Matter of Soffici

In Visa Petition Proceedings

在签证申请程序中

A76 472 614

A76 472 614

Designated as a precedent by the Commissioner, June 30, 1998. (Decided by the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, June 25, 1998.)

1998年6月30日由局长指定为判例。 （1998年6月25日由负责审查的助理局长裁定。）

The preference visa petition was approved by the Director, Texas Service Center, who certified the decision to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations for review. The decision of the director will be reversed. The petitioner seeks classification as an alien entrepreneur pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). The director determined that the petitioner had adequately

优先签证申请由德克萨斯服务中心主任批准，该主任将决定认证给负责审查的助理局长进行复审。主任的决定将被撤销。申请人寻求根据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(5)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)，被归类为外国企业家。主任认定申请人已充分

158

158

established that he was actively in the process of investing the requisite amount of capital. The director further found that the investment would result in full-time positions for not fewer than 10 qualifying employees. In response, counsel urges the Administrative Appeals Office to affirm the director’s decision. He asserts that the petitioner’s investment exceeds one million dollars and points out that the hotel is commercially active. He states that the petitioner’s investment has already created at least 10 full- time jobs. Section 203(b)(5)(A) of the Act provides classification to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise:

证明他正在积极进行所需金额资本的投资过程。主任进一步认定，该投资将为不少于10名合格员工创造全职职位。对此，律师敦促行政上诉办公室维持主任的决定。他声称申请人的投资超过一百万美元，并指出该酒店商业活跃。他表示申请人的投资已经创造了至少10个全职工作。 《法案》第203(b)(5)(A)条规定，寻求进入美国从事新商业企业的合格移民可获得分类：

MINIMUM INVESTMENT AMOUNT.

最低投资金额。

The petitioner indicates that the petition is based on an investment in an existing business located in a targeted employment area, for which the required amount of capital invested has been adjusted downward.

申请人表示，申请是基于对位于目标就业区的现有企业的投资，所需投资资本金额已下调。

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) states, in pertinent part, that:

《联邦法规汇编》第8编第204.6(e)条相关部分规定：

The petitioner’s company, Ames Management, Inc., does business as a Howard Johnson Hotel located at 950 South Federal Highway in Stuart, Florida. The City of Stuart is in Martin County. The petitioner has submit- ted a March 1996 letter from the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security indicating that Martin County qualified as a rural area in 1995. In addition, the Ft. Pierce metropolitan statistical area, which encompassed Martin County, experienced a sufficiently high unemploy- ment rate to qualify as a targeted employment area in 1995. A petitioner has the burden to establish that his enterprise does business in an area that is considered “targeted” as of the date he files his petition.

申请人的公司Ames Management, Inc.以Howard Johnson Hotel的名义经营，地址为佛罗里达州斯图尔特市南联邦公路950号。斯图尔特市位于马丁县。申请人提交了佛罗里达州劳工与就业保障部1996年3月的一封信，表明马丁县在1995年符合农村地区的条件。此外，涵盖马丁县的皮尔斯堡大都市统计区在1995年经历了足够高的失业率，符合目标就业区的条件。 申请人有责任证明其企业在提交申请之日被视为“目标”的地区经营。

159

159

The fact that a business may be located in an area that was once rural, for example, does not mean that that area is still rural. The letter from the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security contains the fol- lowing statement: “This listing will only remain in effect until 1996 annu- al averages are available in early 1997.” The petitioner here filed his Form I-526 in January 1998, and his data are at least a year, if not two years, out of date. The Service has nevertheless independently obtained current employ- ment information from the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. While Martin County is no longer a rural area, the “Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie” metropolitan statistical area does constitute an area of high unemployment; all of Martin County is contained in this new metropolitan statistical area. Therefore, the amount of capital necessary to make a quali- fying investment in this matter is $500,000.

例如，企业可能位于曾经是农村的地区，这一事实并不意味着该地区现在仍然是农村。佛罗里达州劳工与就业保障部的信函包含以下声明：“此列表仅在1997年初获得1996年年度平均值之前有效。”此处的申请人于1998年1月提交了I-526表格，其数据至少过时一年，甚至两年。 尽管如此，移民局已独立从佛罗里达州劳工与就业保障部获得了当前的就业信息。虽然马丁县不再是农村地区，但“皮尔斯堡-圣露西港”大都市统计区确实构成高失业率地区；整个马丁县都包含在这个新的大都市统计区内。因此，在本案中进行合格投资所需的资本金额为500,000美元。

THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MADE, AND IS NOT IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING, A QUALIFYING INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL.

申请人没有进行，也没有正在进行合格的资本投资。

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) states, in pertinent part, that:

《联邦法规汇编》第8编第204.6(e)条相关部分规定：

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j) states, in pertinent part, that:

《联邦法规汇编》第8编第204.6(j)条相关部分规定：

160

160

Purchase of the hotel.

购买酒店。

Ames Management, Inc. filed its articles of incorporation with the State

Ames Management, Inc.向州提交了公司章程

161

161

of Florida on June 27, 1997. All 1000 authorized shares were issued to the petitioner in July 1997. On October 31, 1997, Ames Management pur- chased a Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge for the sale price of $2.4 million, paid as follows: $25,000 in earnest money, consisting of a $10,000 initial deposit and a subsequent $15,000 deposit; $705,298.79 brought to settle- ment; and $1.7 million borrowed from 1st United Bank. In a document entitled Sources of Investment Funds, the petitioner stat- ed that the money used to purchase the hotel came from two sources. Approximately $450,000 were transferred to Barnett Bank from Argentina over the period 1994 to 1997; these funds “originated from personal savings and a sale of a house.” An additional $500,000 were transferred from Argentina in December of 1996; these funds originated from the sale of “our business.” The petitioner explained that, for both sources, “[t]hese monies were loaned to me by my father and I loaned them back to my com- pany Ames Management, Inc. It has not been stipulated when I should return the funds.” 1 The balance sheet for the petitioner’s hotel, dated November 30, 1997, confirms that the business’s liabilities include long-term loans, total- ing $922,136.09, payable to the shareholder (the petitioner), See also the Continuing and Unconditional Subordination of Debt discussed below. The accompanying “Transactions by Account” breaks down the amount, date, and destination of each loan. It is clear from this document that the $25,000 in earnest money and the $705,298.79 brought to the settlement table are mere loans from the petitioner to Ames Management. As specified in the definition of “invest” set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e), debt arrangements between a petitioner and his business do not constitute qualifying contribu- tions of capital. Therefore, the $730,298.79 paid toward the purchase of the hotel cannot be considered to be an “investment” by the petitioner. Ames Management financed the balance of the purchase price, or $1.7 million, through 1st United Bank. According to the Mortgage and Security Agreement, the loan is secured by the hotel and all of its contents, including inventory, accounts, leases, the franchise agreement, furniture, patio umbrellas, landscaping, etc. First, it should be noted that a loan obtained by a corporation is not the same as a loan obtained by an individ- ual, and it cannot be said that this loan through 1st United Bank is an invest- ment of the petitioner’s personal capital. Second, even if it were assumed, arguendo, that the petitioner and Ames Management were the same legal entity for purposes of this proceeding, indebtedness that is secured by assets of the enterprise is specifically precluded from the definition of “capital.” See 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).

于1997年6月27日在佛罗里达州。全部1000股授权股份于1997年7月发行给申请人。1997年10月31日，Ames Management以2.4百万美元的出售价格购买了一家Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge，支付方式如下：25,000美元定金，包括10,000美元初始保证金和随后的15,000美元保证金；705,298.79美元用于结算；以及从1st United Bank借入的1.7百万美元。 在一份题为“投资资金来源”的文件中，申请人陈述用于购买该酒店的资金来自两个来源。大约450,000美元在1994年至1997年期间从阿根廷转入Barnett Bank；这些资金“来源于个人储蓄和出售房屋”。 另外500,000美元于1996年12月从阿根廷转入；这些资金来源于出售“我们的业务”。申请人解释说，对于这两个来源，“[t]这些钱是我父亲借给我的，我又把它们借回给我的公司Ames Management, Inc.。尚未约定我应在何时归还这些资金。” 1 申请人酒店的资产负债表，日期为1997年11月30日，确认该企业的负债包括长期贷款，总计922,136.09美元，应付给股东（申请人），另见下文讨论的债务持续和无条件次级化。随附的“按账户交易”细列了每笔贷款的金额、日期和去向。从该文件可以清楚看出，25,000美元定金和705,298.79美元用于结算的资金仅仅是申请人向Ames Management提供的贷款。正如8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)中规定的“投资”定义所明确的那样，申请人与他的企业之间的债务安排不构成合格的资本出资。因此，用于购买酒店的730,298.79美元不能被视为申请人的“投资”。 Ames Management通过1st United Bank为购买价格的余额，即1.7百万美元，提供了融资。根据抵押和担保协议，该贷款由酒店及其所有内容物担保，包括库存、账户、租赁、特许经营协议、家具、庭院遮阳伞、景观等。首先，应当指出，公司获得的贷款与个人获得的贷款不同，不能称这笔通过1st United Bank的贷款是申请人个人资本的投资。其次，即使假定，arguendo，就本程序而言，申请人和Ames Management是同一法律实体，由企业资产担保的债务也被明确排除在“资本”定义之外。见8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)。

162

162

Counsel points out that the petitioner has personally guaranteed the payment of the loan. In a Continuing and Unconditional Subordination of Debt dated October 31, 1997, Ames Management and the petitioner agreed that all debts owed by Ames to 1st United would receive priority; all obli- gations owed by Ames to the petitioner would be subordinated to those owed to 1st United. In case of default by Ames with regard to its loan from 1st United, the petitioner would not seek or accept payment from Ames with regard to Ames’s debts to the petitioner. In an Unconditional and Irrevocable Guaranty of Payment, also dated October 31, 1997, the peti- tioner agreed to make the mortgage payments if Ames Management did not. 1st United would have the right to proceed against the petitioner without first proceeding against Ames Management or against any property secur- ing the note. As the guarantee does not obligate 1st United to proceed against the petitioner, it does not prohibit 1st United from first seeking payment from the business. 2 The petitioner’s personal guarantee of payment does not change the character of the mortgage; the assets of Ames Management are still primarily securing the mortgage. As such, the $1.7 million that the mortgage represents cannot properly be considered an investment of the petitioner’s capital.

律师指出，申请人个人担保了贷款的偿还。在日期为1997年10月31日的债务持续和无条件次级化协议中，Ames Management和申请人同意，Ames欠1st United的所有债务将获得优先权；Ames欠申请人的所有义务将次于欠1st United的债务。如果Ames就其从1st United的贷款违约，申请人将不会就Ames欠申请人的债务向Ames寻求或接受付款。在同样日期为1997年10月31日的无条件且不可撤销的付款担保中，申请人同意如果Ames Management不支付抵押贷款，则由其支付。1st United将有权直接对申请人提起诉讼，而无需先对Ames Management或对担保票据的任何财产提起诉讼。 由于该担保并未使1st United有义务对申请人提起诉讼，它并不禁止1st United首先向该企业寻求付款。2 申请人的个人付款担保不改变抵押贷款的性质；Ames Management的资产仍然主要担保该抵押贷款。因此，该抵押贷款所代表的1.7百万美元不能适当地被视为申请人资本的投资。

Purchase of the van, pre-opening expenses, and corporate accounts. On November 1, 1997, Ames Management purchased a van to be used as the hotel shuttle. The petitioner made a down payment of $8,000 and Ames Management financed the balance of $17,477.06 through Primus. Counsel and the petitioner count this van as part of the petitioner’s invest- ment. The loan through Primus does not constitute a qualifying investment of capital because it is secured by the van itself, which is an asset of Ames Management; moreover, it is not an investment of the petitioner’s capital because it is a loan obtained by Ames and not by the petitioner. The $8,000 down payment also does not qualify as an “investment” of the petitioner’s funds; according to the Transactions by Account referenced above, it is part of the $922,136.09 in long-term loans payable to the peti- tioner. In other words, the $8,000 must be repaid to the petitioner. Counsel and the petitioner include bank accounts and pre-opening expenses as investments in Ames Management. The pre-opening expenses of $44,836.09, however, appear on the Transactions by Account and are part of the long-term loans payable to the petitioner. The amounts transferred to the bank accounts also appear on the Transactions by Account as long-term loans and therefore cannot constitute qualifying investments.

购买面包车、开业前费用和公司账户。 1997年11月1日，Ames Management购买了一辆面包车用作酒店班车。申请人支付了8,000美元首付款，Ames Management通过Primus为余额17,477.06美元提供了融资。律师和申请人将这辆面包车计为申请人投资的一部分。通过Primus的贷款不构成合格的资本投资，因为它由面包车本身担保，而面包车是Ames Management的资产；此外，它不是申请人资本的投资，因为它是Ames而非申请人获得的贷款。 8,000美元首付款也不符合申请人资金的“投资”资格；根据上述引用的按账户交易，它是应付给申请人的922,136.09美元长期贷款的一部分。换言之，这8,000美元必须偿还给申请人。 律师和申请人将银行账户和开业前费用列为对Ames Management的投资。然而，44,836.09美元的开业前费用出现在按账户交易中，并且是应付给申请人的长期贷款的一部分。转入银行账户的金额也作为长期贷款出现在按账户交易中，因此不能构成合格的投资。

163

163

As discussed above, the petitioner has not made a qualifying invest- ment in Ames because the amounts he has paid on behalf of Ames are mere loans to Ames, prohibited by the regulations. It should be noted that the petitioner has not documented that he has the means to begin the process of investing, either. He submits a personal net worth report as of November 30, 1997, purporting to show that his net worth is $761,747.02. It is not clear who prepared this report, and the report contains certain irregularities. For example, the hotel, which belongs to Ames Management, is counted among the petitioner’s personal assets. Also, the mortgage held by Ames Management is included among the petitioner’s personal liabilities. On the other hand, the hotel van owned by Ames Management is correctly omitted from the report. In effect, with this personal net worth report the petitioner is attempting to show that he has sufficient wealth to invest in the hotel because he has invested in the hotel. Subtracting the hotel entries leaves the petitioner’s alleged net worth at $61,747.02. The petitioner counts the funds in various personal bank accounts as part of his personal assets. A letter and bank statements from Barnett Bank reveal that the petitioner has held joint accounts with his father since October 1994. It is not possible to determine what portions of these accounts belong to the petitioner’s father and what portions to the petition- er. Unlike the situation of a husband and wife, funds in a pooled joint account cannot be attributed to only one person. A letter from Bank Boston states that, since April 1997, “Ames Resources Limited maintains an International Private Banking Relationship” with BankBoston. The petitioner is the secretary of Ames Resources Limited, and the account has always had balances in the mid seven figures. These funds belong to Ames Resources Limited, a corpora- tion, and do not belong to the petitioner, an individual. Furthermore, “Ames Resources Limited” is not the same thing as “Ames Management, Inc.,” and at most, this letter indicates that the petitioner serves as an officer at a sep- arate corporation in addition to his own corporation, and that this separate corporation has a bank account with BankBoston.

如上所述，申请人未对Ames进行合格的投资，因为他代表Ames支付的金额仅仅是向Ames提供的贷款，这是法规所禁止的。应当指出，申请人也未记录证明他有开始投资过程的手段。他提交了一份截至1997年11月30日的个人净资产报告，声称显示其净资产为761,747.02美元。不清楚谁编制了这份报告，且报告包含某些不合规之处。例如，属于Ames Management的酒店被计入申请人的个人资产。此外，Ames Management持有的抵押贷款被列入申请人的个人负债。另一方面，Ames Management拥有的酒店面包车被正确地从报告中省略。实际上，通过这份个人净资产报告，申请人试图表明他有足够的财富投资于酒店，因为他已经投资于酒店。减去酒店条目后，申请人所称的净资产为61,747.02美元。 申请人将各种个人银行账户中的资金计为其个人资产的一部分。Barnett Bank的一封信和银行对账单显示，申请人自1994年10月以来与其父亲持有联名账户。无法确定这些账户中哪些部分属于申请人的父亲，哪些部分属于申请人。与夫妻的情况不同， pooled联名账户中的资金不能仅归属于一个人。 Bank Boston的一封信指出，自1997年4月以来，“Ames Resources Limited维持着与BankBoston的国际私人银行关系”。申请人是Ames Resources Limited的秘书，该账户始终有七位中段的余额。这些资金属于Ames Resources Limited，一家公司，而不属于申请人，一个个人。此外，“Ames Resources Limited”与“Ames Management, Inc.”不是同一回事，这封信最多表明申请人除了自己的公司外，还在另一家独立公司担任高级职员，并且这家独立公司在BankBoston有一个银行账户。

The source of the funds lent to the petitioner (and in turn lent to Ames Management) has also not been adequately documented. The petitioner claims that the first $450,000 came from personal savings and the sale of “a house.” The second $500,000 came from the sale of “our business.” No

借给申请人（进而借给Ames Management）的资金来源也未得到充分记录。申请人声称第一笔450,000美元来自个人储蓄和出售“一栋房屋”。第二笔500,000美元来自出售“我们的业务”。没有

164

164

documentation, such as a sales contract or deed establishing ownership and price, has been submitted regarding the house or the business. Such docu- mentation is relevant to the question of whether the funds have been law- fully obtained, which is a requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(3). 3 Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). In summary, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has invest- ed, or is actively in the process of investing, the requisite amount of capital obtained by lawful means. The amounts referenced by the petitioner either do not constitute qualifying “capital,” because they are not his, or have not been properly “invested,” because they are debt arrangements between the petitioner and his business. Even if the petitioner and Ames were to be con- sidered one and the same entity, the loans obtained by Ames from other banks would not be considered qualifying capital because they are secured by assets of the business. The petitioner has also failed to document the source of his funds other than to say that the funds are a loan from his father.

提交关于房屋或业务的文件，例如确立所有权和价格的销售合同或契据。此类文件与资金是否合法获得的问题相关，这是8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(3)的要求。3 仅仅在记录中陈述而没有支持性书面证据，不足以满足这些程序中的举证责任。见Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)。 总之，申请人未能证明他已投资，或正在积极投资过程中，以合法手段获得的所需资本金额。申请人提到的金额要么不构成合格的“资本”，因为它们不是他的，要么未被适当“投资”，因为它们是申请人与他的企业之间的债务安排。即使申请人和Ames被视为同一实体，Ames从其他银行获得的贷款也不会被视为合格资本，因为它们由企业资产担保。申请人也未能记录其资金来源，除了说资金是来自他父亲的贷款。

THE PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A NEW COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE.

申请人未能建立 一个新商业企业。

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h) states that the establishment of a new commercial enterprise may consist of:

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)规定，建立新商业企业可以包括：

165

165

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) states that:

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)规定：

Although Ames Management was incorporated in 1997, it is the job- creating business that must be examined in determining whether a new commercial enterprise has been created. The Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge purchased by Ames Management had been in operation for approx- imately 24 years and was an ongoing business at the time of purchase; Ames Management, doing business as Howard Johnson Hotel, has merely replaced the former owner. The petitioner has provided no documentation whatsoever to establish that the Howard Johnson’s was a “troubled business,” as defined above, prior to his purchase. He also does not claim that he will expand the hotel by 40 percent as provided in 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3). The petitioner has not shown the degree of restructuring and reorganization required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2); the hotel has always been a Howard Johnson and is still a Howard Johnson today. A few cosmetic changes to the decor and a new marketing strategy for success do not constitute the kind of restructuring contemplated by the regulations, nor does a simple change in ownership. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has created a new com- mercial enterprise.

尽管Ames Management于1997年注册成立，但在确定是否已设立新商业企业时，必须审查的是创造就业的企业。Ames Management购买的Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge已运营约24年，且在购买时是一个持续经营的企业；以Howard Johnson Hotel名义经营的Ames Management仅仅替换了原所有者。 申请人未提供任何文件证明Howard Johnson's在其购买前属于上述定义的“困难企业”。他也未主张将按照8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(3)的规定将酒店扩展40%。申请人未表明达到8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2)所要求的重组和整顿程度；该酒店一直是Howard Johnson，今天仍然是Howard Johnson。装饰上的几处外观改动和一项新的成功营销策略不构成法规所设想的那种重组，简单的所有权变更也不构成。因此，不能认定申请人已设立新商业企业。

THE PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE REQUISITE EMPLOYMENT CREATION.

申请人未证明所需的就业创造。

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4) discusses job creation, and states:

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)讨论了就业创造，并规定：

166

166

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) states, in pertinent part:

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)相关部分规定：

In a letter dated January 15, 1998, the petitioner states that Ames Management employs 23 full-time United State citizens or lawful perma- nent residents. It also employs part-time employees on an as-needed basis, as well as multiple subcontractors. Section 5.1.19 of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase refers to an Exhibit H containing the payroll of the Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodge as of the date of the petitioner’s purchase. The petitioner has furnished copies of the neatly-labeled exhibits, but the only document between Exhibit G and Exhibit I is an unlabeled, one-page worksheet. This worksheet, for the 1997 quarter to date, merely provides the amount of taxes withheld, wages paid, etc. It does not name any of the employees or specify the positions held or hours worked, although it does mention the number of employees as 29. To show the current level of employment at the hotel, the petitioner has supplied the payroll journal for the period ending November 28, 1997. Assuming that this journal reflects one week of work and not two, only 16 individuals clearly worked at least the minimum 35 hours to be considered full-time employees. 4 Another three were paid salaries and not by the hour, while the last three worked fewer than 35 hours and must be considered part-time employees. The petitioner has submitted a Form I-9 for one other person who was hired after the date of the payroll journal. At most, the hotel employs 20 full-time workers. The petitioner has not established that this figure constitutes either the maintenance of the previous level of full-time

在1998年1月15日的信中，申请人称Ames Management雇用了23名全职美国公民或合法永久居民。它还根据需求雇用兼职员工，以及多名分包商。 《买卖协议》第5.1.19条提及附件H，其中包含截至申请人购买之日的Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge工资单。申请人提供了标签整齐的附件副本，但附件G与附件I之间唯一的文件是一份未标注的一页工作表。该工作表为1997年年初至今的数据，仅提供预扣税款金额、已付工资等。它未列明任何员工姓名，也未说明所任职位或工作小时数，尽管它确实提到员工人数为29人。 为表明酒店当前的就业水平，申请人提供了截至1997年11月28日期间的工资日记账。假设该日记账反映的是一周而非两周的工作，则只有16人明显工作至少最低35小时，可被视为全职员工。4 另外三人领取薪金而非按小时计酬，而最后三人工作少于35小时，必须被视为兼职员工。申请人还为另一名在工资日记账日期之后受雇的人提交了Form I-9。该酒店最多雇用20名全职员工。申请人未证明该数字构成维持此前的全职

167

167

employment or the addition of 10 new, full-time positions. As noted above, the hotel previously had 29 employees of unknown designation. If a petitioner has not already created the requisite number of positions, he must submit a comprehensive business plan clearly demonstrating that the business will need the applicable level of employment. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i)(B), The plan must contain a timetable for hiring and must be credible. The petitioner has provided a Marketing Plan 1998 for the hotel. The plan discusses, in detail, the petitioner’s marketing strategies and employee-incentive programs, among other things. It does not address the issue of hiring, however. While the plan states that a new position will be created in sales, the person named to occupy this position, Janet Mills, has been working at the hotel since 1994.

就业水平，或增加10个新的全职岗位。如上所述，该酒店此前有29名身份不明的员工。 如果申请人尚未创造所需数量的岗位，他必须提交一份全面商业计划，清楚表明该企业将需要相应水平的就业。8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i)(B)。该计划必须包含雇用时间表，并且必须可信。申请人为该酒店提供了一份《1998年营销计划》。该计划详细讨论了申请人的营销策略和员工激励计划等内容。然而，它并未涉及雇用问题。虽然该计划称将在销售部门设立一个新岗位，但被指定担任该岗位的Janet Mills自1994年以来一直在该酒店工作。

CONCLUSION.

结论。

In conclusion, the petitioner is ineligible for classification as an alien entrepreneur because he has failed to show that he has invested, or is active- ly in the process of investing, the requisite amount of money. In every trans- action, he has attempted to distance himself from making an actual invest- ment in Ames Management by instead becoming Ames Management’s creditor. The petitioner has not shown that Ames Management has been established with anything but loans; in essence, the petitioner has attempt- ed to create something from nothing. The petitioner has further failed to demonstrate that he has established a “new” commercial enterprise, and he has failed to show that his business has or will engage in either employment maintenance or employment creation. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petition- er. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, the petition is denied. ORDER: The decision of the director is reversed. The petition is denied.

总之，申请人没有资格被归类为外国企业家，因为他未能表明其已投资或正在积极投资所需金额的资金。在每一笔交易中，他都试图通过成为Ames Management的债权人而非对Ames Management进行实际投资来与投资保持距离。申请人未表明Ames Management是依靠除贷款以外的任何东西设立的；实质上，申请人试图无中生有。申请人还未能证明其已设立“新”商业企业，也未能表明其企业已经或将会进行就业维持或就业创造。 在这些程序中，举证责任完全由申请人承担。《法案》第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361。申请人未履行该举证责任。因此，申请被拒。 命令：主任的决定被撤销。申请被拒。

168

168