兆龙移民原创翻译 转载请注明出处

　　引言：2015年1月6日，著名移民律师Ron Klasko在EB-5 NewsBlog上发表了一封给美国现任移民局长Rodriguez和办公室主任Colucci的公开信。由于近几年来美国EB-5投资移民项目一直受到外国投资者的追捧，EB-5移民项目审批程序效率低下的问题也随着申请人数的增多而逐渐显现出来。一边是美国EB-5投资移民项目为美国经济和就业所作出的巨大贡献，一边却是广大外国投资者焦急而漫长的等待。有鉴于此，作者针对审批程序的优化，为美国移民局提出了十条既不增加成本、又能使各方共赢的建议，其中包括减少EB-5审批时间、同一项目的I-526一起审批、为面临者单开队列等具体措施。这篇长文章虽然措辞比较强硬，但的确揭示了目前美国EB-5投资移民项目的一些不足之处，而且提出的建议也非常中肯和有建设性。在此，兆龙移民特将原文翻译如下。

　　十条建议提炼：

　　1、美国移民局必须减少美国EB-5投资移民项目申请的审批时间。

　　2、美国移民局应当加快对已获批项目投资者的I-526申请审批时间。

　　3、移民局应当一起审批同一个项目的所有I-526申请。

　　4、对将会面临签证的投资者，应当单独给他们开一个队列。

　　5、美国移民局也应当给美国EB-5投资移民直接投资者单独开一个队列。

　　6、美国移民局应当对投资项目和区域中心的律师有所区分。

　　7、ELIS系统是一个典型的目标美好但运转不良的反面教材。

　　8、移民局应当设立I-829的审批程序样板。

　　9、移民局应当为发生实质性变更的项目提供立即提交I-829样板申请的途径。

　　10、移民局应当让公众更有效地知晓信息。

　　中英文对照：

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

　　最近，Rodriguez局长在EB-5产业会议上的讲话让我倍受鼓舞。在讲话中，他称赞了EB-5项目的重要价值，并且强调了移民局在最大化EB-5对美国经济的贡献中所发挥的举足轻重的作用。这一作用也是国会在设立EB-5项目之初就已经预见到的。
 

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

　　但与此同时，现实的情况也让我震惊：与这些美好的目标相比，与之配套的EB-5申请处理程序不仅长期没有能够实现这些目标，反而在很多方面严重阻碍了处理速度。
 

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

　　在许多场合，我都多次提倡国家对政策和法律适用进行改革，提高整个美国EB-5投资移民项目的水平。但这不是这封公开信的主要目的。我这封信的主要目的，是单纯地针对处理程序提出一些建议，让国家在不需要增加投入的情况下，改革程序以显著提升EB-5项目的水平，最终能够造福投资者、区域中心、项目方以及整个美国的经济。在这里，我鼓足勇气地说，我认为我的建议会使EB-5中的所有参与方(包括美国移民局)均从中获益，而不会对任何一方造成减损。有鉴于此，我真心地希望你们(Rodriguez局长和Colucci主任)可以考虑并采纳我下面的建议，哪怕只是其中的一部分。
 

　　Here is my list:

　　我的十条建议如下：

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

　　1、美国移民局必须减少美国EB-5投资移民项目申请的审批时间。对整个国家的EB-5投资移民项目的成功而言，这是至关重要的一环。毫无疑问，在投资者向某一项目投资并且提交I-526申请之前先由移民局审查该项目，这对移民局、项目方和投资者各方而言都是有益的。然而，如果在投资者可以投资并申请之前，项目方要足足等上8个月、10个月、12个月甚至更长的时间才能获得移民局对项目的批准，那这种益处就变成了空中楼阁。只有极少数项目在外国投资最终进入项目之前承受得起这么长的审批时间。如果项目方不能确定在四个月内通过审批，移民局反而会让项目方将项目投向市场，进而增加项目方的负担。这么做的结果是投资者一边要提交I-526申请，一边还要利用申请样板进行I-924的申请工作。然后，美国移民局就不得不又审批项目的I-924申请样板，又审批同一项目的一大堆I-526申请，还要对同一项目的I-924申请和I-526申请分别发出上百个补件通知(RFE)。这种冗杂繁复的状况，正是我们目前整个体制的现状，没有人会从中获益，但每个人都遭受损失。因此，停止进行这些重复的申请和重复的补件通知，能够显著地减少人力和资源的浪费，让移民局可以在不增加人手的情况下就实现审批时间仅需4个月的目标。
 

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

　　2、美国移民局应当加快对已获批项目投资者的I-526申请审批时间。为了鼓励项目方通过I-924审批程序获得项目的批准，必须要给项目方和投资者一定的利好才行。对于投资者来说，一种比较符合逻辑的利好是投资者如果向已获批项目进行投资，那么他的I-526申请的处理速度就应当大大高于其他非获批项目的投资者。这样做不仅仅能鼓励项目方尽量取得项目的预批准，同样还能让这些投资者的申请审批更加流畅和高效。
 

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

　　I-526审批最花时间的部分是审查项目的资质。一旦审查通过之后，专门负责审查资金来源的一批审查员就能在3-4个月内完成整个I-526的审批。但审查资金来源的时间应当短于审查整个项目的时间，否则这么做就没有意义了。实际上，如果仅仅是审查资金的来源和途径，移民局应该重新考虑对处理程序进行优化。优化后的处理程序反过来也能够提高移民局的费用收益，并可以将这笔收益作为资金雇用更多的审查人员。这种优化后的程序，能够让美国EB-5投资移民与其他家庭型或职业型的申请处理相一致。因为在审查程序上，职业移民的I-140申请和亲属移民的I-130申请是与外国移民受益人的绿卡申请分开进行的。
 

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

　　3、移民局应当一起审批同一个项目的所有I-526申请。移民局并没有让它的承诺与实际相一致。一方面，移民局多次表示他们会将同一项目所有的I-526申请一起审批以提高处理效率。但实际上，有很多例子表明，某一个项目中后来的投资者因为已经解决了他的项目问题，而比先来的投资者更快获批。
 

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

　　而最近，我们离这一美好的目标已经越来越远了，因为移民局开始严格按照“先进先出”的处理制度进行审批。在这一原则之下，由于审查员光在一个项目上就要花费几个月甚至一年多的时间，导致审批效率非常低下。这一现状对那些在投资者的I-526申请通过之后投资款才会到位的项目也不是个好消息。最终的结果是，在获批的投资者人数满足最低要求并且资金从第三方监管机构中放款之前，这些项目不得不处在暂停或搁置的状态。

　　(注：“先进先出”制度，First In First Out，即先进入审批程序的申请者先处理，处理完成后才处理下一位申请者。例如在超市排队结账，要在前一个人结账完成后，后一个人才能开始结账。)
 

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

　　4、对将会面临签证的投资者，应当单独给他们开一个队列。这也是另一个各方共赢且并无减损的改革措施。对于面临签证的投资者来说，即使I-526审批成功，对他们来说也不是利好消息。因为审批时间的延长，许多申请者因此不能够根据儿童保护法让他们的子女与他们一起移民。
 

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

　　那些不会面临移民的投资者也是这一改革的受益者，因为他们的申请能够更迅速的获得批准，进而能够更早地成功移民美国。
 

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

　　美国移民局同样是这项改革的受益者，因为它可以将资源按照最优化的方式分配，并且不需要另外增加投入。这种改革不是天方夜谭，因为正是资源分配的问题，导致移民局I-130亲属移民申请也存在处理时间漫长的情况。
 

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

　　5、美国移民局也应当给EB-5直接投资者单独开一个队列。直到去年，在移民局开始尝试在I-526审批上采用先进先出的处理制度之前，EB-5直接投资者的审批时间是大大短于区域中心投资者的审批时间的。正如上文所述，这一制度对于已获批项目的投资者而言具有重要的意义。但为什么一个EB-5直接投资者还得排在众多需要经过繁复审批过程的投资者后面等待审批?毕竟，EB-5直接投资者所需审批的事项并不多。
 

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

　　这里还有一个应当为直接投资者单独开一个更快捷的队列的原因。与一般不参与投资项目经营发展的区域中心投资者不同，直接投资者通常都是项目的实际经营者。因此，相比较而言，能否更快地成功移民美国对直接投资者而言更加重要。
 

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

　　6、美国移民局应当对投资项目和区域中心的律师有所区分。一份I-526申请通常会涉及两方：一方是项目方，另一方是投资者。在许多情况下，项目方的律师与投资者的律师不是同一个人。而移民局现在在I-526申请中仅认可投资者律师的做法造成了很多奇怪的状况。投资者律师在制作申请文书时往往涉及许多项目信息，但律师自己既不对这些信息负责，通常也并不了解这些信息的真实性。所以，如果移民局对项目有疑问并向投资者发出补件通知，这将是一个非常奇怪的情况，因为投资者及其律师并不知道这些问题的答案。相应的，项目方则希望投资者或投资者律师将移民局的要求通报给他们。最终的结果是，虽然投资者律师并不代表项目方，但后者却需要通过前者对移民局的要求进行回复。因此，现行的程序使得针对同一项目的同一补件通知，不同的律师却给出了不同的回复。
 

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

　　正因为如此，如果移民局采纳了前文的建议，就能让项目方的律师在提交了G-28表格(委托授权表)之后，在I-924审查阶段就能将有关项目的这些问题解决，最终解决掉现行程序的弊端。不过，在移民局正式采纳并实施这一建议之前，移民局应当至少采取与其他职业移民申请相一致的做法。在所有的职业移民申请中，移民局认为雇主的律师可能与雇员的不一致。但I-526申请是唯一一个移民局强行地让完全独立的两方(投资者与项目方)雇用同一个律师的申请，这一做法无益于各方。
 

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

　　如果美国移民局将项目方视为I-526申请中的独立一方，那么针对同一项目，移民局就只需要发出一份补件通知，而不需要给项目中近百个投资者每人发一份。这对各方而言无疑都是一种减负的举措。
 

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

　　7、ELIS系统是一个典型的目标美好但运转不良的反面教材。ELIS系统的最佳运转情况，应当是能为投资者和他们的律师在线提供一整套的项目文件。但是，因为这一系统的用户体验实在不够理想，导致该系统几乎无人使用。在兼顾各方需求的情况下，移民局应当与各方一道，共同完善ELIS系统以满足各方需求。
 

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

　　8、移民局应当设立I-829的审批程序样板。很少有人关注I-829的审批过程，主要是因为只有很少一部分的投资者会走到申请I-829这一步。不过随着申请者人数的增多，I-526审批程序中的低效率在I-829程序中同样显现出来。
 

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

　　我们以一个具有100名投资者的项目为例。100个不同的投资者律师递交了100份不同的申请文件，而这些文件中却都包含着投资者和律师所知甚少、且不能保证其真实性的信息。实际上，所有的I-829申请都包含只有区域中心和项目方才能提供的文件。我们假设(但并不一定发生)，全部100份I-829申请中关于项目和就业创造的信息都是相同的。那么如果移民局对就业创造或投资者维持投资有疑问，移民局就需要发出100个补件通知。真的有必要这么做吗?这么做真的有意义吗?
 

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

　　笔者认为，对这两个问题的答案都是“没有”。真正有意义的措施，是建立一个I-829的审批程序样板，这样移民局就能将与该项目有关的所有问题一并审批。这一样板可由项目方和律师来提供。任何关于投资者的具体事项都可以在I-829申请阶段由投资者的律师适时提供，而任何有关项目的具体事项都应当在大多数投资者申请I-829之前进行审批。
 

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

　　当然，在某些情况下，当在先的投资者申请I-829时创造了足够的就业岗位，在后的投资者申请I-829时又创造了更多的岗位。这种情况可以通过更新和补充I-829样板的程序来处理。
 

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

　　9、移民局应当为发生实质性变更的项目提供立即提交I-829样板申请的途径。如果某一项目在已经获得I-526批准之后又发生了实质性变更，投资者必须要等21-24个月才能确认变更后的项目能否满足I-829申请的条件。如果能够建立这样的一个制度，让移民局能够根据EB-5的规定及时审查实质性变更后的项目，就可以有效地化解各方的担忧。如果有必要的话，这一制度还能给投资者提供重新投资或者为了解除临时绿卡的限制而采取其他行动的机会。
 

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

　　10、移民局应当让公众更有效地知晓信息。严格来讲，虽然这一建议并不被囊括在提高处理效率的范畴里，但它确实符合本文“各方共赢，无人减损”的中心思想。移民局一直致力于防止公众向具有欺诈性的项目投资。既然如此，为什么移民局拒绝为公众提供必要的信息，以便投资者在做出投资决定之前获得更全面的信息?为什么移民局也拒绝为投资者提供哪些项目已获批准、哪些项目未获批准的信息?此外，移民局也应当披露区域中心的有关数据，即使因为投资者是投资给一个项目而非一个区域中心，进而使这些数据可能产生误导性作用，披露这些数据也是非常重要的。
 

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

　　我由衷地感谢你们对这些建议的关注和考虑。这些建议能够在不降低移民局对反欺诈和国家安全的重视下，让整个美国EB-5投资移民项目成为一个更加高效、更加便利的项目，并且能够更好地达到国会当初设立这一项目时所设定的政策性目标。
 

　　Respectfully yours,

　　此致

　　H. Ronald Klasko