业内必读

　　作者：Yevgeny Samokhleb律师

　　New USCIS Policy on Loan Proceeds Used for Source of Funds

　　美国移民局关于使用贷款作为资金来源的新政

　　Yevgeny Samokhleb律师是刘宇和贝特曼律师事务所 EB-5律师，美国EB-5投资移民执业律师，为EB-5投资者在移民过程中提供全程指导，并代表投资者与美国移民局、美国国家签证中心和美国海外领事馆处理移民相关事宜。他也精通于移民法的其它领域，包括家庭团聚签证、商务签证、诉讼和上诉。在拥有法学教育背景的同时，他在不动产法领域也有丰富经验。他曾在纽约市民事法庭工作期间研究房屋租赁法，并协助法官起草判决书。

　　正文如下：

　　In a public engagement conference on April 22, 2015, USCIS stated it is enforcing a new policy regarding adjudication of EB-5 petitions where the source of funds is based on bank mortgage loans. The new policy is the agency’s new interpretation of the EB-5 regulations’ use of the words “capital” and “indebtedness.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.6 defines as including a contribution of “indebtedness secured by assets owned by the [petitioner], provided that the [petitioner] is personally and primarily liable.” Since the inception of the EB-5 Program, this has always been understood as referring to the investment transaction between the petitioner and the project. Now, USCIS has suddenly begun to apply this language to indebtedness transactions within the chain of investors’ source of funds.

　　在2015年4月22日举行的公开会议中，美国移民局表示其正在施行一项针对使用银行抵押贷款作为资金来源的EB-5申请的新裁定政策。该项新政策是美国移民局对于EB-5法规使用“资本”和“负债”两词的全新解读。在《美国联邦法规》第8篇第204.6款的定义中，包括一种“由[申请人]拥有所有权的资产作为担保的负债，前提是该[申请人]自身对负债承担主要责任”的资本出资。自从EB-5计划诞生之日起，这一定义一直以来被公认为适用于申请人和项目之间发生的投资交易。现在，美国移民局在突然之间将这一定义应用于投资人资金来源链中的负债交易。

　　Accordingly, EB-5 petitioners must now demonstrate that they own the collateral used to secure their bank loan and that they are personally and primarily liable for the loan. The quintessential scenario is when the petitioner is the sole owner of property that he or she uses as collateral for a loan. Such cases will not encounter any problems under the new policy. Similarly, no problems should arise in cases where the collateral is wholly owned by a third-party, who obtains the loan and gifts the funds to the petitioner. USCIS also seems to continue approving cases where the collateral is owned by the petitioner and a spouse as community property and the petitioner is the primary borrower of the loan. However, it remains unclear whether USCIS will approve a case where the petitioner and spouse are co-borrowers on the loan.

　　这样一来，美国投资移民EB-5申请人现在就必须证明其对于用作银行贷款担保的抵押物拥有所有权，且其个人对于贷款负有主要责任。其中，典型的例子就是申请人作为房产的唯一所有人，将房产用作抵押物申请贷款。这样的案例在美国移民局的新政下不会发生任何问题。同样，如果抵押物为某第三方完全所有，且该第三方凭借该抵押物获得贷款并将贷款资金赠予申请人，那么在美国移民局的新政下也不会发生任何问题。此外，对于使用申请人及其配偶共有的房产作为抵押物申请贷款，且申请人是贷款主要借款人的案例，美国移民局目前看来同样给予继续批准。但是，美国移民局是否会批准申请人及其配偶作为贷款共同借款人的案例还是显得不太明朗。

　　The situation becomes more complicated when the petitioner and a third-party who is not a spouse are joint or co-owners of property, such as where parents own property jointly with their children or where the petitioner owns only a percentage of the property. Such cases will be denied under USCIS’ new policy. Similarly, a petitioner who is a co-borrower of the loan, rather than a sole borrower, will most likely also be denied. Unsecured loans are also unacceptable, though that has been articulated by USCIS for a long time.

　　此外，还有更加复杂的情况，即申请人和某个其配偶以外的第三方共有某套房产，例如，父母和其子女共有某套房产或申请人在某套房产中拥有一定比例的份额。这样的案例将在美国移民局的新政下遭到否决。同样，如果申请人是贷款的共同借款人而非唯一借款人，其申请也极有可能遭到否决。另外，无担保贷款也是不被接受的，这一规定是美国移民局长期以来一直予以明确的。

　　The easiest and most direct method to cure cases with such defects is to gift the collateral property or the loan proceeds to the petitioner. The owner of the property may obtain a loan in his or her name and gift the loan proceeds to the petitioner. Alternatively, the petitioner may receive the property as a gift and directly obtain the loan. If the petitioner is joint or co-owner of the property, an additional step must first be taken by which the petitioner relinquishes his or her share of the property to the other owner. All of these methods are acceptable to USCIS, as long as the gift agreements and relinquishment declarations are detailed, executed as chronologically applicable, and are legally binding. It remains to be seen though whether an executed declaration is accepted as sufficient to establish change in ownership, or whether a formal deed change will be required as well.

　　解决上述缺陷案例的最简便和最直接的方法就是将抵押房产或贷款资金赠予申请人。房产所有人可以以其名义获得贷款并将其赠予申请人。抑或，申请人可以接受某套房产的赠予并借此直接获得贷款。如果申请人是某套房产的共有人，那么就必须多做一步，即申请人必须先将其所有的房产份额让渡给其他共有人。所有这些方法都是被美国移民局所接受的，前提是赠与协议和让渡声明必须按照时间顺序详细陈述相关事宜并经相关当事人签署生效，成为具有法律约束力的文件。但是，经签署生效的让渡声明是否足以证明所有权的变更，以及是否需要提供正式的所有权证书变更证明文件还需要进一步观察。

　　The new USCIS policy is almost universally opposed in the EB-5 community as being a legally deficient interpretation of the law. The new interpretation contradicts the plain meaning of the statute and regulation, as well as binding precedent decisions set forth by the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). USCIS’ argument is that this was always the policy, but it was erroneously applied based on a wrong interpretation of existing regulations. For this reason, the policy is being applied retroactively to all existing cases. Appeals have already begun, and the issue is expected to ultimately reach and be resolved by a federal court.

　　美国移民局推出的这一新政几乎受到了EB-5各方人士的普遍反对，反对的声音主要在于新政对于法律的不充分解释。新的解释不仅与法规和规章的一般含义相互抵触，而且还与行政上诉办公室(AAO)先前作出的具有约束力的决议存在矛盾之处。但是在美国移民局看来，本次的新政其实是一直以来施行的政策，只不过是由于对现行条例的误读而导致了政策的错误应用。因此，新政仍然可被用于所有现有案例。针对这一问题的上诉已经开始涌现，而该问题预计将最终通过联邦法院的裁定得到解决。

　　The biggest difficulty will be for investors with defective loans whose petitions have already been filed. Depending on the unique details of each case, some will be curable by gift. However, such attempt to cure is not without risk. While a gift or relinquishment executed retroactively may cure the loan defect, it may trigger a denial due to the petition not being “approvable when filed,” as required by law. Because the new policy is new and sudden, there are no clear answers to many legal questions that have recently arisen. These answers will only come with time and experience. In the meantime, investors with potentially defective loan situations should consult with their attorneys as to how to minimize their risk.

　　目前面临最大困难的莫过于贷款存在缺陷且已经递交申请的投资人了。取决于各个案例的特定细节，有些情况可能可以通过赠与行为得到补救。但是，这样做也并非万无一失。尽管事后作出的赠与或让渡行为可能补救贷款缺陷，但根据法律规定，这样的做法也可能会由于申请“递交时不可批准”而遭到否决。由于新政的出台时间较短且颇为突然，许多最近出现的法律问题尚没有明确的答案。这些答案只有随着时间的推移和经验的积累才会浮现。在此期间，可能存在贷款缺陷的投资人应该向其律师征询能够将风险降到最低的补救方法。