Prepared Remarks of Nicholas Colucci, Chief, Immigrant Investor Program, USCIS
Prepared Remarks of Nicholas Colucci
Chief, Immigrant Investor Program
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Association To Invest in the United States (IIUSA)
Eb-5 Regional Economic Development Advocacy Conference
May 8, 2014
Good afternoon, and thank you to Executive Director Joseph, the Board of Directors, and the entire IIUSA membership for inviting me to your conference today. I read on your website that IIUSA represents more than 170 regional centers, which account for greater than 95 percent of all the capital formation associated with the Employment-Based Fifth Preference (EB-5 program), and over 195 associate members of the regional center industry, which include attorneys, broker-dealers, consultants, developers, economists, financial advisors, migration intermediaries, etc. Thus, our engagement with stakeholders such as IIUSA offers a unique opportunity for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to reach many of the stakeholders who have an interest in the program. But they’re not the only reason I’m here today. I’m here because I sincerely hope to continue the meaningful dialogue that exists within the EB-5 stakeholder community, of which we’re all a part.
While I plan to provide a number of program-related updates here today, I also want to spend a little time discussing my background, as it has helped to shape how I plan to lead the program.
I’ve spent more than 20 years in federal government service, with three different Departments, and this experience has provided me with exposure to many geographic regions, business types, and government and non-government programs. It is through these experiences that I’ve developed a better understanding of the positive impacts of collaborative, constructive engagements.
One such example is when I served at ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. One of ATF’s main goals as the Federal regulator for several industries is to increase each industry’s rate of compliance with Federal laws and regulations. At ATF, I was associated with developing a program that concentrated on a subset of a particular regulated industry, whose rate of compliance had historically trailed that of other members of the industry.
Specifically, the program called for ATF to do the following three things in an attempt to reach our goal of producing a measurable increase in compliance:
1. increase its proactive interaction with the industry subgroup;
2. promote transparency with respect to the types of violations being discovered during audits and the steps the industry could take to avoid these violations in the future; and
3. dedicate additional resources to auditing these industry members over the next three years.
The results we achieved were dramatic. However, we would not have been able to achieve these results without the involvement and engagement of the industry. At the end of two years, the compliance rates of this industry subgroup had increased significantly. I can confidently state that this could not have happened had ATF developed a program that did not involve that significant outreach component. Because we had an engaged stakeholder, and because we could have honest conversations between the two organizations, we changed the dynamic of the relationship and worked collaboratively towards achieving a common goal. I hope to establish a similar relationship with our stakeholders across the EB-5 community, as we must work together, and have honest conversations to build a stronger and more vibrant program.
A second experience that helped shape how I plan to administer the EB-5 program is an experience I had at FinCEN – the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is the anti-money laundering regulator for US financial institutions. The same week I was appointed FinCEN’s associate director of the Analysis and Liaison Division, the Secretaries of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development held a press conference with the Attorney General to announce the Administration’s “Making Home Affordable” program, which would provide qualifying homeowners a lower interest rate to help them keep their home. They also announced that FinCEN, and specifically the Division that I was leading, would serve to coordinate the Government’s anti-fraud efforts associated with the program.
Through my work on this program, I learned two important things:
• One is the resources that can be brought to bear across the interagency community, particularly in coordination with not-for-profit and other private entities, can be extremely powerful when focused and coordinated; and
• two, that there are very bright individuals out there who spend a lot of time developing ingenious fraud schemes and that they will not hesitate to take advantage of others when they are at their most vulnerable.
With respect to interagency community coordination, at FinCEN we worked with members from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General, the Federal banking regulators, and a host of other Federal, state and local agencies. I met and worked with key players within each of these organizations, and throughout my time at FinCEN, I probably worked with two dozen more Federal agencies. Each agency, as you know, has a specific role and responsibility, and I was able to learn and understand the roles, tools, and sources of information that they could contribute to an effort.
I have begun to develop this same depth of knowledge in the context of the EB-5 program as many agencies intersect with EB-5, whether it is the Securities and Exchange Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the Department of Commerce. One of the things I propose to do, and one of the reasons that the program was relocated to Washington, DC, is to facilitate greater interaction among the interagency community. Just as the EB-5 program cannot be successful without your support, we need to build strong partnerships with other Federal agencies who are likewise stakeholders in the program.
Now, with respect to those out there who take advantage of others: I learned quickly at FinCEN that where there is money, there will be fraudsters. In the context of mortgage fraud, I saw families who were struggling to save their homes only to be victimized by someone, usually a part of an organized group, who claimed they could help families remain in their home for an upfront fee of around $3,000. Of course, after the money was paid, help was not provided.
During my five years at FinCEN, we worked with law enforcement, regulators, and industry to combat not only mortgage fraud, but many other types of fraud including, but not limited to income tax refund fraud, health care fraud, and fraud against senior citizens. The one consistent theme is that organized groups follow the money, and when one source would dry up they would develop a fairly sophisticated scheme to go after the next one.
Given the amounts of monies involved in the projects undertaken in the EB-5 program, fraud is something against which we must all be vigilant. USCIS cannot do this on our own. Many times, you will be in the position to hear or see something suspicious or “too good to be true” before we do. In these cases, I ask that you share this information with us through our immigrant investor mailbox at USCIS.ImmigrantInvestorProgram@uscis.dhs.gov. When fraud does occur, as you know, the entire program suffers, so it is imperative to all of us to maintain and strengthen the integrity of the program.
So, to summarize, the three things from my past experience I hope to bring to the program include:
• an active and honest dialogue with our stakeholders;
• a coordinated effort within the interagency community; and
• with the assistance of our stakeholders, to guard against fraud and other transgressions that damage the integrity of the program.
Now, I’d like to take the remainder of the time to provide a few program updates. As I mentioned at my first stakeholder engagement in February, I plan to concentrate my time primarily in three areas:
• building the foundation;
• customer service and transparency;
• and performance and predictability.
With respect to building the foundation, by the end of this month, we hope to have upwards of 75 staff on board. This does not include those individuals from the Office of Chief Counsel and Fraud Detection and National Security, who work with the program. This is an almost 40 percent increase from where we were at the end of February. We also just had a few job announcements close, for experienced and entry-level adjudicators. It remains our goal to be at or exceed 100 staff members by the end of the fiscal year.
In terms of training, we are striving to ensure our staff continues to participate in professional development opportunities. In fact, just last week we provided our staff with a 3-hour block of instruction from the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are also providing two additional training courses in the next month or so – one on business organizations and documents, such as subscription agreements and private placement memorandums, and another on international banking and money laundering. Finally, we are customizing a decision writing course to assist our adjudicators and economists in drafting clear and concise requests for evidence (RFE) and decision letters. All of this will serve to expand the depth and breadth of the knowledge of our workforce and continue to strengthen the program.
With respect to customer service and transparency, we’ve spent a significant amount of time concentrating on this area in the last month or so. Specifically, we’ve begun to update the website each month with current processing times for each of the form types and we will continue to do this on a monthly basis.
We’ve also recently created a customer service team to respond to inquiries that come to us via the immigrant investor mailbox and service request management tickets, which stakeholders can create themselves online or have created for them by our customer help line. I am proud to state we are ahead of agency standards in our responses to these inquiries.
Finally, we are also seeking a new platform to receive and respond to customer service inquiries, as the mailbox does not lend itself to monitoring for trend and other types of analysis. With this type of information, I’m confident that we will be better able to determine what type of updates and suggestions we can provide to our stakeholders proactively, in an effort to reduce the number of inquiries we receive, thus freeing up more time to adjudicate cases, while providing the best possible service to our customers.
We recently held our second stakeholder engagement since the end of February. At this engagement we asked stakeholders to express their thoughts and input regarding potential EB-5 regulatory changes for USCIS to consider. More than 700 individuals participated and we were able to hear thoughts and feedback from a number of them. We also invited stakeholders to express their ideas and thoughts via a new online tool, called the USCIS Idea Community. More than two dozen individuals provided comments and greater than 200 votes were cast on these comments. We would like to thank those shared their thoughts through the Idea Community.
自2月底以来，我们最近又举行了第二次利益相关者会议。 在此次会议上，我们邀请利益相关者就关于EB-5监管法规的可能改变，提出自己的看法和建议以供参考。共有700多人参加了会议，我们也听到了其中一些人的看法和信息反馈。此外，我们还邀请利益相关者通过名为USCIS创意社区的全新在线工具来表达自己的意见和看法 。有20多名人士提出了自己的建议，200多名人士对这些意见进行了投票。我们在此感谢他们通过创意社区来分享意见。
Finally, in an effort to increase transparency, we are beginning to frame out an annual report beginning in fiscal year 14. My hope is to provide the report sometime around the end of this calendar year.
Now, to address performance and predictability. As I announced in February, I expected to start seeing reduced processing times for regional center applications. In fact, we are starting to see them trend this way. January’s processing time for Form I-924, Application for Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program, was 12 months, and the most recent report, which is March, indicated it has been reduced to around 10 and a half. It is clear that our economists are becoming more efficient and I expect we will see additional improvements in processing times in the coming months.
Similarly, we are seeing progress in the area of Form I-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions. Our processing time, as you may have seen in our website, has been reduced to about 9 months from more than 11 in January. As you may recall, Form I-829 will be worked in the California Service Center for the remainder of the fiscal year. We will begin to transition this workload to the Immigrant Investor Program Office in Washington, D.C. in July, with a complete handover expected to take place on October 1.
The news is not as good for FormI-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur. In January, we were around 10 months, and the latest data I have through March indicates we are at a little over 13 months. However, I believe we will soon begin to make progress in this workload as well. In recent weeks we’ve hired a number of adjudicators and we are in the process of hiring another round. We’ve also taken steps to increase the efficiency of our training program for new adjudicators who have previous USCIS experience. In fact, we’ve now begun to certify experienced adjudicators to work on 526s in a matter for 4 to 6 weeks, whereas in the past, it took longer than 2 months.
While ensuring quality, we are working diligently to have our actions equal or exceed the number of receipts each week, and this month I have set an office-wide goal to do this. I can assure you that we are committed to achieving additional efficiencies within the I-526 work and that our staff are aware of the fact that the number of pending petitions equals billions of dollars that will potentially be invested in in the American economy and create tens of thousands of jobs for qualified American workers. They are also aware that this means that thousands of families are checking their mailboxes each day waiting to see if their petition has been approved so they can participate in the American dream. Please know we take our responsibility seriously and we are working with a sense of urgency to move through these petitions.
Finally, before I close, one of the other things we are doing to help increase productivity and predictability is analyzing the RFEs we’ve issued. By sharing this information with all of you, likely via our annual report, our hope is that it will assist you in avoiding potential RFEs as you assemble new applications and petitions.
I’d like to share one such topic to begin this dialogue. As you know, USCIS has and will continue to rely on a variety of economic models and reasonable methodologies (like feasibility studies) to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a project of a job creating entity will create a sufficient number of indirect jobs for the immigrant investors in that project. USCIS currently reviews economic impact analyses that use the results of economic modeling software such as IMPLAN, REMI, and REDYN to establish the number of indirect jobs created by the job creating entity. And while USCIS recognizes that these modeling platforms are valid economic modeling systems for estimating job creation, as you know, the burden of proof is on the applicant or petitioner to clearly explain the inputs used in the model and to demonstrate the mechanism of job creation.
Please note that jobs with a duration of less than 24 months are not eligible to be counted for EB-5 purposes. Nor are jobs from transactional expenses, for example attorney’s fees for closing costs. Also, please note that transfers or transfer payments are not eligible expenses for job creation. Transfer payments like taxes, insurance premiums, permits and fees are classified by economists as redistributions and not activities that create output. So, while EB-5 investor funds can be used to pay all legitimate business expenses, not all business expenses can be used in job creation calculations. Therefore, the economic models should provide an explanation of the inputs used and show that ineligible expenses and transfers are not included in job creation calculations.
One common reason for an RFE relating to the economic modeling analysis relates to direct versus indirect jobs. As you know, USCIS regulations refer to direct jobs as those at the new commercial enterprise; however, economic models distinguish direct job and indirect jobs differently. With respect to the economic models, direct jobs refer to jobs directly related to the project. For example, construction jobs for a project are often considered “direct jobs” in the economic analysis and may be credited toward the EB-5 requirement if the jobs are expected to last at least 2 years.
Any economic analysis based upon models such as IMPLAN, REMI, or REDYN must be sufficiently transparent to allow USCIS to distinguish between the model’s calculation of direct and indirect jobs. If the model used in an economic impact analysis aggregates direct and indirect jobs, the economist preparing the analysis for the regional center should demonstrate how the model’s result can be disaggregated into its direct and indirect jobs components. This may involve running the model twice: once to calculate direct effects and once to calculate the indirect and induced effects. In most cases a narrative by the economist preparing the analysis that explains how direct and indirect jobs can be derived from the aggregate job total is sufficient.
Additionally, the economist preparing the analysis for the regional center should provide the number of direct and indirect jobs created that is attributable to each of the model’s inputs. For example, differentiating the jobs created from construction expenditures from those created from the ongoing operations of the property constructed. In addition, USCIS recognizes that indirect jobs that are estimated through use of an economic model and are located outside of the geographical boundaries of a regional center may qualify if the economic methodology is reasonable.
I hope that by sharing this example, which will be included with the rest of my comments on our website, we can begin to inform you how we evaluate economic models and the steps that you can take to make the models more transparent so that an RFE can be avoided, which will obviously increase our efficiency for that particular application or petition, as well as others in line behind it.
Finally, in closing, I want to again express my appreciation for the invitation to speak to you today. I very much look forward to our dialogue in the coming months and I encourage all of you to provide us with ongoing constructive feedback with respect to how we are administering the program. We can only continue to improve the program so long as you, as our stakeholders, are willing to share your thoughts and concerns with us and we can have that open and honest dialogue I discussed at the beginning of my comments. EB-5 is not simply a government or USCIS program, it is a program of the entire EB-5 stakeholder community and it is through our combined efforts that the program provides the greatest possible benefit to the U.S. economy, job-seekers, and the immigrant entrepreneurs and investors. Thank you all for your time and attention today.
Posted in USCIS | Comments Off
Transcript of the USCIS call – English and Mandarin
Sunday, May 11th, 2014
A quick not that I did not personally do the transcription or the translation and make no claims about its accuracy…
USCIS Regulatory Changes Listening Session 移民局监管改革试听会
Angela: This call is now being recorded. [0:00:01.7 – overlap] has a question and answer session out of the call. To make a comment during that time, please press ‘star then one’. Now I’d like to turn over the meeting to Ebony Turner. You may begin.
Ebony Turner: Thank you, Angela. Hello and thank you everyone for joining today’s listening session on the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Regulatory Changes. We welcome you all to the call. My name is Ebony Turner from the USCIS Public Engagement Division, and here with me today is my colleague Carlos Munoz, Community Relations Branch Chief, who will also help facilitate the event today. We are joined by Nick Colucci, the Immigrant Investor Program Office IPO Chief, and Robert Cox, the Deputy IPO Chief, as well as David Leckenby from the Office of Policy and Strategy. We also have a few colleagues from the Field Operations Directorate, the Office of Chief Counsel, and our Fraud Detection and National Security Division. Thank you all for joining us today. I’d like to take this time as well to welcome and thank the Small Business Administration for joining us.
Ebony Turner：谢谢Angela。大家好，感谢你们加入今天的EB-5投资移民项目监管改革试听会。我们欢迎各位的来电。我是Ebony Turner，来自USCIS（美国公民与移民服务局）的公众参与部门。今天与我一同参与活动的是USCIS社区关系处主任Carlos Munoz。此外，我们也欢迎投资移民项目办公室的IPO主任Nick Colucci，IPO副主任Robert Cox及来自办公室政策与策略部门的David Leckenby。在场的其他一些同事分别来自现场运作部、首席顾问办公室及欺诈检测与国家安全部门。感谢大家在今天加入我们。我想乘此机会欢迎和感谢小企业管理局的积极参与。
We have with us Doctor Winslow Sargeant, Chief Counsel Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, who will give opening remarks from us in just a few minutes. Welcome Doctor Sargeant, and thank you for being here to quickly go over today’s session. First we will here from Mr. Colucci, who will briefly touch on the purpose for this listening session, and then introduce Doctor Sargeant a little bit more in detail for us, who will follow with the opening remarks. We will then move directly into the open forum to allow all of you ample time just to hear your input today.
Now I know that we’re all very excited to begin, but before we do, I have just a few quick administrative reminders. First I would like to remind everyone as the operator stated, we are in listen-only mode today, however we will allow ample time for comments during the open forum. And when we do open up the lines today, we would like to remind you that we are here for the specific purpose of hearing feedback. We may ask clarifying questions on your comments, but will not respond to programmatic or case-specific questions during today’s call. If we happen to have any members of the media joining us, we ask that if you have questions at the end of today’s engagement or need additional information for on-the-record comments, please call the USCIS Press Office at (202) 272-1200. And if we happen to have any staff members of congress, please connect with the USCIS Office of Legislative Affairs for any briefing requests or case-specific matters.
I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Nick Colucci, who will begin the meeting today.
Nicholas Colucci: Thank you, Ebony. Good afternoon. This is Nicholas Colucci, Chief of the Immigrant Investor Program, and I’d like to welcome all of you to our EB-5 Stakeholder Engagement to Solicit Input for Potential EB-5 Regulatory Revisions. One of the top priorities with the USCIS Immigrant Investor Program is to update the EB-5 regulations to provide a better framework for the administration of this program, and strengthen and clarify the applicable eligibility requirements. We consider this to be an essential step in improving the program, and ensuring predictability, consistency and efficiency in the processing of the EB-5 applications and petitions.
Nicholas Colucci：谢谢Ebony。下午好。我是投资移民项目主任Nicholas Colucci。欢迎大家参与我们的“关于EB-5法规修订中潜在利益相关者意见征求活动”。USCIS投资移民项目的首要任务是更新EB-5法规，旨在为本项目提供更好的管理框架，以及加强和阐释适用的资格要求。我们认为这是非常重要的一步，能够提高项目质量和确保EB-5申请和请愿书处理的可预见性、一致性和运作效率。
As many of you know, the Office of the Inspector General published a report in December of 2013 that recommended USCIS update and clarify regulations for the EB-5 program, and we concurred with that recommendation.
As mentioned in our last stakeholder engagement, the OIG report discussed recommendations for regulatory and other changes to address fraud and National Security concerns. While USCIS believes these are important concerns to be addressed to be a regulatory change to the extent permissible under existing statutory authority, USCIS is taking a comprehensive approach [0:03:56.3 – tape cut out] considering a range of changes. The goal of the revised regulations will be to improve the EB-5 program by clarifying substantive eligibility requirements and establishing consistent procedural filing requirements for program efficiency and predictability while also enhancing program integrity.
Consistent with executive order 13563, the purpose of this engagement is to solicit the views of those who are likely to be affected by regulatory changes to the EB-5 program, our stakeholders, we are seeking input through a variety of methods such as this teleconference and the USCIS IDF community. The USCIS IDF community is a crowdsourcing tool that allows individuals from the public to post ideas on a particular topic. At the end of this teleconference, we will provide more details regarding the use of the USCIS idea community tool.
本次活动符合13563号行政命令的主旨，面向可能受到EB-5项目监管改革影响的利益相关者征求意见。我们为此采取的方法包括举行电话会议和联系USCIS IDF社区。USCIS IDF社区是一种众包工具，可使公众人士就特定主题发表意见。在本次电话会议结束后，我们将提供有关使用USCIS创意社区工具的详细信息。
We’d like to emphasize that USCIS is using the idea community tool in addition to other methods of soliciting public comment such as notice and comment rule-making. Please note that final implementation of regulatory changes may only [0:05:02.0 – inaudible] of a final rule published in the Federal Register. Card regulations will remain in effect until the effective date of a final rule.
We are eager to hear your ideas during this teleconference, however we will not be taking questions regarding the program or any case-specific discussions at this engagement. We will also not be commenting on any of your proposals. [0:05:21.3 – tape cut out] question, but in most instances we will simply thank you for your contribution.
Finally, we are not seeking any group or consensus advice, but only individual thoughts and feedback on potential regulatory revisions. As previously stated, this engagement is our opportunity to listen to you, to your input on changes that could be made to the EB-5 regulations and guidance to improve the program’s integrity, efficiency, predictability and consistency.
Before we get started, I’d like to introduce Doctor Winslow Sargeant, who is the Chief Counsel for Advocacy within the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. As background, the Office of Advocacy is an independent voice for small businesses within the Federal Government with a mission of encouraging policies that support small business startup, growth and development. As many of you are aware, the SBA plays an important role in providing small businesses an opportunity to express their thoughts and concerns regarding among other things, future regulatory changes. We are very happy to have the SBA here today as we reach out to our stakeholders, including small businesses who are involved in the EB-5 program. It is now my pleasure to introduce Doctor Sargeant.
Dr. Winslow Sargeant: Good afternoon. Nick, thank you for that introduction. As was mentioned, I am Doctor Winslow Sargeant, Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy. The Office of Advocacy is an independent office within the executive branch. We represent small businesses before congress, the White House and federal agencies. Part of our mission is to participate in the rule-making process. We work with agencies as they write regulations, and we work with the public after a regulation is proposed to highlight the small business impact of that regulation.
Winslow Sargeant博士：下午好。Nick，谢谢你的介绍。大家好，我是Winslow Sargeant博士，是SBA宣传办公室的首席顾问。宣传办公室是行政部门内的独立机构。在美国国会、白宫和联邦机构面前，我们代表小企业的利益。我们的任务之一就是参与制定规则的过程。我们与起草法规的那些机构一同工作，并在法规提出之后与公众合作，以突出小企业对该项法规的影响力。
In my prior life, I was a small business owner of a technology company, and I understand the regulatory burden that small businesses face. I also understand the important issue of accessing capital. This brings me to today’s discussion.
First and foremost, I want to applaud USCIS for planning to do a rule-making for this important program, and for reaching out to deregulated community very early in the process. The EB-5 program has hit a few bumps in the road, but it is a program that has great potential because it can create investments and new jobs here in [0:07:59.6 – tape cut out]. I hope with your feedback, [0:08:04.0 – tape cut out] advocacy can be a strong representative for small businesses during the rule-making process. We need to know how many small businesses are utilizing the [0:08:15.1 – tape cut out] EB-5 program to gain capital, and what are the best practices, and what are the barriers they are facing? We need to make sure that the new rules provide better clarity, transparency and predictability for both investors and for businesses that seek to obtain EB-5 Visas.
首先，我要鼓掌称赞USCIS计划为重要的移民项目制定规则，以及在运作的早期就已接触被放松管制的社区。EB-5项目的执行过程并非一帆风顺，但该项目具有很大的潜力，能够为[0:07:59.6-胶带剪出] 带来投资和创造出新的就业机会。我希望在听取你们的反馈意见后，[0:08:04.0-胶带剪出] 宣传可以在规则制定过程中成为小企业的有力代表。我们需要知道有多少小企业通过[0:08:15.1-胶带剪出]EB-5项目获取资金，哪些做法最佳以及这些企业面临着怎样的难题？我们需要确保新规则能够为期望取得EB-5签证的投资者和企业，提供更佳的明确度、透明度和可预见性。
USCIS also needs to include metrics for success to make sure that such a valuable program is meeting its benchmarks and establishing [0:08:51.4 – inaudible] fraud. I along with my staff look forward to working with USCIS to make the EB-5 program renowned for its achievements in U.S. investments and job creation. Please feel free to reach out to our office. We must hear your concerns to be your voice here in Washington, D.C. Thank you.
Ebony: Thank you very much Doctor Sargeant for your remarks and helping us to start off today’s forum today. We appreciate that. Operator, in just a few seconds we will begin taking our first comments, and I’d like to thank Nick as well for your remarks.
But before we begin, again just a couple of reminders for everyone on the phone. For the members of the media, we ask for any questions or undirected comments, please call the Press Office at (202) 272-1200, and for any staff or members of Congress, please connect with the USCIS Office of Legislative Affairs.
We want to remind you again that we are excited about hearing your input today, and looking for your feedback and comments, but we will not be responding to questions programmatically or case specific on today’s call. So with that being said, we look forward to your feedback. Operator, we will now take the first comment.
Angela: Thank you. As a reminder, if you’d like to make a comment, please press ‘star one’. Our fist comment comes from Angelo Paparelli with Seyfarth Shaw. Angela：谢谢。我在此提醒您，如果您想留言，请按下*号键和1号键。我们的第一通来电来自Seyfarth Shaw公司的Angelo Paparelli。
Angelo Paparelli: Yes, I had two suggestions for regulatory changes. One is that unfortunately at present, USCIS does not allow representation by parties with a legal interest in the EB-5 context. This is not unique to EB-5, but it especially critical in the EB-5 arena because there are distinct interests, legal interests to protect, and the right of representation is critical to that. Hence, in an I-924 – Request for Regional Center Designation, an investor has no voice and no right to counsel. In an I-526 or in an I-829, the Initial Petition and the Petition to Remove Condition, the regional center has no voice and no right of representation. And it’s my view that USCIS perpetuates conflict of interest by not allowing distinct legal interest to be separately represented by counsel. That is my first comment.
My second comment deals with the concept of the corporate reorganization qualifying as a commercial enterprise under the regulations as they now exist, and under Matter of Izummi. I believe that regulation which seems to suggest that a change of business model, for example going from a restaurant to a bar/restaurant or a night club restaurant, is the only kind of corporate reorganization that’s allowed. And it is my view that that is inconsistent with corporate law, which suggests that there are many forms of corporate reorganizations that should be recognized, and in many ways that a new legal entity could be created as a result of a corporate restructuring or corporate reorganization, and I think the new rule should overrule that portion of Izummi, and should rule instead or have a regulation instead that comports more closely with corporate law.
I have actually one last one, and that is that USCIS should recognize as it does with limited partners, that limited liability companies can have immigrant investors participate expressly and still be deemed to be actively involved in the management of the organization or in an officer position in the organization. Those are my comments.
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing your comments today. We appreciate you calling in. Operator, we are ready for the next comment.
Angela: Next comment comes from Edward Beshara with Beshara P.A. Angela：下一位是来自Beshara P.A.公司的Edward Beshara。
Edward Beshara: Hello. Thank you for having us on the phone today. My team here are very excited about these stakeholders’ meetings, so thank you again.
We practice EB-5 extensively, and we have a lot of clients that are always concerned about predictability and the speed of 526 processing and the 924 applications, etc. And I know that for a number of years now, we have been talking about predictability, about clarity and the fact that we can’t have predictability without clarity of the rules, regulations and policies. And I believe that one of the ways that we can really achieve that very, very quickly is by having some type of premium processing. I believe that most project principals, regional centers, even the investors are willing to pay extra filing fees, premium processing fees, I know that we are very familiar with premium processing fees in other immigration areas. And I think that the EB-5 practice area is ready for premium processing fees because number one, it would probably allow the USCIS to increase staff, to be able to add more professionals, whether they’re business plan professionals, economists, security attorneys, business analysts, etc. to the USCIS team for faster adjudication. I think that if we know that we can prepare a 924 application for preapproval of a EB-5 project and obtain a very quick response, well then we now have a project that has been preapproved an example of 526 petition, preapproved. And when we start then following that 526 petition, we know that there would be difference given to the project part of those 526 petitions which would then allow the USCIS to really concentrate on the authentication of source of funds so that the 526 processing can of course definitely be expedited, and with the additional premium processing for expedited 526 processing. Again, extra staff by the USCIS could help that process as well. So I think that for the benefit of the economy, for the benefit of the viability of these EB-5 projects, I think speed is essential. Everyone in this area is willing to pay the higher processing premium fees. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that whatever the USCIS would say “This is what the fee is going to be”, they’re willing to pay it because we are dealing with projects that will depend on the predictability of the approval of the project as well as the investors petitions being approved in a very timely manner. So I think that yes, we are working towards clarity and predictability, but I think that one of the best solutions that the USCIS could come up with right now is fast, premium processing, quicker processing of the 924’s and the 526’s. So thank you, and we welcome these stakeholders meetings very much. Thank you again.
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing comments. We do appreciate the opportunity to engage with you as well, and hear about your experience with the program. So thank you again for calling and sharing your comments today. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller.
Angela: Next comment comes from Marty Cummins with Florida EB-5 Investments. Angela：下一位是来自Florida EB-5 Investments公司的Marty Cummins。
Marty Cummins: Thank you very much. I would first of all like to encourage that what we are seeing in D.C. continues, that is communications by phone and email with regional centers and I-526 applicants. I hope this will continue to be expanded because it has resolved the systemic problems we’ve had for years regarding things that were taking place in California. And on that issue, in the meantime while we’re waiting for those communications to occur, once an I-526 is approved, we’ve been assured that others contain the same documents. The business plan will be given deference, and it’s the same issues that were resolved in that I-526 will not be raised again, and that these later I-526’s contain the same business plans, and documents will be quickly adjudicated. However, there are scores of examples of an initial 526 are still being approved, and then there’s nothing heard from USCIS for over a year, sometimes 18 months. And then when those additional 526’s that contain all the same information other than about the investor are adjudicated, they renew our fees with new questions that were ever even raised in the first one. And I would encourage that USCIS get to the bottom of this because this really is debilitating and destructive of the EB-5 program, and probably the biggest problem we’ve seen among many regional centers, which leads me to a question. If a 526 has been approved in California, will all 526’s from that business in the future be adjudicated in California, or are they shifted to the Washington office now, which is apparently communicating a bit better?
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing those comments. Again, I just would like to remind everyone that unfortunately today, we are not addressing any case-specific questions, but we do want to make sure your question is answered. So please send that to our public engagement mailbox; Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov and we’ll be sure to follow up and get your question to the right person so it is addressed. But I do thank you for your comments today. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller.
Angela: Next comment comes from Rebecca Lozano with BankUnited.
Rebecca Lozano: Hi. My comment is a component of a successful EB-5 program, includes as a banking arm. I would recommend that USCIS work with the OCC in educating them in EB-5. It’s critical that they understand it so that when they come into the bank to audit the files, they know what they are auditing. It’s my understanding that some of the OCC have never even heard of EB-5, maybe there could even be a committee or something to put into policies and procedures in place.
Ebony: Thank you. We appreciate you sharing those comments on the bank’s perspective. It’s good to hear different experiences, and we thank you for sharing that comment today. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：谢谢。我们感谢您分享了关于银行的一些看法。能够了解不同的行业经验的确不错，我们感谢您在此分享宝贵意见。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Tiffany Ho, who’s a lawyer.
Tiffany Ho: Hello? Tiffany Ho：喂？
Ebony: Yes, your line is open. Ebony：您好，您的电话已经接通。
Tiffany: Actually I’m a paralegal calling from a law firm. My name is Tiffany Ho. My question is with the…
Ebony: I’m sorry. Could you please speak up or move closer to the mic so we can hear your comments? Ebony：抱歉。能否请您大声点或是靠近麦克风，以便我们能够听清楚您的意见？
Tiffany: Okay, sorry about that. Can you hear me better now? Tiffany：好的，抱歉。现在清楚些了吗？
Ebony: Yes we can. Ebony：是的，我们能听清楚。
Tiffany: Hi. My name is Tiffany Ho. I’m actually a paralegal working at a law firm, and my question is regarding the currently published [0:20:43.6 – tape cut out] processing time for the I-526 petition, and while we are very excited to see that the processing time since the relocation of the Immigrant Investor Program has been relocated to D.C., and it has dropped from the average 22 months to right now at around 10 months. So my comment would be that we would like to continue seeing that decreased processing time.
Ebony: Thank you. We appreciate that feedback.
Tiffany: Thanks. Tiffany：谢谢。
Ebony: We’re ready for the next comment.
Angela: Next comment comes from Gordon Quan with FosterQuan.
Gordon Quan: Thank you. I wanted to comment also about the delay and the confusion that often ensues as a case is pending, and people come in and out of the country possibly on B1 Visas. As you know, they need to be involved in the process, especially with the direct investment. Is there any consideration for possibly concurrent filing, whereby they can get a work permit and a travel permit so they can actually pursue their EB-5 application here in the United States? This has been an issue with some of our individuals who have businesses overseas, they don’t know whether to go back, stay here, if they’ll be allowed re-entry. So that’s a concern that I’ve seen often times.
The second thing I’d like to just mention is, and this came up at a discussion recently regarding a fee for recertification of a regional center. As you know, there are about 400 regional centers right now. Many are not active. Talking with some of the developers of the regional centers, those that are active appear to be willing to pay a fairly substantial recertification fee to ensure the integrity of the program to pay for investigators to go out just as we’ve seen with the H-1B Visas. So those are two comments I’d like to make for consideration as you look at regulations. Thank you.
Ebony: Thank you. Operator, we’re ready for the next comment.
Angela: This comment comes from [Zoey Maxis with New Life Senior Wildlife Center – sp].
Zoey Maxis: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to applaud USCIS to identify fraud and the bills is an issue facing EB-5 industry. I deal with the investors on daily basis, and I feel that the truth about promoting EB-5 investment is almost like money talks, and misrepresentation sells. And based on that, I would like to make some suggestions. Number one is, the regional centers should be liable for any misrepresentations made by overseas brokers because regional centers are ultimately the beneficiary of business misrepresentation. The regional centers should monitoring other marketing activities by the brokers and keep copies of any marketing material used by those brokers. Only this way, there will be able to stop all the misrepresentation, and the regional center will stop turning a blind eye to such a practice. I think many of them, the most common false claims in the field is the EB-5 use as managing financing, actually had the first [0:24:33.1 – inaudible] edition in the project, and it will be paid before bank loans. And I think those false claims will banish the credibility of EB-5 programs, and the investment will hurt the confidence of the EB-5 investors.
Zoey Maxis：你们好。感谢你们给我这个机会。我赞赏USCIS识别欺诈行为的做法，相关法案都是针对EB-5行业提出。我每天都会接触到许多投资者，我觉得促进EB-5投资的真相几乎就等同于金钱万能和误传当道。为此，我想提出一些建议。首先，区域中心应该为海外经纪商做出的任何虚假陈述承担责任，因为区域中心是企业失实陈述的最终受益人。区域中心应该监测经纪商的其它市场营销活动，并备份他们用过的所有营销材料。只有这样，才能阻止所有的失实陈述，区域中心才不会对这样的做法视而不见。我想很多情况下，该领域最常见的失实陈述就是将EB-5作为融资管理的途径，建立起项目中的第一份[0:24:33.1-听不清] ，这会在取得银行贷款之前付清。我认为，那些失实陈述会降低EB-5项目的可信性，这样的投资会打击EB-5投资者的信心。
Another issue I would like to raise is the right of limited, partners in the company. There’s a few incidents that after the EB-5 investors filed their I-526, the general partner will force them to sign new documents, change the investments against their interests. I think that’s an issue that the SEC or USCIS should look into it.
And also, I feel there’s a very difficult for EB-5 investors to do diligent regarding the regional centers of projects, and I just wonder, and I hope USCIS can release the data collect through the I-924A forms about the performance of the regional centers.
And also through the form D, the filing required by SEC. In this way, the investors can do diligent work, see the track record of the EB-5 regional centers, and the project that they had pre-handled.
My other question is regarding the construction job explanation through construction expenditure. What’s the difference in how those expenditures calculated? For example, the construction expenditure over two years basically counted jobs creating each year separately, but the job explanation by the operating expenditure actually can now be accumulatively. So I think that’s an issue that it cause of a concern. How much construction job explanation can be counted? How much actually can be accounted through the operating expenditure. I hope the USCIS can clarify those job estimation models.
Thank you for the opportunity. 感谢你们给我这个机会。
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing your comments. We appreciate it. And operator, we are ready for the next comment.
Angela: As a reminder, to make a comment please press ‘star one’. Our next comment comes from Mohammed Shaikh with smartbusinessbroker.com.
Mohammed Shaikh: Hello. Good afternoon, and thank you for letting me speak. I had a few questions and [0:27:10.8 – inaudible]. Number one is that I heard one of your speakers request premium processing, and I personally would say it should not be encouraged at least until all the avenues for fraud have been significantly eliminated. Right now, I can tell you from personal experience, everything the regional center [0:27:32.5 – inaudible] has attempted to go ahead and legally offer [0:27:37.0 – inaudible] securities overseas. I’ll give you an example for China. That is the biggest market. Chinese law requires that any offering of securities be preapproved by the CSRC, which is the China Securities Regulatory Commission. And I can tell you, you can order everything a regional center that is overseas securities in China, none of them have obtained approval from USCIS or from SCC or from CSRC. Over the years, they are relying on the [0:28:06.6 – inaudible] of into overseas, and the rest is under regulation S. But the problem is they’re [0:28:13.2 – inaudible] securities laws overseas, and not only are they [0:28:16.5 – inaudible] laws overseas, but by failing to disclose those securities violations, they’re also committing securities fraud overseas, and [0:28:24.8 – inaudible] rewarding them by helping them raise funds instead of going out and cracking down on the regional centers for securities fraud and securities violations. So I mean, I listen until USCIS can get affirmative evidence that look, the [0:28:43.1 – inaudible] center is actually lawfully offering and selling securities overseas, they should not even think about giving approvals to them, and they should actually prosecute them securities fraud because you will see securities fraud [0:28:56.0 – inaudible] overseas, the U.S. may still have not only [0:29:00.3 – inaudible], but he also has the jurisdiction to prosecute over here because one of the [0:29:05.7 – inaudible] which is basically the receiving party, the fundraising party is based out in the U.S., so that is number one.
Mohammed Shaikh：你们好。下午好，谢谢你们给我这个发言机会。我有几个问题，[0:27:10.8-听不清]。首先，我听到之前的一位发言人要求加急审查，至少我个人认为在明显消除所有的欺诈方式之前，不应该鼓励这种做法。根据个人经验，我可以说区域中心[0:27:32.5-听不清]试图推进所有工作，以及依法发行[0:27:37.0-听不清]海外证券。我来举个中国的例子。中国是最大的市场。该国法律规定发行任何证券都必须获得CSRC（中国证券监督管理委员会）的事先批准。而且我可以告诉你，你可以在区域中心订购中国的任何海外证券，但这些证券都没有获得USCIS、SCC 或CSRC的批准。多年来，他们一直依靠海外[0:28:06.6-听不清]，其余的处于S条例监管之下。但问题在于，他们[0:28:13.2-听不清]海外证券法，他们不仅[0:28:16.5-听不清]海外法律，而且并未披露这些证券违法行为，他们也在海外从事证券欺诈活动，[0:28:24.8-听不清]通过帮他们筹集资金的方式给予他们奖励，而不是出去打击区域中心的证券欺诈和证券违法行为。所以，我的意思是，USCIS应该取得确定性的证据，表明[0:28:43.1-听不清]中心真的是依法发行和销售海外证券，否则甚至都不应考虑使他们通过审批，而是应该控告他们的证券欺诈行为，因为你会看到证券欺诈[0:28:56.0-听不清]海外，美国仍可能不仅[0:29:00.3-听不清]，还具有控告的司法管辖权。因为[0:29:05.7-听不清]之一基本上是收款方，而筹款方在美国。这是第一点。
Number two is that the source documentation for 526’s are usually not modified by the source and covered by the same entity. So for instance, somebody comes up with fake tax returns and fake bank accounts, to my knowledge USCIS does not independently go ahead and notify that these are generally not with the issuing bank or with the issuing tax authority, and these are centers who have laundered several billion dollars. [0:29:43.4 – inaudible] of two million or five million or ten million. They loaned out billions of dollars. And with it is just simply because most of the actors are particularly connected, whether it is [0:29:55.0 – inaudible] or a whole bunch of senators and even…
Ebony: We thank you [0:30:05.0 – inaudible]. We do thank you for calling in today.
Mohammed: Hello, I have two more things.
Ebony: We will allow you to make one more comment, but we have a lot of callers on the call that we’d like to…
Mohammed: Okay, no problems. And one last solution is that as far as the [0:30:21.2 – inaudible] goes, everybody should be playing on the same level field. If [0:30:26.0 – inaudible] jobs are only counted as direct jobs and non-direct jobs, the Visa center should not have an unfair advantage. They’re not only legally [0:30:35.2 – inaudible], but also they get to go out and count on internet job creation where there’s occasional advancements that are coming out of direct advancements. They don’t get to count in direct jobs. So I think we should have a level playing field where everybody gets to have the same [0:30:52.8 – inaudible] applied to them as opposed to one set of [0:30:54.8 – inaudible] regional centers, and another set of [0:30:58.7 – inaudible] at all. Thank you.
Ebony: Thank you very much. And operator…
Angela: [0:31:07.4 – tape cut out] Rabbani with Rabbani Associates.
Ebony: Your line is open. [Pause] Do we still have her with us? If not, we will take the next caller.
Angela: Next comment comes from George Bailey with Gateway to the Midwest.
Angela：下一位是来自Gateway to the Midwest公司的George Bailey。
George Bailey: Yea, my comment has to do with the expansion of regional center boundaries through continuous counties. It would be great to see some clarification on how that is to be done. One of the issues that I’ve thought about that could come up that would be really negative for counties we wish to expand, we have a project in a contiguous county, we try to file for an expansion at the same time that we’re doing the I-526’s for that project. We have the investors, but the investors because they’d be uncertain as to whether we’ve actually got permission to expand our boundaries, but actually be deterred from our project. And so there may need to be some sort of a preliminary phase in which a regional center can ask for an expansion before it goes through with marketing a project. Maybe it could show that it is more likely than not that it has a project in that expanded boundary, that way you could get the permission first, so that when you go to market, you’re able to say with certainty “We already have permission from USCIS to be able to operate within this boundary”. Otherwise expansion of boundaries would just become too difficult.
Ebony: Thank you very much. Did that complete your comment?
George: Yea, I just wanted to thank you for putting this together.
Ebony: Thank you. And operator, we’re ready for the next comment.
Angela: Next comment comes from Kraig Schwigen with CMB Regional Centers.
Kraig Schwigen: Hi. First thing I’d like to do is to make a couple of ‘thank you’s’; one to the USCIS for hosting the event. The other one is to the gentleman from FosterQuan. It seems to be echoing sentiments that CMB has expressed for years. I come from a long law enforcement background. I actually did that for in excess of 20 years and believed that the only way that the USCIS is going to be able to combat fraud and abuse is to be able to sort of implement a yearly fee on regional centers. As someone that operates a number of regional centers, I know this would be a significant financial impact on us, but I believe to maintain integrity in the program and develop investor confidence in the program. I think we’re going to have to improve the oversight and regulation. So one of the things that CMB has suggested for years is the implementation of a yearly fee, tie it now to the I-924. It’s a way of increasing oversight in regulation of the program, and also to sort of week out regional centers that are inactive. So again what I’d like to do is to thank the USCIS for the opportunity to I guess get our views on a bigger format, or a bigger platform and hopefully that we can improve the integrity of the program. Thanks very much.
Ebony: Thank you for calling in and sharing your comments. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller.
Angela: Next comment comes from Irina Rostova with Rostova Law Group.
Angela：下一位是来自Rostova Law Group 的Irina Rostova。
Irina Rostova: Hello? Irina Rostova：喂？
Ebony: Yes, your line is open.
Irina: Hi. Thank you for opening my mic. I wanted to make a comment regarding premium processing. I wanted to bring up the fact that it is not just the investors who would like to see more premium processing, but actually for policy reasons it’s good to have because with longer processing times, what happens is we frequently end up funding projects. We don’t actually want from the EB-5 program. Let me explain what I mean. With the processing times of 12 to 18 months, many regional centers cannot hold the funds in escrow until approval, so they put the funds into the project. If ultimately the project is denied by USCIS, the funds are already committed, and many investors don’t have an option of taking the funds out and placing them into a project that we really want to see a job generating [0:35:50.7 – tape cut out] project. So just once of having premium processing, which of course most EB-5 applicants will be willing and able to pay for, and I think it’s going to help us really fulfill the purpose of the program of creating this job generating project.
A second quick comment is to possibly think of some sort of government educational system that maybe information can be distributed through consulates or through the government website because I do see a lot of fraud that happens way before. It doesn’t happen through legitimate regional centers, but investors invest in these companies who are not registered regional centers who claim to be, simply because most investors and most foreigners hear about this program, not from USCIS, and not from government websites, but they hear about it from individuals. So they’re not aware of simple facts like the fact that all regional centers who have been approved are listed in the government site. So maybe if we can have some sort of public outreach information that can be distributed to consulates. You know, that just gives a basic list for investors to things to look for. First like verifying that the regional center is a legitimate registered and approved regional center. Being able to get the contact information through the USCIS website instead of just third party sources. And you know, just basic things like that, to prevent some fraud. Thank you very much.
Ebony: We thank you. And operator, our next caller please.
Angela: Next comment comes Tammy Fox with AILA.
Tammy Fox: Hi, this is Tammy Fox-Isicoff. I think that the USCIS should publish statistics for regional centers on what projects have so many approved 526’s, so many denials, so many approved 829’s, so many denials. That would certainly enable investors to conduct more due diligence, especially when they’re looking at a regional center for a track record.
Tammy Fox：你们，我是Tammy Fox-Isicoff。我认为，USCIS应该公布区域中心的项目统计资料，显示相应的526申请获批数量和被拒数量，以及829申请的获批数量和被拒数量。这无疑会使投资者进行更多的尽职调查，他们在寻找区域中心的跟踪记录时更是如此。
Also, USCIS needs some regulations for direct investors. For example, 40% increase of net worth or number of employees. Does that mean from the actual date of the acquisition of the business, the last quarter of the business, the last year of the business? The number of employees can change rapidly when a business is going to be sold. So from what date are we talking about? There’s really no guidance now when somebody acquires assets from an existing business. What factors are going to be looked at to determine whether or not it’s a new commercial enterprise? It’s really a catch–as–catch–can and it shouldn’t be.
Whether or not reinvestment by a sole proprietor qualifies as an investment of the actual sole proprietor’s money, there’s some decisions out there that say it has to be taxed money before it’s reinvested to qualify. Other cases say that it doesn’t have to be because it is an individual’s money in any event.
And also on the salary an investor can make from a direct investment so that it’s not considered a return on the investment. You know, what factors need to be regulated to, need to be explained in the regulations regarding an investor’s salary. Thank you.
Ebony: Thank you very much for your comments. Operator, next caller please. Ebony：非常感谢您在此分享宝贵意见。接线员，请接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Matt Galati with Klasko Law. [0:39:36.3 – inaudible]
Angela：下一位是来自Klasko Law 的Matt Galati。[0:39:36.3-听不清]
Matt Galati: Oh, yes. My question has, or my suggestion has to do with denied 829’s. So INA 216A provides that an investor whose conditional residency removal application is denied, may reseek review in immigration court, and as of the associated regulation forbidding an appeal, and that thing, jurisdiction exclusively with immigration court. Unfortunately though, EYR is so backlogged. It could be many years before the investor is able to get an individual calendar hearing. So I’m wondering if ACFR 216.62 could be amended to allow for a concurrent jurisdiction with USCIS for perhaps a motion to reopen, or maybe even an appeal in the case of an 829 is denied.
MattGalati：哦，你好。我的问题或者说建议与被拒的829申请有关。INA 第216A条规定，投资者在去除居留条件的申请被拒后，可在移民法院寻找重新审查的方法，并且在相关法规禁止上诉之后，这些事务就交由移民法院专门管辖。但遗憾的是，EYR过度积压。投资者可能需要经过多年以后。才能获得单独安排听证的机会。我在想，能否修订ACFR 216.62条例，以便在829申请被拒的情况下，使USCIS可通过共同管辖权对其重新处理或是使其提出上诉。
Ebony: We appreciate the comment. Thank you for calling in. Operator, we’re ready for the next comment.
Angela: As a reminder, to make a comment please press ‘star one’. Next comment comes from Robert Divine with Baker Donelson.
Angela：我要在此提醒您，如果您需要发表意见，请按下*号键和1号键。下一位是来自Baker Donelson的Robert Divine。
Robert Divine: Yes, I would make a couple of suggestions. One is to make a regulation that allows an investor to cure a problem with the documents such as is discussed in the Matter of Izummi. You know, the rules are just not clear enough about what is a redemption and a reserve and other kinds of things that could trigger a denial under Matter of Izummi, and the government’s position that emanates from that case is unfairly burdensome to party to clouding good taste with otherwise qualifying documents, and there should be a regulation that allows a correction without a denial and a rezone.
And the other is that the agency should consider allowing individual investors to file a standalone. Filing should have their source of funds adjudicated. For instance, if they were to place the funds in a U.S. bank account and demonstrate the source’s funds apart from a petition based on interests who are interested to learn whether their funds are good, and would not have to commit their funds to a prospect only later to find out that their source of funds could not be petitioned for taxes.
Ebony: I’m sorry, we’re having just a bit of trouble hearing you due to feedback.
Robert: Alright. Did you hear the first question or suggestion? Robert：好吧。你们听清我的第一个问题或建议了吗？
Ebony: We can hear you clear now. Thank you.
Robert: Did you hear the first suggestion?
Ebony: Yes we did. Ebony：是的，我们听清了。
Robert: Okay, so the second one was to allow individual investors to make a filing, and have their source of funds adjudicated apart from their investments in a project so that investors could eliminate the risk in that regard before they commit themselves to a particular project. They should not have to find out about a problem with their source of funds, and the context of having submitted to a project. That was an idea that didn’t originate with me. I fell trivia to [0:43:04.3 – inaudible]. Thank you.
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing those comments with us, and thank you for calling. Operator, we’re ready for the next comment.
Angela: Next comment comes from Ronald Klasko with AILA.
Ronald Klasko: Good afternoon, and thank you for this engagement. I wanted to talk to you about the fact that the regulations should be promulgated, keeping in mind that we almost certainly are facing the prospect of quota retrogression that will affect the majority of the investors in the program. And the quota retrogression will have a significant impact on many of the present USCIS policies that are based on the concepts that the investor will likely come to the U.S. and get conditional permanent residence within six months or a year of the 526 approval. I’ll just give you two examples of the policies that are affected, but there are really many more. Ronald Klasko：下午好，谢谢你们举办了这次活动。我想谈谈那些应当公布的法规。记住，我们几乎肯定会遇到配额倒退的问题，这将影响到多数的项目投资者。配额倒退会对现有的许多USCIS政策产生显著影响。这些政策基于以下理念，即投资者在526申请获批的半年或一年内，很可能来到美国并取得附加条件的永久居留权。事实上，很多政策都受到了影响，但我在此只举出两个例子。
One is the services two and a half year rule, and they’re the problem to begin with I think in that the rule on [0:44:15.3 – inaudible] jobs must be created under the present system as an incongruity between what you need to prove with the 526, which is that the jobs will be created within two and a half years of the approval versus the fact that when you get to the 829 stage, which is often four or five years later, you have to prove that the jobs will be created by the approval of the 829 or one year after that. So there’s a multiple year difference between when the jobs have to be created for purposes of the 526 and the 829, and that’ll be exacerbated when there could be, let’s say a couple of year delay from the 526 approval until the Chinese immigrant can enter the U.S., and under the two and a half year rule, the jobs would all have to be created before they even become conditional permanent residents. 其中一条是两年半服务规定，这是我想首先谈到的问题。我认为，必须在现行制度下创立的[0:44:15.3-听不清]就业机会规定，在526申请与829申请之间并不协调。你提出526申请时，需要证明在获批后两年半内能够创造的就业机会。但事实上，当你处于829申请阶段时，这通常是在四五年后，你又必须证明在829申请获批后或是一年后能够创造的就业机会。因此，526申请与829申请之间的工作创造存在着多年的差异。如果中国移民在526申请推迟数年获批后方可进入美国，那么上述差异将会加剧。根据两年半规则，中国移民甚至必须在成为附带条件的永久居民之前，创造出相应的就业机会。
Another of the several policies that would be affected by quota retrogression is the concept of what happens very often in the loan model regional centers. It’s not unusual to have for example five year loans from the job creating the enterprise to the new commercial enterprise. Or from the MCE to the JCE, and the issue becomes, well what happens if the loan is paid off after the end of five years to the MCE but not to the investors? And because of quota retrogression, the loan is paid off long before the investors get their condition removed. And it seems to me that the rule should be that as long as the money was used to create the necessary number of jobs, and as long as the money is not returned from the new commercial enterprise to the investors, that all of the regulatory requirements should be met. But this is a problem that exists presently, and it will get much worse when there will be a long delay until the investors can start their conditional residence period. 另外还有多项政策将受到配额倒退的影响，其中一项就是区域中心通常的贷款模式概念。例如，常见的例子是企业要为新的商业企业创造岗位，从而采用为期五年的贷款。或者是从MCE贷款给JCE。这个问题最后演变成在五年期限到期后，如果已向MCE（而不是投资者）付清贷款数额，那会发生什么事情呢？由于配额倒退，投资者在其去除条件式申请获批之前，很早就已经付清了贷款。但在我看来，只要这笔资金用于创造必要数量的就业岗位，以及新的商业企业尚未向投资者返还这笔资金，就应该规定须符合所有的监管要求。但这只是目前存在的一个问题，在投资者的条件式居留期开始之前，较长时间的延迟会使情况变得更糟。
Ebony: We thank you very much for sharing those comments with us today, and operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：非常感谢您在此与我们分享这些宝贵的意见。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Anna [0:46:30.7 – inaudible] with Global Law Group. Angela：下一位是来自Global Law Group的Anna[0:46:30.7-听不清]。
Linda Lau: Hi. This is Linda Lau, and I’m using an office phone booth to register for a comment. I conclude with what Ron was saying regarding the job creation period. I just don’t know whether people remember, the two and a half years job creation period that is being used right now is really from a time that based on the new [0:47:01.5 – inaudible] memo, that because processing time at that time was six months. So right now, the requirement is that upon approval of the 526, we have two and a half years to complete the job creation, which in consideration of processing time now even though we are aiming at nine to 12 months, but still many cases are pending beyond that. And along the same line, that I would like to maybe step back a little bit. If we can just look at the whole EB-5 program, and we are really looking at the investment side, $500,000 or $1M, and the job creation side. It seems like the trend is moving towards more and more into job creation. Not that it’s not important. It’s very important. But on the other hand, I kept thinking, comparing to many, many other countries; Canada, the UK, the Australian, the European countries today, many of them is just would like to focus on the investment side and understand that the infusion of investment and capital would create jobs. So I would like to ask in terms of recommendation for the regulations that we focus a little bit more on the investment side. And the reason of that is I compare the situation of the 829 and I-751; the marriage case. Remember those times that the marriage case is that in order to remove the condition that you have to wait for two years, and there’s lots of abuse in that relation, I mean in that requirement in marital relationships. So since that was done away with a requirement that you need to show the marriage was ended in good faith. The reason I compare the two is because I do see lots of abuses today in representing many, many of the investments. And not saying that these abuses are happening with all projects, but I do see them. And examples would be that because the jobs need to be created by the end of the conditional period within the condition of the period, then a lot of the investors are at the mercy of the project, not necessary any specific reasons [0:49:26.6 – inaudible] project, but I do see that. For example, it is a long project, all of a sudden being in the first position with the LNCE law, all of a sudden the project would come and say that “Oh, in order to get your job, you need to agree as an investor of the limited partnership to support in it, the law” and this midway after three and four years… Linda Lau：你好。我是Linda Lau，我正在使用办公室电话亭参与评论。关于工作创造期，我的发言是对Ron所述内容的总结。我不知道大家是否还记得，目前采用的两年半工作创造期的确是基于新的[0:47:01.5-听不清] 备忘录，因为当时的处理时间为6个月。所以，现在一旦526申请获批之后，我们就有两年半的时间来完成工作创造。即使现在我们的目标是取得9-12个月的处理时间，但仍有许多待批申请的审查时间超过了这个期限。同样，我也会退一步来思考。如果我们审视整体的EB-5项目，我们真的只是看到了投资方面（500,000美元或100万美元）与工作创造方面。似乎人们正趋向于更加关注创造就业机会。我不是说这不重要，事实上这非常重要。但另一方面，我不断在想，相比许多其它国家；像今天的加拿大、英国、澳大利亚和欧洲国家，其中很多都专注于投资方面，并了解注入投资和资本将有助于创造就业机会。所以，我想建议我们的法规更多一些地关注投资方面。这是因为我对829申请和I-751申请与婚姻案例进行了比较。我记得那时的婚姻案例就是，很多人为了免去必需的两年等待期，都滥用了这种关系，我是指对婚姻关系的要求。所以，那时要求结束这样的婚姻关系必须证明是善意的处理方式。我对两者进行比较的原因在于，我意识到如今有太多的投资代表都存在很多弊端。我不是说所有项目中都有这样的弊端，但我确实见到了这些现象。举例来说，在限定期限的条件范围内，由于必须在条件期限结束之前创造出就业机会，很多投资者都因此受制于投资项目，而并非是项目的[0:49：26.6-听不清] 任何特定原因，我的确是见到了这些事例。就比如说一个长期项目，该项目突然成了LNCE法关注的重点，该项目突击来袭并宣称，“哦，为了使你得到工作，你需要同意首先成为支持项目的有限合伙投资者，这是法律规定”，这中间经过三四年后……
Ebony: I’m sorry, you’re fading in and out on the call with your comments, so we’re starting to have trouble hearing you, but we do appreciate your feedback. We unfortunately, like we said at the beginning, won’t be able to comment on any specific projects or cases, but we definitely appreciate you sharing your comments with us today. Ebony：抱歉，您现在的通话声音时隐时现，我们开始听不清您的意见了，但还是感谢您的信息反馈。遗憾的是，正如我们一开始说的那样，我们无法对任何具体的项目或情况做出回应，但我们很感激您在此与我们分享宝贵的意见。
Linda: Okay. Thank you. Linda：好的。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：谢谢。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Michele Buchanan with Stone Law Firm. Angela：下一位是来自Stone Law Firm 的Michele Buchanan。
Michele Buchanan: Hi. This is Michele Buchanan. It’s actually Stone, Grzegorek & Gonzalez. It’s just too long to read to the operator. So I had a couple of comments about proposed regulations. One is to consider changing the definition of a troubled business with respect to how net loss is determined. I would suggest that the methods that are used to determine that law should include not only general accepted accounting principles, but also international financial reporting standards, or another comprehensive basis of accounting. And the reason there are several because Gap is typically used by very large companies or for credit investment purposes, and it’s not really used by small to medium sized businesses. And so to convert their records to be based on Gap would be, could easily cost tens of thousands of dollars. Michele Buchanan：你好。我是Michele Buchanan。我所属的公司名叫Stone, Grzegorek & Gonzalez。这个名称对接线员来说太长了。我想对拟定的条例提出几点意见。其中一点就是考虑更改亏损企业的定义，即确定净损失额的方式。我建议那些用于确定适用法律的方法应该包括一般公认的会计原则，以及国际财务报告准则或是全面的会计基准。有上述多项准则的原因在于，Gap通常用于非常大型的公司或信贷投资目的，但不会真正地用于中小型企业。因此，要想转换他们基于Gap的记录，往往需要耗费数万美元。
And also, my understanding is that Gap will be phased out within the next few years in favor of the international reporting standards. So that’s a suggestion. 此外，我认为在未来几年内，Gap将会因为要采用国际财务报告标准而被逐步淘汰。这只是一个建议。
And also, this is a bit esoteric, but with regard to TEA designation, currently the authority to designate TEA’s based on high unemployment is limited to states and agencies appointed by the states. I would suggest that the regulations might be amended to give that authority to all of the territories included in the definition of the United States at ATFR215E, and also to federally recognize Indian nations. Okay? That’s my comment. Thank you. 另外虽然指定TEA显得有点深奥，但目前能够基于高失业率来指定TEA的部门仅限于各州以及各州委任的相关机构。我建议可以修订法规，使符合ATFR215E美利坚合众国定义范围内的所有领土，以及联邦政府认可的印第安领地都可赋有这种权力。这不行么？这就是我的意见。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you. We appreciate the feedback. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller. [Pause] Do we have anyone else in the queue? If not, could you please remind them how to queue you if they would like to make a comment on the call? Ebony：谢谢。感谢您的意见反馈。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。[暂停]我们还有其他人在线上排队等候吗？如果没有，能否请你告知想要发表意见的人员如何排队参加会议评论？
Angela: Once again, if you’d like to make a comment, please press ‘star’ then ‘one’. Angela：再次提醒，如果您想发表意见，请按下*号键和1号键。
Ebony: We’ll hold just one more moment to see if we have any additional comments. Ebony：我们会再等待一段时间，看是否还有其他人要发表意见。
Angela: Our next comment comes from James Wolf with Lipman & Wolf. Actually I’m sorry. We’ll go to David Morris with Visa Law Group. Angela：下一位是来自Lipman & Wolf公司的James Wolf。真是万分抱歉。让我们先接通Visa Law Group的David Morris来电。
David Morris: Hi. David Morris, calling from Visa Law Group, Washington, D.C., AILA EB-5 committee. Thank you for having the call. My first comment was that we spent a lot of time with Lester & Mayorkas in an iterative process to get the 2013 policy memo done. And while it didn’t cover everything, it did a pretty good job covering a lot of stuff that we as stakeholders had questions about. So as you ponder implementing some regulations, we would ask I think that you made sure that what we worked out in the policy memo becomes part of that as the core. David Morris：你好。我是来自AILA EB-5委员会华盛顿特区Visa Law Group的David Morris。谢谢接通我的电话。我首先要说的是，我们在迭代程序中花了很多时间与Lester & Mayorkas合作，一同完成2013年的政策备忘录。虽然该政策并非面面俱到，但却涵盖了我们利益相关者想要咨询的很多内容。所以当你还在思考是否执行一些法规时，我认为应该问你是否确定已将我们的政策备忘录作为核心内容。
And then secondly, invite an iterative process again to get us to that same type of mutually agreeable way of logically implementing the program. 其次，应该再次通过迭代程序，使我们双方都同意有条理地执行项目。
The second comment that I have talks more about the processing times, and then the release of escrow. So currently, a lot of regional centers, or most regional centers have an escrow system that says that funds can be released after one to three 526 petitions are approved, and that makes a lot of sense to have that system. It means the project has been approved. But what doesn’t make sense is the services current processing times for 10 to 20 months. My suggestion would be that if a project has I suppose a hundred investors and what they’re seeking, and that 50 investors have already filed 526’s and we have received numbers for those, that the CIS should give some adjudication priority to this project, and at least review three cases to allow for the release of the escrow. So I call this like a 50% rule. It shows that the project is right, that there’s funds available. The alternative would be that 50 to 100 cases sit in review for the 10 to 20 months; that’s the current thought process. And following that current policy, funds are not deployed, which clearly inhibits the construction activities. That’s what it’s underlying. As well as the job creation being delayed. So rewarding those regional set of projects that attract 50% or more of the investors to it, with those cases filed with the service, should give I think the service a reasonable basis to give adjudication fees for the first, let’s say three cases to allow for the release of escrow so those funds can be put to work. Thank you much. David Morris. 第二条建议更多地是关于处理时间和托管释放。目前，很多或多数区域中心都设有托管系统，据称该系统可在一至三份526请愿书获批后释放资金，这也使其更有意义。这意味着项目已经获得批准。但是，当前的处理时间长达10-20个月却没有意义。我的意见是，如果一个项目有一百名投资者，这也是他们所期望的，其中50名投资者已经提出526申请，而且我们也收到了相应数量的申请，那么CIS就应该在一定程度上优先审查该项目，并至少审查三个案例以便于托管释放。我把这称为50％规则。事实表明项目无可挑剔，并且具有可用资金。另一种情况是，10-20个月期间有50-100份待审查的申请；这就是当前的思维过程。遵循现行的政策，将不会得到资金部署，这显然会妨碍建设活动。这就是根本影响，而工作创造也会被延迟。所以，应对能够吸引50％或更多投资者的区域项目予以奖励，这些项目都已归档时，我认为这首先会使服务具有收取审查费用的合理依据。例如，三个案例就允许托管释放，以使这些资金能够投入使用。非常感谢。我是David Morris。
Ebony: Thank you very much. We appreciate you sharing comments with us today. And operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：谢谢您。感谢您在此与我们分享宝贵意见。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: As a reminder, to make a comment please press ‘star one’. Our next comment comes from Rana Jazayerli with Dilworth Paxson. Angela：在此提醒，如果您需发表意见，请按下*号键和1号键。下一位是来自Dilworth Paxson的Rana Jazayerli。
Rana Jazayerli: Hi. Yes, thank you. This is Rana Jazayerli with Dilworth Paxson in Washington, D.C. I wanted to just comment on the issue of fraud from the perspective of the investor. We’ve talked a lot and my [0:56:01.8 – inaudible] and suggested in terms of making sure that the regional centers are accountable, and that there’s some sort of monitoring of what’s going on. The issue though becomes when one, when a regional center gets through and issues a fraud, the investors are left in a position of being held in limbo. If they cannot show that their funds have been properly invested, obviously they can’t show that the jobs have been created. And if they’ve done everything that they were supposed to do, nothing would destroy the credibility more of this program than a situation such as that, which has unfortunately happened in the past. Most of these investors end up in limbo, and so to the extent you could possibly address it in the new regulations. If coming up with some sort of revenue or some sort of definitive guidance or status for individuals who do find themselves to be victims of fraud, and as a result are affected, again their 526’s have already been approved and who were already present in the United States. I know there’s a Chicago case got a loss of [0:57:05.0 – inaudible]. That was a great case, the USCIS got involved with it, the FCC and the FBI. But the end result was you were able to free the $147M, and that was ultimately returned to the investors. So the situation I’m talking about is one where the funds have disappeared, and there’s no way to return them to the investors, and they’re out $500,000 plus, and they no longer have funds to be able to go to another regional center and to invest. So that would be my comment. Rana Jazayerli：你好。嗯，谢谢你。我是来自华盛顿特区Dilworth Paxson公司的Rana Jazayerli。我想从投资者的角度，探讨一下欺诈问题。我们对此已经谈了很多，我的[0:56:01.8-听不清]提议以确保各区域中心负有责任，并可在一定程度上监测进展情况。当某个区域中心通过审查并进行欺诈时，投资者就会处于困境。如果他们不能证明已对资金进行妥善投资，显然他们也无法证明已经创造出就业机会。如果他们已经做好一切应有的准备，那么相比任何其它因素，这种情况将对项目的可信度产生最大的破坏性。不幸的是，过去发生了这种情况。多数相关投资者最终都陷入了困境，所以在某种程度上，新法规中可能会提到这种问题。如果为投资者提供某些收益，或是明确的指导或身份，使其能够发现自己变成了欺诈行为的受害者并因此受到影响，但他们的526申请已经获批并且自己已经身处美国。我知道芝加哥有一个案例，投资者损失额达[0:57:05.0-听不清]。这是一个大事件，USCIS、FCC和FBI都已介入。但最终只能解套1.47亿美元，并将其返还给投资者。以上所说的是资金消失的一种情况，没有办法将这些资金返还给投资者，相应数额超过了500,000美元。那些投资者没有资金可用于另一区域中心的投资。这就是我的意见。
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing your feedback with us today. We appreciate you calling. And operator, we’re ready for the next comment. Ebony：非常感谢您与我们分享宝贵的反馈意见。感谢您的来电。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Joe [0:57:46.6 – Pin (sp)] with USEDLC. Angela：下一位是来自USEDLC的Joe[0:57:46.6- 嘟]。
Joe: Hi. First of all, I’m glad that Doctor Sargeant representing SBA is in the house. Our regional center works directly with SBA on the SBA cycle for loans, and we have successfully funded 16 of those projects in the past four years. Now my comment is that we would love to see more flexibility and openness as far as the job creation methodology that can be accepted by USCIS, especially when USCIS approved one methodology, and later on it changes the policy. We would love to have early heads-up as early as possible so that we have enough time to fix the problem. With the lack of consistency and the super long processing time, this hasn’t been available to many of the regional centers in the past. Thank you. Joe：你们好。首先，我很高兴代表SBA 的Sargeant博士参加了这次会议。我们的区域中心与SBA直接合作SBA的周期贷款事项，并且我们在过去四年内已经成功地为16个此类项目提供资金。我要说的是，就USCIS可接受的工作创造方法，尤其是在USCIS已经批准以及该方法可更改政策的条件下，我们希望能看到更高程度的灵活性和开放性。我们希望能够尽早收到警告信息，以便我们有足够的时间来解决问题。过去，由于缺乏一致性和超长的处理时间，许多区域中心都无法取得这种帮助。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you. And operator, we’re ready for the next comment. Ebony：谢谢您。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Yuseff Howard with Progressive Funding Solutions. Angela：下一位是来自Progressive Funding Solutions公司的Yuseff Howard。
Yuseff: Yes, hi. My question, I’m not sure if it was answered or asked. My question is whether or not there have been any thought to giving faster processing times for new regional centers that have existing principals, and also to the same, to the foreign investors who already have possibly work Visas or any other type of Visas to the country. Yuseff：哦，你好。我的问题，我不知道是否会得到解答或回应。我的问题是，更快的处理时间是否惠及目前保有资本的新区域中心，以及可能已经拥有工作签证或任何其它类型签证的外国投资者。
Ebony: Again, at this time today we are not addressing any specific problematic questions, but we are taking feedback. So we appreciate you sharing your thoughts, and we are ready for the next caller. Ebony：再次提醒，在本次会议期间，我们不会对有关任何具体情况的问题做出回应，我们只是在听取反馈意见。所以，我们感谢您在此分享宝贵的意见，我们准备接通下一位的来电。
Angela: Next comment comes from Peter Englander with Portland Development Commission. Angela：下一位是来自波特兰发展委员会的Peter Englander。
Peter Englander: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to suggest reconsideration of the tenant occupancy matter so that retained jobs in growing companies can be counted in addition with the new jobs. Companies that are growing are by definition not shrinking, and thus consistent with conventional understanding in a field of economic development would expand their impact on the local economy. I’d also like to make a comment on targeted employment areas, and extending their time period of effect beyond what is effective, what is currently effectively about one year. This will give greater certainty for a longer period of time for all of these other processes that have been mentioned today to play out. I would also encourage stronger consideration of where these areas exist because where jobs are created aren’t necessarily where people live. And if this can be thought of on a more reasonable approach, I think it would be more effective in the administration of target employment areas. Than you. Peter Englander：你们好。感谢你们给我这个机会。我想提议重新考虑租户就业事项，以便成长型企业中保留的工作岗位能够与新的工作岗位合并计算。根据成长型企业的定义，此类企业的规模不会缩减，从而与经济发展领域的传统认知相符，这将扩大其对当地经济的影响。我也想谈一下目标就业区，以及延长其有效期。目标就业区当前的有效期约为一年。这将为今天谈到的此类所有其它过程，提供更加确定的较长有效期。我也建议更认真地考虑这些区域所在的位置，因为创造出就业机会的地方，并不一定是人们生活的地方。如果能够就此提出更合理的方法，我认为这将使目标就业区的管理工作更加高效。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you. We appreciate your comments. And operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：谢谢。感谢您分享意见。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: As a reminder, please press ‘star one’ to ask a comment. Next comment comes from Ken Halverson with Jetstrip. Angela：再次提醒，如果您需要发表意见，请按下*号键和1号键。下一位是来自Jetstrip公司的Ken Halverson。
Ken Halverson: Yes, my comment is basically regarding the processing times. Some are taking over two and a half years, and we’re not able to recommend this program to anyone else because of the extreme delays that are encountered, and from the California Service Center we’ve received questions that were totally irrelevant and they would keep asking them, you would answer them, and so the delays are a very serious problem I would say with this whole program. Where the rubber meets the road, I know that you’re trying to speed it up and be more responsive to people. At our last stakeholders’ meeting, which was approximately two months ago, those of us that were in queue, at the end it was suggested that we would be able to send an email and get our questions answered in a priority basis, and we were to mention the fact that we were in queue from that teleconference. I did that. That’s two months ago, and I have still not received anything. So the priority system is not working, and without you being more responsive in a timely manner, this program will not go ahead from any people that I know. Thank you. Ken Halverson：是的，我的意见基本上是关于审查时间。有些申请审查都超过了两年半时间，我们无法将这样的项目推荐给其他人，因为期间的处理过度延迟。在加州服务中心，我们被问及完全不相关的问题，那些工作人员会不停地发问，而你只能回答他们。所以，我认为就整个项目来看，延迟现象是一个非常严重的问题。当目标快要实现之时，我知道你们会加快速度并更加积极地响应群众。在我们上一次的利益相关者会议上，大约是两个月前，我们这些人都在排队，但你们到最后建议我们可以发送电子邮件，并会优先解答我们的问题。我们要说明的是，事实上，我们从那次的电话会议之后一直在排队等候。我就是这样做的。两个月前，我仍然没有收到任何反馈。所以优先制度并没有起作用，如果你们并未积极地及时响应群众，这个项目就无法在我所知的群体中顺利进行。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you. We appreciate you calling and sharing your comments with us, and I would just like to clarify that the USCIS public engagement box that we give out is not necessarily for any type of priority, but we will take your question and make sure that it’s routed to the appropriate person for follow-up. So we do apologize that you’ve experienced a delay with your question. But if there’s any question that you still have that is open, please feel free to send it to us again. And again, that box is Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov, and we’ll assist you with any follow-up needed. Thank you, and operator we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：谢谢。我们感谢您的来电以及与我们分享您的宝贵意见。我想澄清的是，我们公布的USCIS公众参与邮箱并非会对任何类型的意见都进行优先处理，但我们会接收您的问题并确保安排适当的工作人员跟进。对于您所经历的问题回复延迟，我们在此向您真诚地道歉。如果您仍有任何尚未得到解决的问题，欢迎再次将问题发送给我们。邮箱地址是Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov。我们会向您提供任何所需的后续支持。非常感谢您。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from John Roth with Roth Immigration Law Firm. Angela：下一位是来自Roth移民律师事务所的John Roth。
John Roth: Yes, hello. I’d like to respond to an earlier comment encouraging USCIS to publish statistics on immigration filings, whether they’re [1:03:39.4 – inaudible]. I think that’s a rather bad idea because those statistics can be misleading. There are regional centers with histories of, cumulative history of no denials, when in fact some of the projects have failed and investors have been moved to other projects. There are also regional centers that have had denials, and they avoided denial by going into federal court. Also, those statistics can be misleading given the ‘Rent-A-Center’ world that we’re in recently. You might have different management companies that had project successes, and those don’t necessarily mean it’s an umbrella. Regional center can take credit for them. Simply they can’t take full credit for them. But the logic point is that investors should be encouraged to focus on the projects, not on the regional centers. The regional centers do have some import because they show they’ve got an experienced and capable management team. But beyond that, I think it’s, well actually I should have left that if you go with a regional center with a history of I-829’s, you the investor are more likely to get a green card [1:04:58.5 – inaudible]. And it’s more to sense to, I don’t think the USCIS should be elevating or exacerbating a situation where you establish regional centers all already have a very substantial advantage in recruiting, and I think if you’re publishing statistics, what you want to have is a situation where it’s difficult for newer and often innovative regional centers to make their mark in our industry. Thank you. John Roth：哦，你好。之前有一位鼓励USCIS公布移民档案的统计数据，无论这些档案是否[1:03:39.4-听不清]。我想对此做出回应。我认为这是一个很糟的想法，因为这些统计数据可能令人误解。有些区域中心从未出现过申请被拒的情况，但事实上是某些项目失败了，而投资者已经被转移到其它项目上。还有一些区域中心出曾出现过申请被拒的情况，但他们通过联邦法院来避免申请被拒。考虑到我们近年来所处的“租赁中心”环境，就知道这些统计数据可能引起误导。你可能有不同的管理公司都取得了项目成功，但并不一定意味着这会成为一把保护伞。区域中心可以把这些成绩归功于自身，但不能完全居功。但理智的看法是，应该鼓励投资者专注于项目，而不是区域中心。区域中心也在项目中做出了一些贡献，因为他们表明了自身拥有富于经验和实力的管理团队。但除此之外，我认为，其实我应该不谈这一点。如果你作为投资者加入了曾处理过I-829申请的某个区域中心，你将更容易获得绿卡[1:04:58.5-听不清]。这样更有意义。如果你建立起的区域中心在人才招募方面极具优势，我不认为USCIS会再改善或弱化这种局势。如果你要发布统计数据，你将使新来者以及通常的创新型区域中心，难以在我们的行业内做出成绩。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you very much for those comments, and operator we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：非常感谢您分享这些宝贵意见。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from James Wolf with Lipman & Wolf. Angela：下一位是来自Lipman & Wolf公司的James Wolf。
James Wolf: Hello. Thank you for this opportunity. My first comment would be to suggest that the USCIS follow the, an attestation like a process that the Department of Labor implemented for labor certification a couple of years ago. The labor department is under a similar situation in adjudicating regular certifications under very complex regulatory schemes, and announcing backlogs. And what I came up with was an attestation process in which the regulatory requirements were essentially the same, but rather than an application which was several inches thick, the application is mainly a check off the box that the applicant has complied with the various laws. And so I think that the EB-5 application process could be streamlined similarly. For example, a box to check off that to the best of the knowledge of the applicant, they are in compliance with securities laws of the U.S., they are in compliance with ACFR, the INA, president decisions, that there’s not been any changes in the economic analysis or offering documents, business plan included with the I-924, and even that the applicant has obtained anti-fraud or national security clearance to an OPaC license. I think a lot of these steps are certainly ones that need to be accomplished by the applicant, but it does not require the government read through pages and pages of offering documents to make that determination. So that’s basically my comment, as to look at the history and the Department of Labor when it faces similar issues with its labor certifications. Thank you. James Wolf：你们好。谢谢你们给我这次机会。我的第一点意见就是建议USCIS遵循一种认证流程，就像劳工部几年前为劳工证进行认证那样。劳工部也处于类似的情况下，需要按照非常复杂的监管方案来审查定期认证和宣布积压案例。在我所想到的认证流程中，那些监管要求基本上相同，但申请无需厚达几英寸的各类材料，而是要有证明申请人已遵循各项法律的最简单记录。所以我认为，EB-5申请流程可以同样地简化。例如，这些记录应证明尽申请人所知，他们遵循了美国证券法、ACFR、INA和总统决策的相关要求，I-924申请应有的经济分析、要约文件和商业计划并未出现任何变动，甚至申请人已经取得OPaC许可证的反欺诈或国家安全通关证。我认为，很多此类步骤都需要由申请人来完成，但这并不需要政府通过查看许多的要约文件来做出决策。通过参照历史和劳工部面对劳动证的相似问题，以上基本就是我的全部意见。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you very much for that feedback. We do want to make sure that we hear comments from everyone who wants to share with us on the call today. So we encourage you to queue the operator if you still have a comment that you would like us to hear today. And operator, we ask that you just remind everyone of how to queue you if they would like to make a comment on the call. Ebony：非常感谢您提供的这些信息反馈。对于所有愿意参与今天会议的人员，我们要确保听取大家的意见。如果您仍有希望在此发表的评论，我们欢迎您排队等候。接线员，我们请你告诉需要发言的人员应该如何排队。
Angela: As a reminder, to make a comment please press ‘star’ then ‘one’. Our next comment comes from Connie Wang with U.S. China. Angela：再次提醒，如果您需要发表意见，请按下*号键和1号键。下一位是来自U.S. China的Connie Wang。
Connie Wang: Hi. This is Wenzhao “Connie” Wang from U.S. China Global Law Group. I would think for fighting the fraudulence or fraud, the best way is to increase the transparency. Currently, we can’t find much information from USCIS’ website, and for now even for those regional centers, we only have the list of regional centers approved. We don’t have any data about the I-526 or I-829 approvals. Of course, I understand what the previous colleague mentioned about the disadvantage for a foundation; those track records to maybe to mislead to the investors about the future performance on those regional centers. But I do think that improving the track record, and to let the public know what is going on with those regional centers is helpful. I think there are ways to prevent investors to totally depend on that record. This is one suggestion I have. Connie Wang：你好。我是来自U.S. China Global Law Group的Wenzhao “Connie” Wang。我觉得，应对欺骗或欺诈的最好方法就是提高透明度。目前，我们无法从USCIS网站获取很多信息，现在即使是那些区域中心，我们也只有已经获批的区域中心清单。我们没有关于I-526申请或I-829申请的任何数据。当然，我了解之前同事提到的基金会劣势；那些跟踪纪录也许会使投资者对区域中心的未来业绩产生误解。但我确实认为，改善跟踪记录和让公众了解区域中心的运作很有用。我觉得有一些方法可以防止投资者完全依赖于跟踪记录。这是我的一条建议。
The other one is for the forms of I-924, I-526 and I-829. Currently there’s also not much information about the details about the adjudication process, and I would think it would be helpful if there would be data or information. Most common are [1:09:58.0 – inaudible] issued by the USCIS for those forms. So in that way, it would help the regional centers, it would help the investors to get that information; how to make the project successful. 另一条建议是关于I-924、I-526和I-829申请表。目前，我们没有关于审查流程细节的更多信息，我认为如果有相关数据或信息将会很有帮助。最常见的是USCIS为这些申请表签发的 [1:09:58.0-听不清]。这种方式将有助于区域中心和投资者获取信息；以及了解如何使项目取得成功。
The other part is for the third suggestion I have for the processing time for I-526 or I-829. Currently on the website, the processing time for I-526 is nine months, which is I understand is actually targeted to the time. I don’t know whether there will be a chance to give the information on practical time, on what the real time is because this is actually pretty misleading, as most of us know that the adjudicating time for I-526 is much longer than that. So I wonder whether there’s some way that USCIS can give the information a range of time for adjudicating the cases. Thank you. 另一部分是我对I-526申请或I-829申请的处理时间提出的第三项建议。目前，网站上的I-526申请的处理时间为9个月，在我看来这只是目标审查时间。我不知道是否有机会得知实际的审查时间，即真正的审查时间。网站上显示的时间非常容易使人误解，因为我们多数人都知道I-526申请的审查时间要长很多。所以我在想，USCIS是否可以通过某种方式，提供有关案例审查的不同时间信息。
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing your comments with us today. We appreciate you calling. And operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：非常感谢您在此与我们分享宝贵的意见。感谢您的来电。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Paige [Ellerman]. It’s saying with Frost Brown Todd. Angela：下一位来自Paige [Ellerman]公司，名叫Frost Brown Todd。
[Pause] [暂停] Ebony: Your line is open. [Pause] We may have lost them. Why don’t we move to the next caller? Ebony：您的电话已接通。[暂停]我们可能和他们失去联系了。为什么不接通下一位的来电呢？
Angela: Next comment comes from Stephen Yale-Loehr with Miller Mayer. Angela：下一位是来自Miller Mayer公司的Stephen Yale-Loehr。
Carolyn Lee: Good afternoon. This is actually Carolyn Lee from Miller Mayer. I wanted to first reiterate David Morris’ earlier point that I believe that engaging in an iterative process or this round of rule-making will be very important, and we trust and hope that USCIS will engage the stakeholder community as it goes about improving existing regulations. Carolyn Lee：下午好。我是来自Miller Mayer公司的Carolyn Lee。我首先想重申David Morris之前的观点，即我认为参与反复流程或这一轮的规则制定将非常重要，我们相信并希望USCIS在改善现有法规时，会兼顾利益相关者。
My comment stems from an observation in the 829 regulations at 216.6, and these regulations are not clear with respect to whether or not job creation requirements are continuing through the adjudication period, or whether once the petition shows that the jobs were created, that if evidence of jobs sustaining is not produced during the course of an RC for example, that that petition has still met the job creation requirement and can be approved. So this of course problem could be exacerbated when we had Visa backlogs, and the petitioner has waited five of six years before filing the petition to remove conditions. So the point here is that I would suggest that the job creation period be fixed, and if the job creation has occurred within say the 2.5 year window, which is a 526 job creation requirement, that the service deem the jobs to have been created for 829 approval purposes, and do not require the jobs to also be maintained or sustained through the 829 adjudication period. 我的意见源自对829申请监管法规216.6条款的观察结果。这些法规并未明确是否工作创造要求在审查期间依然持续，或是例如当请愿书证明已经创造出就业机会后，如果RC过程中没有产生可证明工作机会持续的证据，请愿书仍符合工作创造要求并可获得批准。因此，在我们的签证申请积压时，这种问题可能会恶化，而申请人在六年期限中已经等待了五年，才提交去除条件的请愿书。所以，我建议应该使工作创造期固定化。比方说如果在2.5年期限内已经创造出就业机会，这也是526申请的工作创造要求，则服务机构认为创造该就业机会是为了829申请的获批目的，并且不会要求在829申请审查期间维持或延续这些就业机会。
Ebony: Thank you very much for sharing your feedback with us today. We appreciate those comments. And operator, we’re ready to take the next comment now. Ebony：非常感谢您在此分享宝贵的反馈意见。谢谢您。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Charles [1:13:56.6 – Platice (sp)] with ELLOC. Angela：下一位是来自ELLOC公司的Charles[1:13:56.6-Platice（SP）]。
Charles Platice: Hello. This is Charles Platice. Thank you also for putting on this event. I would also like to echo what the prior speaker said about the ambiguity of the job creation times, as well as what Mr. Klasko said. I think that’s the priority issue. Another issue I would like to comment on though, is I would ask that you take a close look at the forms to make sure that they truly correspond to the statute in terms of information requested. I believe there are a lot of things asked on the forms, or at least a few things that are probably not relevant to the petition. At least not by statutory requirements of for instance, questions about income at the time of investment, and later gross net, net worth, etc. Charles Platice：你们好。我是Charles Platice。感谢你们举行本次活动。我也想探讨一下之前有人说的创造工作时间的不确定性，以及Klasko先生提及的话题。我认为这是应该优先考虑的问题。我想说的另一个问题就是，我希望你们仔细查看那些申请表，确保它们真正对应所需信息的相关条例。我相信申请人已经询问了有关申请表的许多问题，或者至少是一些可能与请愿书不相关的问题。例如，至少不是法例规定的投资时的收入，此后的毛利、净利及净资产等问题。
Another example would be the percentage of the enterprise you own does not permit for distinctions between financial rights and voting rights. And that’s on the I-526. Thank you. That’s my comment. 另一个例子，就是你在企业中的所有权比例，该比例不允许经济权和投票权之间存在差异。这是关于I-526的申请事项。谢谢。这就是我的意见。
Ebony: Thank you very much for those comments, and thank you for joining today. Operator, we’re ready for the next caller. Ebony：非常感谢您分享这些意见，谢谢您的参与。接线员，请为我们接通下一位。
Angela: Next comment comes from Edward Beshara with Beshara P.A. Angela：下一位是来自Beshara P.A.公司的Edward Beshar。
Sal Picataggio: Good afternoon. This is Sal Picataggio from Ed Beshara’s office in Orlando. My comment has to do with the, from the project perspective, especially in light of some of the earlier comments about recertification of regional centers, and the possibility that some regional centers may no longer exist. My comment would be that, and my suggestion would be that the projects who may already be proving themselves as either preapproved or as otherwise financially business viable, to have some kind of portability also in light of the current trend to render lease regional centers that projects have this kind of freedom to report to a new regional center, or continue to have processing of investor cases in the queue, even if a regional center with no call for the project whatsoever may lose its designation. Thank you for taking our suggestion today. Sal Picataggio：下午好。我是来自奥兰多Ed Beshara办事处的Sa lPicataggio。从项目的角度来看，我想就前面有人提到的区域中心重新认证，以及某些区域中心可能不复存在提一些看法。我的意见和建议是，考虑到当前租赁区域中心的趋势，那些可能已经证明获得预先批准或具有财务运营可行性的项目，可以就此取得某种程度的可移植性。这样一来，即使某处区域中心因为没有参与项目而可能失去指定资格，其它项目也可以相对自由地向新的区域中心报告，或是继续处理那些待审的投资者案例。谢谢你们听取了我们的意见。
Ebony: I’m sorry. We were having some trouble hearing you towards the middle to the end of your comment. Could you please repeat it for us, and just a little bit louder if possible? Ebony：抱歉。我们没太听清您的中间到结尾部分的意见。能否请您尽可能用大一些的声音，再重复一遍呢？
Sal: Of course. Again, this is Sal Picataggio from Beshara P.A., and sorry. I was cutting out a little bit. Again, my comment was on the, from the project’s perspective in light of the regional center recertification as some earlier callers suggested, and also in the trend to lease or rent regional centers where we have preapproved projects or projects that are proven to be viable through possibly I-526 approvals, and my suggestion would be that there be some kind of regulation allowing for portability or deference given to the project itself to allow for any type of pending 526 petitions to continue to be processed in light of some issue with the regional center, that in no call for the project has been a problem. Thank you. Sal：当然可以。我再说一次，我是来自Beshara P.A.公司的Sal Picataggio，抱歉。我把内容缩减一些。同样，我是从项目的角度，考虑到之前有人提到的区域中心重新认证，以及出租或租用区域中心的当前趋势，其中我们已经拥有预批项目或通过可能的I-526审批证明项目可行。我的建议是，应该设立某种监管法规，允许项目本身具有可移植性或服从性，以便区域中心出现一些问题时，比如项目本身没有问题，任何类型的未决526请愿书仍可继续处理进行。谢谢。
Ebony: Thank you very much for repeating that, and thank you for sharing your comments with us today. We’ve had a chance to hear from a lot of you, and we appreciate all the feedback that we’ve heard today. And this concludes our call. I would like to thank everyone for participating, and thank Nick and Doctor Sargeant as well for their remarks. If you happen to have been on the line and didn’t get the opportunity to share your comments, please do email us. Again, at Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov, and we also encourage everyone to visit the USCIS Idea Community at www.uscisconnect.ideascale.com and express any additional comments there as well pertaining to the EB-5 regulatory changes. Thank you very much for joining us today. Have a great day. Ebony：非常感谢您为我们重复了以上内容，谢谢您在此与我们分享宝贵的意见。我们有机会了解您的诸多意见，也感谢您提供这些信息反馈。今天的电话会议到此结束。感谢大家的积极参与，感谢Nick和Sargeant博士和他们的精彩发言。如果您一直在线等候但还没有得到机会来分享意见，请给我们发送电子邮件。我们的邮箱是Public.Engagement@uscis.dhs.gov，我们也欢迎大家通过www.uscisconnect.ideascale.com访问USCIS创意社区，发表任何相关意见和表达对EB-5监管改革的看法。非常感谢大家参加今天的会议。祝你们愉快！