![[IMAGE]](m_ffl005.gif)
Serving Clients in Hawaii and Asia Pacific Since 1980
January 4, 2005
CONSULATE GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HONG KONG
January 4, 2005
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing to inform you of an important upcoming change to our nonimmigrant
visa process.
On December 17, 2004, the Consulate General announced a new initiative to speed
visa processing. As of January 10, 2005, all applicants for non-immigrant visas
to the United States should use the new online electronic visa application form
to complete their visa applications. Those who do not will only be interviewed
on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The electronic form contains a bar code that allows
Consulate staff to electronically transfer the applicant's data to a computer
record. This innovation significantly reduces the applicant's waiting time
during the visa application process.
The on-line application form, available in both English and Chinese, can be
accessed through the website of the U.S. Consulate General:
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov.
This website contains detailed instructions on how to fill out the form.
Applicants should follow the instructions carefully, print out all the pages and
bring them to their visa interview.
The Consulate General continues to allow students, exchange visitors,
petition-based visa applicants, crew members and Macau residents to walk in
without an appointment from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. daily. However, if they do
so on any day other than Wednesday or Thursday, they will need to submit an
electronic visa application form, as do all other applicants.
We look forward to working with you as we implement our new system.
Sincerely,
Michelle M. Gidaspova
Chief of Nonimmigrant Visa Unit
你的顧客應該對投資移民之優先考慮是投資的可靠性, 再者為投資利潤.在簽證審查 條件還沒有許可之前, 投資人有權取回其資金.
夏威夷商務旅游辦事處通過的最少的投資金額為每一位移民家庭五十萬元.可讓有資格 投資者, 其配偶和未成年, 未結婚子女合法的申請美國永久居留簽證.
申請簽證之前,必需將五十萬元存放到美國的個人信托基金或悵號,包括法律條文的 正式契約. 如果移民申請人或家人之簽證於付錢後 一百八十天 內不能批準, 可取消投資契約,並全數領回其訂金.
In October 1996, the State of Hawaii became the first and only state to be designated as a special regional center" by the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. This designation when coupled with the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization special "pilot" program makes it more attractive than even before for an Immigrant Investor to obtain a permanent U. S. visa.
After deciding on a qualified reputable investment by reviewing and approving the actual legal documents with the CPA and Immigration Attorney, the Immigrant Investor make an $500,000 refundable deposit into an escrow account. The money will remain in escrow until the investor receives his approval from the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The time required for the Immigrant Investor to receive his approval once his application for a temporary investor visa (known as EB5) has been submitted, is estimated to take approximately three to six months.
Investors will be holding limited partners position (limited liabilities). Your Law Firm, Attorney, or Attorneys retained by our firm are available to handle all legal works. Visit our internet home page at http://www.johnsonchoi.com/resume1.htm for additional information. I am looking forward to hear from you very soon. Feel free to call, fax or email our office if you have any questions.
January 12, 2004
EB-5 Visa Could Cost Investors Millions!
Quoted from a prominent Attorney from San Francisco today, " Great information release. I have seen a number of fraud cases on these EB-5 scheme. Most of them prey on the intense interest of immigrants to come to America. The business aspects must come first. However potential immigrants are blind sided by the promise of permanent residency in America."
We have received inquiries from Asia regularly regarding to various legal ways to obtain permanent status in the United States. According to all reputable attorneys we have spoken to, an eligible investor should have no problem applying under the EB-5 visa. Most of the problem came from the promoters of EB-5 visa using the EB-5 visa as a mean to fund their projects. In the past many EB-5 investors have seen their US$500,000 to US$1,000,000 investments turned into multi-millions dollar loses. Many States use EB-5 visa to attract investments with promoters NOT affiliated with State agencies. It is the promoter, in many occasions using the State agencies while working through the program to mislead investors as a State sponsored investment scheme.
The legal fee to file for the EB-5 visa is small (US$10,000 - $30,000) in comparison to the amount of investment (US$500,000 - $1,000,000) under the program. You want to find out if there is any financial arrangement between the attorney, the promoters and the States (conflict of interest) to promote any particular EB-5 related investments.
You may also want to use a third party consultant to investigate the feasibility of the proposed EB-5 investment scheme.
We are hereby providing some basic
information about the EB-5
Visas for Immigrant Investors***
On November 12, 2003, the Senate passed by unanimous consent S.1685, a bill to extend
the employment eligibility pilot program for five years and to expand it to all
50 states. The bill would also require a report on how to resolve problems with
the program. On December 3, 2003, the President signed into law a bill extending and
expanding the employment eligibility verification pilot program. The law also
extends the EB-5 immigrant investor regional center pilot program.
Under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §
1153(b)(5), 10,000 immigrant visas per year are available to qualified
individuals seeking permanent resident status on the basis of their engagement
in a new commercial enterprise.
Of the 10,000 investor visas (i.e., EB-5 visas) available annually, 5,000 are
set aside for those who apply under a pilot program involving an INS-designated
“Regional Center.”
Just because a visa is available or seems right for you, it doesn't mean it's
possible for you to get it. That's sometimes the case with the EB-5 visa, which
is designed for immigrant investors. Congress created this visa in 1990, but the
INS has taken a series of steps severely limiting its use.
In 1998, for instance, the INS restricted some methods of investing in US
businesses. What's more, the INS launched a series of investigations against
companies assisting people in establishing investments for the purpose of
immigrating to the US under the EB-5 visa. Given all this, is it possible to get
an EB-5 visa? It is, but only with careful planning.
Congress created the EB-5 visa category as part of the Immigration Act of 1990,
hoping to attract foreign capital to the US and create jobs for American
workers. Under the program, 10,000 visas are available each year, and 3,000 of
them are reserved for people who participate in a pilot program designed to
target low-employment areas.
Basic Requirements
Applicants must meet three basic requirements to obtain an EB-5 visa:
- Establishment of a business.
- Investment of at least $1 million in the business (though $500,000 is
acceptable in certain cases).
- Creation of full-time employment for at least 10 US workers.
- Ways to Establish a Business
To establish a business, you can create an original enterprise, purchase one and
restructure or reorganize it, or expand an existing business through investment.
You must be actively involved in the business, not just an investor.
Investment Essentials
As for the investment, it can be made in a number of forms, including cash,
equipment, inventory and other property. A $1 million investment is typically
required, but $500,000 is acceptable if the business is established in a
"targeted employment area." Targeted employment areas include rural areas and
regions with an unemployment rate that's 150 percent of the national average.
An individual may invest the required amount alone, create the business with
another immigrant investor, or even US citizens or others not seeking EB-5
visas. If the investment is being made with others, each person who is seeking
classification as an immigrant investor must have invested the required $500,000
or $1 million.
Job Creation
The investment must create at least 10 full-time jobs. Spouses or children may
not be included in calculating the job-creation requirement. What's more,
part-timers may not be used in the calculations.
Conditional Permanent Residence
In order to deter fraud, immigrant investors, their spouses and dependent
children are subject to "conditional" permanent residence for a two-year period.
After two years, the entrepreneur is eligible to file to end the conditional
status. To do that, the entrepreneur must have continuously maintained the
investment during the conditional residence period. The entrepreneur's residence
may be terminated if it is found the business was not established or was
established solely to evade immigration laws. The INS will examine the business
at the end of the two-year period to determine whether or not the individual has
complied with all of the EB-5 visa's requirements.
COURT DEALS BLOW TO EB-5 CASES
A federal district court in Hawaii has issued a decision severely limiting the
avenues of recourse for those who were denied immigrant investor visa status
when the INS policy on adjudication of such cases changed. Readers may be
familiar with the ongoing disputes about the immigrant investor visa program,
commonly known as the EB-5 visa.
This category allows a person to gain permanent residence through the investment
of at least million (500,000 if the investment is made in certain areas). After
the program was created in 1990, many enterprises sprang up designed to assist
those who were interested in the program. One of the most common investment
plans allowed the intending immigrant to collect interest on the amount
invested, and guaranteed that the investment could be returned after permanent
residency was granted. After a few years of approving petitions submitted by
such companies, the INS began to express concern that the investments were not
being made in a way that followed regulations. A hold on processing was
implemented while the INS investigated the matter.
During the summer of 1998, the INS issued four legally binding decisions
(referred to as precedent) on all future EB-5 applications. The important result
was a stricter attitude toward examining the nature of the investment.
Investment plans such as those described above were no longer sufficient for the
EB-5 program.
In the case that prompted this lawsuit, five people filed EB-5 applications
after investing in R.L. Investment Limited Partners. Each of these applications
was filed at the same time. Four were granted, but a fifth was delayed because
of the INS processing hold. When adjudication began again following the release
of the precedent decisions, this fifth application was denied.
Following an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office, which was denied, the
fifth investor filed suit against the INS, alleging that the denial of his
application was an abuse of discretion, and that in adopting the new precedent
decisions the INS failed to follow required rules for creating new regulations.
The district court disagreed, and found for the INS.
On the first issue – whether the INS abused its discretion in denying a case
after approving four identical ones – the court found the answer was clearly no.
For a decision of the INS to be an abuse of discretion, it must be contrary to
the language of a statute or regulation, or impose an additional requirement not
found in the statute or regulation. According to the court, the definition of
“invest” found in the precedent decisions is not contrary to the statute or
regulations, in which investment is not defined. Although there may be other
reasonable definitions of investment, it is not the role of the court to make
such a policy decision.
The court also found that the INS did not violate rules for creating new
regulations. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, “legislative” rules, those
that create a change in policy, must be subject to a notice and comment period
during which the public can submit reactions to a proposed agency rule. Such
procedures are not required for interpretive rules, which are those that clarify
existing regulations. Prior to the 1998 precedent decisions, the INS had not
issued any official statement regarding its adjudication of EB-5 applications.
There were some unofficial guidance documents, many of which were available to
immigration practitioners, but none of them were official. Because these
unofficial documents had not been subjected to the notice and comment process,
they could not constitute regulations with the force of law. Therefore, the INS
was not required to have a notice and comment period before adopting its new
interpretation.
INS ISSUES RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION ON VALIDITY OF CERTAIN TYPES OF EB-5
INVESTOR GREEN CARD FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
INS General Counsel David Martin has issued a memorandum that will surely be a
major blow to a number of EB-5 Immigrant Investor Programs. Generally speaking,
EB-5 green cards are available to persons who invest a million dollars in a
commercial enterprise (or $500,000 in an enterprise in a high unemployment or
rural area) and create ten jobs. Martin reviewed a number of different EB-5
petitions and determined that some of the most common types of EB-5 investments
do not comply with the existing statute and regulations.
The plans reviewed by the INS involve some combination of the following:
1) the use of a down payment of cash with the remainder of the alien's
contribution in the form of a promissory note;
2) a multi-year installment payment plan on a promissory note with a substantial
balloon payment after the conditions on the alien's lawful permanent resident
status are removed;
3) an option given to the alien to sell his or her investment for a fixed price
that may be less than, equal to or greater than the alien's cash contribution
(usually exercisable before or at the same time as the balloon payment on the
promissory note is due);
4) an option given to the enterprise or limited partnership to buy the
investment at a fixed price (usually exercisable before or at the same time as
the balloon payment on the promissory note is due);
5) a provision that allows or requires the commercial enterprise to place
sufficient cash into a bank account to guarantee that funds will be available to
repay the alien if the alien exercises the sell option;
6) withholding of a portion of the alien's capital contribution for attorneys'
and finders' fees and other administrative costs; and
7) a guaranteed return on the cash portion of the alien's "investment."
Martin noted that the business plans in question typically involve the creation
of a limited partnership that pools the money of alien investors to invest in
either a new or troubled business in the United States, frequently in a
"regional center."
The first basic problem noted by Martin with these plans is that the new
commercial enterprise being established involves a partnership that is supposed
to serve as a conduit for placing the aliens' capital to start-up or existing
businesses that will create or sustain employment, but, because of various
provisions in the investment or limited partnership agreements, only a small
amount of the alien investor's money or other capital is actually able to reach
the operations of the employment-creating or preserving business. Furthermore,
the aliens appear to receive relatively risk-free debt interests rather than
equity interests in the new business.
Martin addressed seven legal questions and provided summary answers as well as
an extensive legal analysis. We will shortly be posting the entire memo in the
Documents Collection of our web page (http://www.visalaw.com/docs).
The following are Martin's summary comments:
1. Do investment plans that involve guaranteed interest payments, buy and sell
options at a fixed price other fair market value, and other debt features
comport with the statutory and regulatory requirements?
No. Such plans appear in fact to constitute "loans" or other debt agreements,
and therefore fail to meet the definition of "invest" in our regulations. The
regulations expressly prohibit the use of debt arrangements as part of
contributions of capital being invested.
2. Do investment plans involving different combinations of provisions designed
to reduce or eliminate the risk to the alien's capital by limiting the amount of
capital actually available for the operations of the job-creating enterprise
comport with the statutory and regulatory requirements?
No. Such plans impermissibly prevent the alien from placing the required amount
of capital at risk of loss in the employment-generating business. This is
equally true where the new commercial enterprise is in the business of lending
capital to job creating businesses and acting as a mere conduit between the
alien and the job-creating business. Such plans use a number provision to shield
the alien's capital from risk including the deposit of cash in bank accounts to
guarantee repayment of the alien's money, the use of promissory notes with large
final "balloon" payments combined with the option to "sell" the alien's
investment in the business at a fixed price and guaranteed returns on the
alien's cash outlays. Such plans appear to continue to allow the alien to
withdraw his or her capital prior to the time the balloon payment is due. In
addition, the use of promissory notes in such plans fails to meet the
requirement that an alien invest "capital" having a fair market value equal to
or greater than the amount required in the statute.
3. Do investment plans that allow an alien to earn a fixed return on his
investment at the same time that he or she continues to make installment
payments on a promissory note comport with statutory and regulatory
requirements?
No. These plans effectively permit the alien to reinvest his or her return on
the initial cash contribution in the new commercial enterprise. Therefore the
alien is not infusing new capital into the enterprise or the U.S. economy in the
statutorily required amount.
4. Should the Service request that the Department of State cease issuing visas
and return petitions for revocation based on investment plans involving these
terms.
Yes, for the reasons stated in summary conclusions 1, 2 and 3.
5. Do plans like those reviewed by our office comport with existing law?
No. Based on our review of a number of approved and pending petitions filed with
the Texas Service Center, we have concluded that they fail to meet the
requirements of the statute or the Service's regulations. Any plans which
involve similar terms would also fail to meet current statutory and regulatory
requirements.
6. Is the Service estopped or otherwise precluded from denying or revoking
petitions filed by aliens investing in the plans like those under review based
on past approval of petitions earlier policy statements, or informal statements
by Service officials?
No. Under the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant cases, the Service is
not bound by its pervious decisions in adjudicating visa petitions. We
recommend, however, that the Service issue a memorandum to the field consistent
with this memorandum and publish that memorandum in the Federal Register.
7. Is the Service estopped or otherwise precluded from terminating the status of
a conditional resident alien who has invested in plans like those under review
based on past approval of petitions, policy statements, or informal statements
by Service officials?
No. Under the Administrative Procedure Act and relevant case law, the Service is
not bound by its initial grant of a petition when terminating conditional
residence status based on a visa petition that was granted in error or based on
the fact that the alien is subject to termination under section 216A of the Act.
We recommend, however, that the Service issue a memorandum to the field
consistent with this memorandum and publish that
memorandum in the Federal Register.
The last two findings will be especially disturbing to persons who have already
come to the US with EB-5 visas covered in the memorandum. Whether the INS will,
in fact, actually go back and revoke previously approved green cards remains to
be seen.
The INS and State Department have already, however, circulated memos to the
field asking that EB-5 visas be reviewed using the General Counsel memorandum
for guidance.
In a related matter, the California Commissioner of Corporations Dale Bonner
announced that he ordered InterBank Immigration Services, Inc. of Herndon,
Virginia, one of the best known EB-5 investment firms, to stop offering
investments to non-US citizens. Bonner noted that while no fraud is alleged, the
firm is illegally selling securities in California. Bonner noted that the state
securities laws are intended ensure that investors are investing in something
real. According to Bonner, the protections are particularly important where the
offering is targeted to non-US citizens who may be desperate to find a legal way
to stay in this country.
***Material from the immigration law firm of Siskind, Susser, Haas & Devine was
used in this report. This information is provided as a public service and not
intended as legal advice or the establishment of an attorney-client
relationship.
Avoid The Pitfalls !
Many foreign nationals seeking to live in the United States were presented with the investment options that do not qualify them to obtain the immigration Visa. These people had lost substantial amount of money by following those irresponsible & ill advises from non-qualified professionals.
Selection of Reputable Advisors & Investment Program.
Attractive high return investment should not be the only driving force to act. In fact, if the investment sound too good to be true, you should use the prudent man approach. Like the old saying "if it sound too good to be true, it is probably not true."
Who are we ?
We have been in business for more than 16 years. We are tax and financial consultant currently assisting our clients to obtain Permanent Visa to the USA. We are currently working with a number of reputable immigration attorneys to assist our clients in obtaining the Immigration Visa to the United States. Many of them were employed by the U.S. Immigration Office prior to setting up their own Law practices.
TO FIND OUT MORE, PLEASE WRITE, FAX OR E-MAIL US:
Address: 55 Merchant St, Harbor Court, Suite 1813, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA.
Phone: (808) 222-8183; Fax: (808) 524-8063
Professional Services:
*All Legal Works Through Designated Attorneys,
*All Tax Work Through Terry S. C. Wong, CPA, Inc.
(*Independently Operated)
Return to the Front Page
Profile of a Man of Distinction - Downtown Planet Newspaper(English)
Profile of a Man of Distinction - Hawaii State House of Representatives, USA., Year 2000(English)
1999 Alumni Hall of Honor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Federation of Hong Kong Oversea Associations Limited
World Journal Newspaper-HKBAH/Hawaii DBEDT Business Mission to Hong Kong/China Dec 2000 (Chinese)
ProjectOnNet.com 普 安 利 建 築 軟 件 和 互 聯 網
Share Our Happy Moment (English)
Johnson's Resume and Qualification
Carson Bookkeeping & Tax Services
Carson Bookkeeping & Tax Services (Chinese 中文)
Commercial and Residential Mortgage Loan (English/Chinese 中文)
Immigration Visa to the USA (English/Chinese 中文)
Life insurance (English/Chinese 中文)
Long Term Care & Who Will Pay ? (English/Chinese 中文)
Estate Tax and Asset Protection Seminar (English/Chinese 中文)
Bank Certificate of Deposit Rate (English/Chinese 中文)
Hawaii Product Wholesale Locally, Mainland USA & Far East (English/Chinese 中文)
Cheers Karaoke Bar & Grill - Good Fun & Good Food
Rosaryhill School (Hong Kong) Alumni Association - North America
ShopAnywhereAnytime.com - Enter the World of Shopping at Your Leisure
Alumni Association, University of Hawaii, School of Travel Industry Management
Hong Kong Trade Development Council - Main Page
Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005 Johnson W. K. Choi. MBA, RFC.
Most recent revision Saturday, February 26, 2005