每一个EB-5项目都提供了一个在渴望投资返还和退出的投资者之间的解决方案，但是EB-5的政策禁止以债务的方式来限定移民投资者和新的商业企业之间关系，当然在区域中心计划新的商业企业（NCE）和创造就业实体（JCE）之间债务关系是没问题的。限制的是商业企业和投资者之间。所以人们必须小心应对之间的界限，最近的案例就定义了这个界限。

最近公布的关于区域中心计划的五个案子的拒签申诉被驳回了，问题出在有限合伙协议的条款当中。

有限合伙协议的9.1章阐明在客户的I-829被批准的当天或之后的任何时间内，新商业企业的普通合伙人可以自行决定告知投资者他打算购买投资者的权息，购买价格包括他们的投资本金50万美元以及应该支付的每年0.5%的利息。

考虑到美国移民局关于禁止担保返还的政策内容和Izummi的案例，一般认为这个条款应该是能被美国移民局接受的。因为1：这个条款并没有给予投资者要求返还投资的权力；2：新的商业企业的普通合伙人并没有保证他将成为那个买者；3：没有具体明确的价格确认。但是，你错了，根据美国移民局的分析，他们发现：

事实是，一般合伙人有权利购买或赎回，在协议中称之为购买权，而不是有权力卖掉自己权息的申请人有权决定的。以前我们发现卖掉权息的选择权是不被允许的借贷安排而不管能否实施。AAO承认Izummi的案例是另外一种类型的赎回协议赋予投资者卖出的权力，但是这个拒签的决定依然超出了这个界限，即不仅这种安排是不可行的而且投资者也不可以保证某种特定成交的价格。

“确定的价格”问题是2017年12月份拒签的关键，（有人想知道取决于利润选择的返还的不同）但这次拒签开始出现了质疑有借贷类似条款的协议。

综合审视，该协议阐明一旦投资人的绿卡条件被移除，NCE的一般合伙人会返还投资者本金及收益，类似于利息支付，尽管这份拟定在文件中不是以借贷的特征出现，但包含了同样的借贷元素（本金，利息，返款阶段）而这些元素通常出现在借贷协议当中。

注意：因为EB-5项目投资当中，大部分项目是以这种借贷的方式出现的，而不是以股权的方式，这种拒签的苗头应该引起大家的足够重视！

美国法律联营网执行长臧煜卓先生特邀美国ALC区域中心执行长John沈先生对上面案例和ALC区域中心做对比：

在JCE还款给NCE过程中一直有风险存在，而且贷款本金在移民申请没有结束前不会还款到NCE。在还款过程中，永远有贷款违约风险，所以道理上讲没有任何一分钱是有保证可以回到NCE。这在EB-5行业是一个普遍基本原则，所以移民局都能接受贷款模式。

有限合伙协议是投资人在加入有限合伙时，和普通合伙人(NCE)共同签署的协议。协议里面有公司解体的条款，比如在什么情况下解体，解体后资产如何分配，但是并没有任何条款说明NCE的资金在什么时间点以多少的量归还给EB-5有限合伙人。有限合伙协议是完全合规，我们使用了很多年，移民局没有任何质疑。

上文中指有限合伙协议中有些做法在一定时间点，普通合伙人要买回他的有限合伙人的股权，其实这是一种变相保证收益的方法，这当然违反了风险原则。我一点都不奇怪因为这种原因被拒，当然我们的协议中不存在这些东西。

我们所有还款方式前期条件是移民申请不再进行中了，已经脱离移民申请轨道以后，按照市场价值，ALC再把资金归还给投资人，这本身并不和移民局政策冲突。

臧煜卓先生提醒：由此可知，任何一个投资项目里的法律文件，都可能左右移民局的最后审判，投资人在选择项目时最好请专业律师分析，代表客户与区域中心洽谈对自己最有利的条件。

英文原文：
Every EB-5 offering is a balance between natural investor desire for a return and exit strategy, and EB-5 policy prohibiting debt arrangements between the immigrant investor and new commercial enterprise. (As a reminder, there’s no problem with debt between the NCE and job-creating entities in regional center offerings. The restriction is between the EB-5 investor and NCE.) People who prepare offering documents have to walk a fine line, and should note recent cases that help define where USCIS thinks that line lies.

Five recently-posted cases in the 2017 folder for I-526 appeals (DEC192017_01B7203, DEC192017_02B7203, DEC222017_01B7203, DEC222017_02B7203, DEC222017_03B7203) deal with investors in a regional center project who were denied due to a provision in their Limited Partnership Agreement. Here’s the targeted provision:

Article 9.1 of the partnership agreement provides that at any time on or after the date that a foreign investor’s Form I-829 has been adjudicated, the NCE’s general partner may, in its sole discretion, notify the investor of its desire to purchase (i.e. redeem) his or her interest. The purchase price will include 100 percent of his or her capital contribution ($500.000) plus all accrued and unpaid preferred returns. ….Preferred return is one half of one percent (0.5%) per annum on the total unreturned Capital Contributions [$500.000] of an investor.

Considering the USCIS Policy Manual policy on guaranteed returns and Matter of Izummi, one might think this provision would be acceptable because (1) this provision doesn’t give the investor a right to demand the return (since only the general partner can initiate the buyout), (2) the NCE general partner is not guaranteed to be a willing buyer (since the purchase “may” happen at its sole discretion), and (3) a certain price is not assured (since the purchase itself is not assured). But one would be wrong, according to the analysis by USCIS and the AAO. They found that：

The fact that the general partner has the right to purchase or redeem, which the
partnership agreement references as a “buyout right,” rather than the Petitioner having a right to sell his interest is not determinative. We previously found that a sell option was an impermissible debt arrangement regardless of whether it was enforceable.AAO admits that Matter of Izummi treated a different kind of redemption agreement that gave the Petitioner a sell right, but “the language of the decision goes beyond those facts, explaining not only that the enforceability of the arrangement is immaterial but that an investor may not be assured of receiving a certain price.”

The “certain price” issue is the main leg to stand on for the December 2017 denials. (One wonders about the difference a profit-contingent preferred return would’ve made). But the decisions also appear to question debt-like elements generally.

A review of the record as a whole reveals an arrangement where once the conditions on the Petitioner’s resident status have been removed, the NCE would likely redeem the Petitioner’s original capital contribution and pay him or her a modest “preferred return,” similar to an interest payment. Such an arrangement, though not characterized as a loan in the offering documents, contains the same elements (principal, interest, repayment period) that one would find in a debt agreement.

AAO concludes,
Considering the partnership agreement and offering memorandum together, we find that the Petitioner did enter into an impermissible debt arrangement with an understanding that the general partner intended to repay the full investment plus preferred returns. This arrangement is not permitted under the broad language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) (definition of “invest”).


文章来源：好想出国