(shí)擱置起來(lái)，直到輪到他們可以辦理簽證申請(qǐng)的時(shí)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(gè)表面上看起來(lái)不錯(cuò)，不過(guò)實(shí)施起來(lái)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(xiàng)目的投資被保管在第三方的機(jī)構(gòu)當(dāng)中，直到I-526申請(qǐng)獲批之后資金才能被放出來(lái)，因此這項(xiàng)建議將會(huì)使許多項(xiàng)目的資金來(lái)源出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題，項(xiàng)目方不得不想辦法能讓申請(qǐng)者選擇推遲I-526審批，進(jìn)而先把投資款放出來(lái)。第二，可以辦理簽證的時(shí)間總是在變的，而移民局對(duì)這一時(shí)間的提前和倒退是無(wú)法控制的。所以，移民局實(shí)際上無(wú)法確定應(yīng)將這些I-526申請(qǐng)擱置多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間。
 

　　I disagree with proposals 5, 6, and 10.

　　除此之外，就我個(gè)人而言，我對(duì)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(guó)法律實(shí)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(duì)某些投資者自己運(yùn)營(yíng)的小型項(xiàng)目而言，針對(duì)這些投資者申請(qǐng)I-526之前的“實(shí)質(zhì)性步驟”要求，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)讓其更加合理，因?yàn)檫@些投資者的確無(wú)法親臨美國(guó)運(yùn)營(yíng)這些項(xiàng)目。在我看來(lái)，只要所需資金到位，創(chuàng)造就業(yè)崗位的計(jì)劃也已經(jīng)成型，滿(mǎn)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(shí)際控制能力之外繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大對(duì) Matter of Ho案(22 I&N Dec. 206 (BIA 1998)) 第一部分的援引，也就是說(shuō)，即使在沒(méi)有確信的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造資金使用計(jì)劃的前提下，移民局也不能認(rèn)定從一個(gè)公司賬戶(hù)中放款并簽署可轉(zhuǎn)讓的借款合同是屬于不滿(mǎn)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(guò)建議6的內(nèi)容，但如果像Klasko先生所說(shuō)，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(dú)成為一方了。要是真這么說(shuō)，那么有人就還會(huì)認(rèn)為，因?yàn)榕c區(qū)域中心相獨(dú)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(dú)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(shí)際作用不大。建議9的內(nèi)容是，為已提交的I-829樣板申請(qǐng)?zhí)峁┻M(jìn)行實(shí)質(zhì)性變更申請(qǐng)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(xiàng)目在I-829階段的變更不是實(shí)質(zhì)性的，并且變更后的項(xiàng)目最終符合EB-5項(xiàng)目的投資與創(chuàng)造就業(yè)要求，這一項(xiàng)目的獲批就不會(huì)受影響。不過(guò)，我們真正要解決的核心問(wèn)題在于，如果在一名投資者獲得臨時(shí)綠卡之前，項(xiàng)目就發(fā)生了實(shí)質(zhì)性變更，那么該怎么辦?因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)移民局的規(guī)定，這種情況會(huì)導(dǎo)致投資者的I-526申請(qǐng)被拒絕或者被駁回，進(jìn)而無(wú)法取得臨時(shí)綠卡。因此，在I-526申請(qǐng)的前期階段，我們需要制定一個(gè)衡量變更的“實(shí)質(zhì)性”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這樣投資者面對(duì)項(xiàng)目變更時(shí)，就能知道這些變更會(huì)不會(huì)導(dǎo)致重頭開(kāi)始I-526的申請(qǐng)。這個(gè)程序甚至還需要增加在變更前獲得建議的機(jī)會(huì)，這樣投資者和項(xiàng)目方在對(duì)項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行變更之前就能再次評(píng)估，并且避免可能發(fā)生的實(shí)質(zhì)性變更。而對(duì)于I-526申請(qǐng)的后期階段，移民局應(yīng)當(dāng)明確回答變更后的項(xiàng)目是否滿(mǎn)足EB-5項(xiàng)目的要求，而不是項(xiàng)目變更是否影響申請(qǐng)資格的問(wèn)題。而對(duì)于項(xiàng)目的變更，如果一項(xiàng)變更被移民局認(rèn)為導(dǎo)致申請(qǐng)者喪失申請(qǐng)資格，那么移民局不得因此也取消該申請(qǐng)者的優(yōu)先日，進(jìn)而也不能以子女超齡問(wèn)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(xiāo)變更后的申請(qǐng)，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(qǐng)一樣，對(duì)后續(xù)的EB-5申請(qǐng)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(kāi)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(yùn)營(yíng)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(huì)間接地影響新企業(yè)的市場(chǎng)推廣狀況。而更重要的一點(diǎn)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(huì)遭遇到移民局臭名昭著的“無(wú)法恢復(fù)”的要求，然后在大量的投資者申請(qǐng)都被拒絕之后，這些投資者的申請(qǐng)又迅速地通過(guò)了。這種情況會(huì)歪曲數(shù)據(jù)的指導(dǎo)性。而對(duì)于其他面對(duì)同樣狀況的申請(qǐng)者來(lái)說(shuō)，他們可能會(huì)取消申請(qǐng)并重新提交，所以雖然最終結(jié)果相同，但申請(qǐng)批準(zhǔn)率會(huì)產(chǎn)生非常大的差別。投資者通過(guò)了解區(qū)域中心或者開(kāi)發(fā)者過(guò)去的記錄，就可以獲取到有用的信息，而不需要通過(guò)公開(kāi)數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)多此一舉。同時(shí)，現(xiàn)有的規(guī)則還避免了證券發(fā)行商通過(guò)區(qū)域中心數(shù)據(jù)發(fā)布錯(cuò)誤信息，這一作用已經(jīng)非常大了，特別是當(dāng)證監(jiān)會(huì)抽查一些證券發(fā)行商的時(shí)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(shí)是一條弊大于利的建議。
 

　　來(lái)源：

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