引言：TEA的基本定义为：人口少于2万的城市郊区或失业率高于全国平均水平150%的地区。于是人们形成这样的印象，TEA就是贫困地区。很多人更疑问，为什么像纽约曼哈顿这样的地区会是TEA地区?下面推荐阅读的这篇文章提供了解释这个问题的要点，就是：1. 繁华但失业率高的地区可以是TEA;2. 高失业率是可以通过组合不同的就业统计区块而产生;3. 这种组合由州政府进行，不同的州政府有不同的标准，美国移民局是认同州政府的组合结果的。

　　原文作者：Suzanne Lazicki 美国EB-5项目文案策划专家，以下为兆龙移民原文翻译：

　　对于EB-5美国投资移民计划来说，每过几年都会出现关于目标就业区(TEA)的使用和定义的争论。有人(例如最近的《西雅图时报》记者)会关注那些建造在富人聚集的市中心区域而使用EB-5投资款的豪华酒店，并且会质疑该等项目的可行性。诸如此类的项目几乎总能获得以50万美元为累加单位的EB-5投资款(美国国务院数据显示，历史上的区域中心投资极少有以100万美元为门槛的)，而最低50万美元的投资金额则取决于项目是否位于TEA范围内。《西雅图时报》认为，TEA地区50万美元的投资额成为了被某些人利用的漏洞，这些人擅自将高失业率和低失业率地区捏合成一个TEA，然后在指定区域的繁华地段开发项目。该报编辑认为，EB-5美国投资移民计划创建者的本意是将EB-5投资款投入到那些经济萧条的社区，但对于如何定义TEA并没有形成统一的指导方针，而且各州参与TEA指定也存在问题。这些问题都值得考虑一番。

　　首先，“目标就业区”一词的确有固定的定义，该定义已由美国国会通过法律予以明确并在美国移民局的规程中得到了详细阐述。该词并非仅由各州进行自行定义，也绝非等同于“经济萧条区域”。根据创建了EB-5美国投资移民计划的1990年《移民法》的定义(仅局限于该法定义)，“目标就业区”一词的含义是，“在投资发生之时，一个农村区域或一个高失业率(至少高于全国平均水平的150%)地区”，及“在投资发生于目标就业区内的情况下，司法部长可以依据小节(A)限定一个低于(i)款规定的投资数额(但不得低于该数额的一半)(详见1990年《移民法》PDF件第21-22页)”。美国移民局的规章和政策反复强调了这一法定定义，明确了最低投资金额，并阐述了有关指定确认的实际问题(详见《EB-5政策备忘录》第7-8页的讨论)。

　　由于TEA定义已被写入法律，因此改变定义便成为了一项法定事宜，且需要与国会代表进行讨论。但了解一下TEA定义的原本意图还是值得的。1990年，美国国会决定根据具体就业情况(农村地区)来对EB-5美国投资移民计划的TEA地区进行定义。国会原本也可以采用贫困水平、犯罪率、教育程度、出口率、GDP增长率、营业税或其它旨在使经济萧条地区受益的衡量标准，但最后国会选择的是失业率。一个中位家庭收入达到3万美元且失业率为7%的地区目前不能被认定为TEA地区;而另一个中位家庭收入达到10万美元且失业率为15%的地区则可以被认定为TEA地区。显然，TEA的意图是鼓励在高失业地区创造就业。为穷人创造就业机会以及将投资置于贫困地区同样是值得追求的目标，但国会偏偏没有把这些目标写进EB-5法律。

　　尽管法律和规章对TEA进行了定义，但具体实施还需要各州的参与。各州可以选择一个机构并授予其指定TEA地区的权力，这需要充分的时间来判定(1)构成目标就业区的合理地理边界或政治分区，及(2)计算该地区的失业率使用何等数据。在审理EB-5申请案件时，美国移民局通常遵从各州的指定，但会复核所用的数据是否可被接受，以及所用的计算方法是否与各州劳工部确定的方法论一致。各州自行指定涉及的各种因素导致了各州对于TEA指定的差异。有些州立机构会指定人口普查区组，而有些州则不会;各州对于地理边界的界定也会采用不同的方法;而且一系列不同的失业数据集都可能会被使用。(可参考Impact DataSource关于各州TEA指定异同的文章)因此，如果由一个机构使用统一的标准会使TEA指定变得更清晰、简单和公平。但同时也需要注意，由当地参与指定最重要的参考依据是什么。例如，如果根据人口分布和通勤模式进行指定，TEA地区可以是一个包含郊区的很大一片区域，也可以是某个很小的居住区，或者还可以是在某条车流密集的高速公路旁某处的一片呈香蕉形的区域。当地的经济开发部门是可以有依据判定某个地区的TEA边界是否合理的。但我无法设想某个联邦机构可以在美国任何地方找出曲奇成型刀形的TEA地理边界。指定的州立机构一般都是各州的劳工部或经济开发署，而这些机构的利益都是与EB-5计划的目标相一致的，这就使得它们所做的裁决足够合理。当然项目开发商也会试图划分有利于其的地理边界，但我实在想不出有比州立机构更好的裁决者了。

　　根据目前的规定，如果某个地区的平均失业率保持高位，那么即便该地区的局部区域的失业率较低，该地区仍可能被认定为TEA区域。如果是这样的话，我们该如何看待那些位于TEA失业率最低区域的EB-5美国投资移民项目?这样的项目是不是颠覆了EB-5计划的初衷?《西雅图时报》认为，位于西雅图市中心TEA地区的EB-5美国投资移民项目并不合格。我们可以拿Potala Tower项目举例。根据《西雅图时报》的消息，这是一个位于Belltown高端居住区、造价高达1.9亿美元的酒店项目。(事实上除了该报提供的消息，我对该项目一无所知)我认为Belltown并非经济萧条区域，而紧邻Potala项目的时尚人士也并不需要该项目创造的建筑就业或运营就业岗位。而且，这些时尚人士也不太可能会接受这些就业岗位。相比之下，接受这些岗位的屋顶工、木匠、管家和管理人员更可能成为位于南部几英里之外的较普通且失业率较高的居住区的居民。如果Potala Tower项目雇用西雅图南部的居民，那么将西雅图南部的居住区和Belltown一同视为目标就业区是否合理呢?这显然是一个捏造出来的目标就业区，但如果Belltown周围有能够将在该地创造的就业和消费隔离开来的屏障，那么从经济角度来看是这么做是可行的。我们还可以试着将造价1.9亿美元的Potala Tower项目的影响与可能会在西雅图南部的萧条地区创造就业、造价900万美元的Econolodge项目的影响进行比较。豪华酒店可能会成为更大的新雇佣方，但却坐落于离大多数失业人群的居住区更远的地方。假设我代表的是西雅图南部20%失业居民的利益，且不得不代表他们选择支持其中一个项目——Potala或Econolodge，那么我必须仔细斟酌，甚至可能咨询所在州的经济开发署。这不是一个简单的问题，我会追究高档商业不能位于下层街区的原因。设想，如果Belltown和西雅图南部地区可以被合理且实际地称为“地区”，而且Potala Tower可以坐落在西雅图南部的高失业地区的话，那么我就不会如此不看好这个项目了。根据EB-5美国投资移民计划现行的规定，一个位于TEA地区的EB-5项目不应仅由于它的豪华特性或位于高端居住区这一事实而被否决，而否决的唯一原因只能是项目无法在高失业地区创造就业机会。

　　或许也有人认为现行的TEA规定设定的标准过低，使得太多地区都能被认定为TEA地区;或者认为鉴于其它国家的投资者签证门槛，50万美元的EB-5投资额过低;或者认为TEA定义错误地将关注点聚焦在了失业上，而事实上有比失业更迫切需要关注的其它衡量标准。这些观点都是值得讨论的。除非你没有领会现有的TEA定义和规定，否则我想你不会认为TEA定义和规定不存在、缺乏条理或在某些方面被颠覆了。为了避免无谓的争论，不妨重读一下Carolyn Lee写的关于州立机构指定EB-5目标就业区的文章。

　　虽然我们目前讨论的是有关TEA概念的误解，但需要提醒的是，你也可以破费雇人确认你所在的区域是否可以被认定为TEA地区。各州对于TEA指定存在的差异意味着，不存在统一的数据源或某个简单的计算方法来可靠地判定你所在的区域是否属于TEA地区，除非你所在的整个县或MSA(大都会统计区)失业率较高，或者你位于MSA以外的农村区域(这样的情况下不需要任何特别指定)。例如，如果你所在的州不指定人口普查区组并使用2013年美国劳工统计局或2011年美国社区调查数据，那么购买一份根据2014年失业专用数据预测的符合要求的人口普查区组就不是那么明智的选择了。如果对于你所在的区域是否属于TEA地区有疑问的话，建议你向你所在地的指定机构获取政策信息。然后你就可以进行TEA资格评估，并可考虑求助于那些研究你所在州地理区域规程和失业数据集的专业人士。

　　原文链接：

　　http://blog.lucidtext.com/2015/03/19/what-are-teas-and-how-do-they-work/

　　英文原文：

　　Every couple years, there’s a kerfuffle over the use and definition of the Targeted Employment Area (TEA) in the EB-5 program. People – recently Seattle Times journalists, for example – look at things like luxury hotels being built in wealthy downtown areas using EB-5 investment and ask wait a minute, is this right? Such projects nearly always get EB-5 investment in $500,000 increments (State Department stats show there’ve historically been very few Regional Center investments at the $1 million level), and the $500,000 reduced investment amount depends on the project being located within a TEA. The Seattle Times portrays the TEA reduced investment amount as a “loophole” being “exploited” by people who “gerrymander” a TEA by grouping high and low unemployment areas, then go on to develop a project in the prosperous part of the designated area. The Seattle Times editors believe that EB-5 program architects intended EB-5 investment dollars to be spent within depressed communities, that there aren’t centralized guidelines for defining TEAs, and that there’s a problem with state involvement in TEA designation. These points require some perspective.

　　First, the term “Targeted Employment Area” does have a set definition, articulated by Congress through law and elaborated by USCIS regulation. The term is not defined individually by states, and the term is not defined to equal “an economically depressed area.” The Immigration Act of 1990 that established the EB-5 program specifies that (in its own spelling): “the term ‘targetted employment area’ means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate)” and “-The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targetted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i)” (see PDF p 21-22 of IMMACT 1990). USCIS regulations and policy repeat this statutory definition, specify the reduced amount of capital, and elaborate practical issues in designation determinations (see the EB-5 Policy Memo p. 7-8 for discussion).

　　Because the TEA definition is in the law, changing the definition would be a statutory matter and a point to pursue with your Congressional representatives. But it’s worthwhile to look at the original intent. In 1990, Congress chose to define TEAs for the EB-5 program specifically in terms of employment (or rural areas). Congress could have defined TEAs based on poverty levels, crime levels, educational levels, exports, GDP growth rates, sales tax, or other metrics considered in other initiatives intended to benefit depressed areas, but it chose unemployment as the target. An area with median household income at $30,000 and unemployment of 7% would not currently qualify as a TEA; another area with median income at $100,000 and unemployment of 15% could qualify. The explicit intent with TEAs was to encourage job creation for high unemployment areas. Creating jobs for poor people and investing within poor neighborhoods are also worthy goals, but it happens that Congress did not choose to write such goals into the EB-5 law.

　　While the law and regulations define what constitutes a TEA, states are involved in implementation. Each state may choose an agency and give it authority to designate TEAs, which involves leeway to judge (1) appropriate boundaries of a geographic or political subdivision that constitutes the targeted employment area; and (2) which data set to use in calculating the area’s unemployment. In reviewing EB-5 petitions, USCIS generally gives deference to state designations, but double-checks that the data is acceptable and that calculations are consistent with methodologies established by the Department of Labor. The elements of state discretion lead to variation in TEA designations between states. Some state authorities will designate census tract groups and some won’t; states have different ways of deciding which geographic boundaries make sense; and a variety of unemployment data sets may be used. (Impact DataSource has a good article about state variation.) Just letting one agency decide for the nation using one yardstick would look cleaner, simpler, and more equal. But note what makes sense about local involvement. Based on population distribution and commuting patterns, for example, it might be reasonable to have a very large TEA area spanning certain suburbs, a very small one within a certain city neighborhood, and a banana-shaped one somewhere else along a busy highway. A local economic development agency could have a good basis for judging whether certain TEA boundaries make sense for the given region. I can’t visualize a federal agency coming up with one cookie cutter geography definition that fits from Alaska to Florida. Designated state agencies are typically labor departments or economic development authorities, which means their interests are aligned with the aims of the EB-5 program, making their discretion is as good as anyone’s. Of course project developers will try to draw geographic areas for their own advantage, but I can’t think of a better arbiter for this than the state authorities.

　　Under current rules, it’s possible to get TEA designation for an area whose average unemployment rate is high, even if parts of the area have low unemployment. So how do we feel about locating an EB-5 project in the healthiest part of the TEA? Would that subvert the intent of the EB-5 program? The Seattle Times suggests that TEA EB-5 projects in downtown Seattle fail the smell test. Let’s think about Potala Tower, which the Seattle Times describes as a $190 million hotel project in an upscale Belltown neighborhood. (Disclosure: I don’t know any more about this project than I learned from the Times.) I believe that Belltown is not depressed and that the hipsters living next door to the Potala project do not need the construction jobs or operations jobs that it will create. On the other hand, the hipsters next door probably won’t take the jobs. It seems more likely that the roofers and carpenters and housekeepers and managers who take the work will be residents of the less hip high-unemployment neighborhoods a few miles south. If Potala Tower would likely employ South Seattle residents, isn’t it reasonable to package those contiguous South Seattle neighborhoods with Belltown as a Targeted Employment Area? That’s gerrymandering, but could make economic sense, unless there’s a barrier around Belltown that isolates the jobs created and money spent there. And let’s consider the impacts of the $190 million Potala Tower project as compared with impacts of the $9 million Econolodge project that might be feasible to build smack within a depressed part of South Seattle. The luxury hotel would be a much larger new employer, but more distant from where most unemployed people reside. If I were advocating for those 20% unemployed residents of South Seattle and had to choose one project to encourage on their behalf, the Potala or the Econolodge, I’d have to consider carefully – maybe even in consultation with my good old state economic development authority. It’s not a simple question, and I wouldn’t bother asking why the upscale business can’t just locate to a downscale street. Assuming that Belltown+South Seattle can reasonably, practically be called “an area,” and that Potala Tower could make a dent in the high unemployment concentrated in South Seattle, I’m not getting bad whiffs off this situation. As the EB-5 program is currently set up, a TEA EB-5 project should not fail the smell test simply because it’s luxury or in an upscale neighborhood, but only if it seems unlikely to create jobs in a high-unemployment area.

　　It’s possible to argue that the current TEA rules set a bar that’s too low, allowing too many areas to qualify; or that the $500,000 reduced EB-5 investment amount is too low, considering investor visa thresholds in other countries; or that the TEA definition wrongly focuses on unemployment when other metrics may be more urgent today. Those points are worth debating. I don’t think you can argue that TEA definitions and rules do not exist or are incoherent or endemically subverted, unless you begin by not grasping what the existing definitions and rules are. To avoid debating from ignorance, consider re-reading Carolyn Lee’s article on State Designations of EB-5 Targeted Employment Areas.

　　And while I’m on the topic of TEA misconceptions, let me caution you about paying someone to “discover if your site qualifies as a TEA.” The variation among states means that, unless your entire county or MSA has high unemployment or you’re in a rural area outside an MSA (in which case, no special designation is required), there is no universal data source or one simple calculation that will reliably determine a TEA around your site. It’s not very helpful to buy a report predicting a favorable census tract combination based on proprietary 2014 unemployment data, for example, if your state won’t designate census tract groups and uses 2013 BLS/2011 ACS data. If in doubt about TEA possibilities for your site, I’d start by getting the policy from your area’s designated authority (there’s one list of designated agencies here). Then you can start assessing TEA qualification, and consider assistance from professionals who are current on your state’s geographic area procedures and unemployment data sets.