移民局在EB5就业模式“Tenants- Occupancy"上的最新观点

近期因为个别商用楼Eb5项目的就业计算使用了“Tanants-Occupancy"的模式被移民局发了RFE，而在Eb5界引起了轩然大波，并进而使得市场方面有了很多不确定因素。今天移民局局长Mayorkas 的就有关“Tenant-Occupancy”问题和与会人员进行了讨论，移民局就此问题的观点总结如下 （感谢LUCID提供会议语言记录）：如果哪位想听原版录音，请点击这里

“First, if I can provide you with some assurances. We well understand the law, that there is no requirement to present a particular methodology in support of a petition. Rather, the law requires a “reasonable” methodology. Whether or not the tenant occupancy methodology is reasonable in proving job creation in a particular case is a fact-specific and fact-dependent inquiry. We have not changed any policy with respect to the tenant occupancy methodology, nor have we changed the applicable criteria.

首先，如果我可以提供一些保障的话。 我们（移民局处理Eb5的团队）非常了解法律。法律并没有规定一定要有一个特定的方法论来计算就业模式。法律要求有一个”合理的”方法论。 对于“租户-租占率”是否在案件中证明合理，是一个就特定事实和案件特定因素决定的（移民局的怀疑不是普世的“。移民局并没有改变审理的方法论，也没有改变法律要求。

This is, instead, what we have done. In response to the request of adjudicators and your — stakeholders’ – request – and a very appropriate request — we have hired full time economists and business analysts to improve the analysis of EB-5 petitions and the quality of our work. I should note also that we have announced or are about to announce other positions as well such as a hiring of corporate attorneys to interpret the many legal documents that petitions often include. Our new experts have reviewed cases, not previously adjudicated, that are predicated on the tenant occupancy methodology, and based on the specific facts of those cases have raised questions as to whether the evidence presented proves the required job creation, or instead merely establishes job relocation, for example. We have issued Requests for Evidence to obtain additional evidence that our experts will review and analyze.

我们已经请了全职经济学家及经济分析人士来改善我们对EB4就业模式的理解及我们审理的质量。而且我们还准备雇佣商业/公司律师就投资文件的合法性进行解释（SS 旁白：投资文件/商业文件的事情是移民局该管的吗？）我们新的专家看了很多申请，不是已经审理过的，而是目前关于”Tenant-Occupancy“计算就业的的案件，并就那些案件中的个别特殊的事实有一些疑问 - 那就是，到底这些就业条件产生了所要求的就业呢，还是仅仅建立了就业上的工作地点的重新定位。 我们发了一些RFE来就这些疑问取得更多的证据以供我们的专家来审理及分析。

A decision, as I mentioned, on the economic methodology presented in the EB-5 case, including the tenant occupancy methodology, is very fact specific. Consistent with our deference policy, we are communicating to our adjudicators that they are to accord deference to prior adjudications. Our adjudicators should rely on a previous determination that the economic methodology is reasonable when the economic methodology is presented to us in later a proceeding based on materially similar facts.
For example, if we approved a Form I-924 Regional Center Application based on a specifically-identified project, including the specific locations and industries involved, we will not revisit the determination that the economic model and underlying business plan were reasonable when adjudicating related Form I-526 petitions, Form I-485 applications, or Form I-829 petitions. If we approved an I-526 petition for an immigrant investor based on a specifically-identified project, not associated with a Regional Center, we will not revisit the determination that the business plan was reasonable when adjudicating the investor’s related I-485 or I-829 petition. If, however, the facts underlying the application of the economic methodology have materially changed, then we will conduct a fresh review of the new facts to determine whether the petitioner or applicant has complied with the requirements of the EB-5 program, including the job creation requirement”

就此就业模式的决定，是非常个别化的，并且根据案件的不同而区别的。我们已经通知我们的审理人员他们需要遵守以前的合理判例。我们的审理人员如果在发现和以前的判例有基本相似的事实条件的案件上，要按照以前批准的案例进行审理。
例如：如果我们批准了一个I-924的区域中心的申请，而当时的申请是建立在一个特定的项目，包括特定的地点和工业，而此申请已经获得批准，我们就不会在审理I526或者I829或者485 的时候再次审理已经获得批准的关于就业的模式或者商业计划。 但是，如果基于当时审理的事实有了巨大改变的话，那么当时批准审理的根基已经不存在，我们就需要对新的事实和就业计划的合理性进行新的分析， 来决定项目是否遵守了EB5法律。