Matter of Ho

In Visa Petition Proceedings

在签证申请程序中

WAC 98 072 50493

WAC 98 072 50493

DISCUSSION

讨论

The preference visa petition was approved by the Director, California 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 pur- suant 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 already invest-

优先签证申请由加州服务中心主任批准，该主任将决定认证给负责审查的助理专员进行审查。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。主任认定申请人已经投资

206

206

ed the requisite amount of capital, apparently obtained through lawful means. The director further found that, while the business had only two employees at the time of her decision, the business plan called for at least eight more employees within the next 12 months. The petitioner has chosen not to respond. 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:

了所需数额的资本，显然是通过合法手段获得的。主任进一步认定，尽管在她作出决定时企业只有两名员工，但商业计划要求在未来12个月内至少再雇用八名员工。 申请人选择不作出回应。 《法案》第203(b)(5)(A)条规定，寻求进入美国从事新的商业企业的合格移民可获得分类：

(i) which the alien has established,

(i) 该外国人已设立的企业，

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

申请人表示，该申请基于在目标就业区设立的新企业，为此所需投资资本数额已下调。

MINIMUM INVESTMENT AMOUNT

最低投资额

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

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)的相关部分规定：

On December 18, 1997, King’s Wheel Corp. filed its articles of incor- poration with the State of California. According to the petitioner, who is the president, director, and chief executive officer of the corporation, King’s Wheel will import steel and aluminum automobile wheels from Taiwan and market them in the United States as a wholesaler. On December 20, 1997, the petitioner signed a lease on behalf of King’s Wheel for an “office and warehouse” located at 350 W. Artesia Boulevard in Compton, California. Compton is in Los Angeles County, and the most current information available from the California Employment Development Department indicates that all of Los Angeles County is an area of sufficiently high unemployment to qualify as a targeted area. Therefore, the amount of capital necessary to make a qualifying investment in this matter is $500,000.

1997年12月18日，King’s Wheel Corp.向加利福尼亚州提交了公司章程。据申请人称，他是该公司的总裁、董事和首席执行官，King’s Wheel将从中国台湾进口钢制和铝制汽车车轮，并作为批发商在美国销售。1997年12月20日，申请人代表King’s Wheel签署了一份位于加利福尼亚州康普顿市W. Artesia大道350号的“办公室和仓库”的租约。 康普顿位于洛杉矶县，加州就业发展局可获得的最新信息表明，整个洛杉矶县都是失业率足够高的地区，符合目标区的资格。因此，在本案中，进行合格投资所需的资本数额为500,000美元。

207

207

INVESTMENT OF QUALIFYING CAPITAL

合格资本的投资

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

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)的相关部分规定：

Capital means cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, cash equivalents, and indebtedness secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur, provided the alien entrepreneur is personally and primarily liable and that the assets of the new commer- cial enterprise upon which the petition is based are not used to secure any of the indebtedness, ...

资本指现金、设备、库存、其他有形财产、现金等价物以及由外国企业家拥有的资产担保的债务，前提是该外国企业家承担个人主要责任，且申请所基于的新商业企业的资产未被用于担保任何债务，……

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

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)的相关部分规定：

(2) To show that the petitioner has invested or is actively in the process of investing the required amount of capital, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generat- ing a return on the capital placed at risk. Evidence of mere intent to invest, or of prospective investment arrangements entailing no present commitment, will not suf- fice to show that the petitioner is actively in the process of investing. The alien must show actual commitment of the required amount of capital. Such evidence may include, but need not be limited to:

(2) 为表明申请人已投资或正在积极投资过程中投入所需数额的资本，申请必须附有证据证明申请人已将所需数额的资本置于风险之中，以产生所投入资本的回报。仅表明投资意图或没有当前承诺的预期投资安排的证据，不足以表明申请人正在积极投资过程中。外国人必须表明实际承诺投入所需数额的资本。此类证据可包括但不限于：

208

208

On December 30, 1997, the sum of $515,000 was transferred from an unidentified bank account to one of King’s Wheel’s business accounts at Cathay Bank, and the business account was credited $514,995. On January 5, 1998, the petitioner obtained 500,000 of the one million authorized shares of King’s Wheel; the petitioner indicates that these shares were in exchange for $500,000.

1997年12月30日，一笔515,000美元的款项从一个未识别的银行账户转入King’s Wheel在国泰银行的一个商业账户，该商业账户贷记514,995美元。1998年1月5日，申请人获得了King’s Wheel一百万授权股份中的500,000股；申请人表示这些股份是换取500,000美元。

Even though the petitioner owns only half of the authorized shares in King’s Wheel, he is the sole shareholder thus far. He is also the only officer of the corporation. As such, the petitioner exercises sole control over the corporation’s activities; whether the business proceeds according to plan or whether, for example, the business returns the petitioner’s money is the peti- tioner’s decision alone. Therefore, the petitioner cannot meet his at-risk requirement by merely depositing funds into a corporate account. The business plan indicates that sales would commence in three to six months from the date of submission of the petition (January 12, 1998), yet the petitioner has not undertaken the necessary preparations to meet this deadline. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that King’s Wheel has purchased inventory or office equipment. The petitioner has not shown that he has entered into negotiations with potential suppliers of wheels abroad, nor has he even identified who his potential suppliers are. The petitioner has not provided evidence that he has identified or entered into negotiations with potential buyers within the United States. The petitioner has not even furnished evidence that he has contracted with the suppliers of local utili- ties, such as the telephone or electric companies. The petitioner has not ade- quately explained how the business will go about spending the $500,000 that have been placed into its account. Although the petitioner has signed a lease for King’s Wheel’s showroom, the lease contains an escape clause at section 14, allowing King’s Wheel to assign the lease or sublet the proper- ty with consent from the landlord. The regulations provide that a petition must be accompanied by evi- dence that the petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital placed at risk. A mere

尽管申请人仅拥有King’s Wheel授权股份的一半，但他是迄今为止的唯一股东。他也是公司的唯一高管。因此，申请人行使对公司的活动的唯一控制权；企业是否按计划进行，或者例如企业是否退还申请人的钱，完全由申请人决定。因此，申请人不能仅通过将资金存入公司账户来满足其风险要求。 商业计划表明，销售将在提交申请之日（1998年1月12日）起三至六个月内开始，但申请人尚未进行必要的准备以满足这一截止日期。申请人未提交证据表明King’s Wheel已购买库存或办公设备。申请人未表明他已与国外的潜在车轮供应商进行谈判，甚至未确定其潜在供应商是谁。申请人未提供证据表明他已确定或已与美国的潜在买家进行谈判。申请人甚至未提供证据表明他已与当地公用事业供应商（如电话或电力公司）签订合同。申请人未充分解释企业将如何花费已存入其账户的500,000美元。尽管申请人已签署King’s Wheel展厅的租约，但该租约第14条包含一项免责条款，允许King’s Wheel在房东同意下转让租约或转租该物业。 法规规定，申请必须附有证据证明申请人已将所需数额的资本置于风险之中，以产生所投入资本的回报。仅仅

209

209

deposit into a corporate money-market account, such that the petitioner himself still exercises sole control over the funds, hardly qualifies as an active, at-risk investment. 1 Simply formulating an idea for future business activity, without taking meaningful concrete action, is similarly insufficient for a petitioner to meet the at-risk requirement. Before it can be said that capital made available to a commercial enterprise has been placed at risk, a petitioner must present some evidence of the actual undertaking of business activity; otherwise, no assurance exists that the funds will in fact be used to carry out the business of the commercial enterprise. This petitioner’s de minimis action of signing a lease agreement, without more, is not enough.

将资金存入公司货币市场账户，使申请人本人仍对资金行使唯一控制权，很难被认定为积极的、处于风险中的投资。1 仅仅为未来商业活动构思一个想法，而未采取有意义的具体行动，同样不足以使申请人满足风险要求。在可以认定提供给商业企业的资本已被置于风险中之前，申请人必须提交一些证据证明实际开展了商业活动；否则，无法保证资金事实上将被用于开展该商业企业的业务。本案申请人签署租赁协议这一微不足道的行动，仅此而已，是不够的。

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

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j) 在相关部分规定：

To show that he has invested his own capital obtained through lawful means, the petitioner has furnished copies of bank statements showing that as of December 12, 1997, he had NT$1,339,447 (less than US$41,000 2 ) on deposit at the Bank of Taiwan, and as of December 23, 1997, an individual named “Ho Wang Chung-Chia, Theresa Wang” had NT$6,255,844.52

为证明其已投资通过合法手段获得的本人资本，申请人提交了银行对账单副本，显示截至1997年12月12日，其在中国台湾银行有NT$1,339,447（少于US$41,000 2）存款，且截至1997年12月23日，一位名为“Ho Wang Chung-Chia, Theresa Wang”的人有NT$6,255,844.52

210

210

(US$191,427.31) on deposit at the First Commercial Bank. The petitioner has also submitted a letter from the United World Chinese Commercial Bank indicating that he holds 506,000 shares of capital stock in the bank, and as of December 22, 1997, those shares were worth NT$30,866,000. A letter from United Orthopedic Corporation states, “Mrs. Ho Wang Chung- Chia, also known as Theresa Wang has invested N.T.$1,000,000 in United Orthopedic Corp.” On December 19, 1997, Ms. Chung-Chia Ho Wang’s single unit on the 11th floor of an 18-story, 147-unit condominium in Taiwan was appraised at NT$6,502,348 (less than US$199,000). The petitioner asserts that Chung-Chia Ho Wang is his wife; however, he has submitted no documentation, such as a marriage certificate, to sub- stantiate this claim. 3 Even if Ms. Wang is the petitioner’s wife, and even if her assets can be considered joint property, the petitioner has failed to estab- lish the source of the funds transferred to the King’s Wheel money-market account, totalling $515,000. Prior to the date of transfer, neither Taiwanese bank account contained sufficient funds; in fact, the two accounts together contained less than $250,000. Neither the petitioner nor Ms. Wang has sold any shares of stock in the Taiwanese corporations, and Ms. Wang appears still to own the condominium unit. As stated earlier, the wire-transfer receipt does not reveal from what bank account(s) the funds originated. Furthermore, while the petitioner claims to have been a medical doctor in Taiwan, he has not presented any evidence of his having engaged in this occupation, nor has he provided any documentation regarding his level of income. The petitioner explains that, through his medical practice and invest- ments, he has accumulated “liquid assets” of approximately US$1.4 million, and therefore the source of his $500,000 is lawful. The above documentation does not reflect $1.4 million in liquid assets; moreover, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for pur- poses of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972).

（US$191,427.31）存款于第一商业银行。申请人还提交了环宇中华商业银行的一封信，表明其持有该银行506,000股资本股票，且截至1997年12月22日，这些股票价值NT$30,866,000。联合骨科公司的一封信称，“Mrs. Ho Wang Chung-Chia, also known as Theresa Wang has invested N.T.$1,000,000 in United Orthopedic Corp.” 1997年12月19日，Ms. Chung-Chia Ho Wang 在中国台湾一栋18层、147个单元的公寓楼第11层的单个单元被评估为NT$6,502,348（少于US$199,000）。 申请人声称 Chung-Chia Ho Wang 是其妻子；然而，他未提交任何文件，如结婚证书，以证实该主张。3 即使 Ms. Wang 是申请人的妻子，即使其资产可被视为共同财产，申请人也未能证明转入 King’s Wheel 货币市场账户的资金来源，总额为 $515,000。在转账日期之前，两个中国台湾银行账户均无足够资金；事实上，两个账户合计不足 $250,000。申请人和 Ms. Wang 均未出售中国台湾公司的任何股票，且 Ms. Wang 似乎仍拥有该公寓单元。如前所述，电汇收据未显示资金源自哪个银行账户。 此外，虽然申请人声称曾在中国台湾担任医生，但他未提交任何证据证明其从事过该职业，也未提供任何关于其收入水平的文件。申请人解释称，通过其医疗执业和投资，他已积累约 US$1.4 million 的“流动资产”，因此其 $500,000 的来源是合法的。上述文件并未反映 $1.4 million 的流动资产；此外，仅在没有支持性书面证据的情况下作出陈述，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)。

EMPLOYMENT CREATION

就业创造

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i) states:

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i) 规定：

To show that a new commercial enterprise will create not fewer than ten (10) full-time positions for qualifying employees, the petition must be accompanied by:

为证明新的商业企业将为合格员工创造不少于十（10）个全职职位，申请必须附有：

211

211

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

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e) 在相关部分规定：

As evidence that two positions have already been created, the petition- er has submitted two Forms I-9 completed just three days prior to the date he signed the Form I-526 petition. The business plan calls for the hiring of eight employees within the next 12 months: a secretary, an accounting clerk, a truck driver, two warehouse people, and three salespersons. With respect to the two persons identified in the Forms I-9, the peti- tioner has not explained what positions they occupy, and it is not known whether they work full- or part-time or whether they work at all. Forms I-9 verify, at best, that a business has made an effort to ascertain whether par- ticular individuals are authorized to work; they do not verify that those indi- viduals have actually begun working. In the absence of such evidence as paystubs and payroll records showing the number of hours worked, the peti- tioner has not met his burden of establishing that he has created full-time employment within the United States. In addition, as the business plan fails to reveal what these two indi- viduals do, it is not altogether clear that they would still be needed once sales commenced and the business progressed beyond its “planning stage.” The petitioner has not demonstrated that he has created permanent employment. According to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i)(B), if a petitioner has not already met the employment-creation requirement, he must submit a comprehen- sive business plan from which it is clear that the business will in fact require

作为已创造两个职位的证据，申请人提交了两份 Form I-9，填写日期仅在其签署 Form I-526 申请前三天。商业计划要求在未来12个月内雇用八名员工：一名秘书、一名会计文员、一名卡车司机、两名仓库人员和三名销售人员。 关于 Form I-9 中确认的两人，申请人未解释他们占据什么职位，且不知道他们是全职还是兼职工作，或者是否工作。Form I-9 最多验证企业已努力确定特定个人是否获准工作；它们并不验证这些个人已实际开始工作。在缺乏此类证据如显示工作小时数的工资单和工资记录的情况下，申请人未满足其证明已在美国创造全职就业的举证责任。 此外，由于商业计划未揭示这两人做什么，并不完全清楚一旦销售开始且业务进展超出其“规划阶段”后是否仍需要他们。申请人未证明其已创造永久就业。 根据 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(4)(i)(B)，如果申请人尚未满足就业创造要求，他必须提交一份全面的商业计划，从中清楚表明业务事实上将需要

212

212

10 qualifying employees within the next two years. To be “comprehensive,” a business plan must be sufficiently detailed to permit the Service to draw reasonable inferences about the job-creation potential. Mere conclusory assertions do not enable the Service to determine whether the job-creation projections are any more reliable than hopeful speculation. A comprehensive business plan as contemplated by the regulations should contain, at a minimum, a description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition’s products and pricing structures, and a description of the target market/prospective customers of the new commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the business’s organizational struc- ture and its personnel’s experience. It should explain the business’s staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases therefor. 4 Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. Certainly no astute investor would place half a million or a million dollars into a business that he had not thoroughly researched. Creating a comprehensive business plan as described above is normal practice for any businessman seeking to operate a viable business. Without knowing whether a business is feasible and has the potential for long-term sur- vival, neither the petitioner nor the Service can reasonably conclude that it will create permanent, full-time employment. It is not too onerous to ask a petitioner who has not yet met the employment-creation require- ment to submit to the Service a real business plan. Other administrative agencies, such as the Small Business Administration, and private finan- cial institutions routinely require the submission of detailed business plans before extending loans to businesses. Permanent resident status is no less significant a matter than a loan. The petitioner’s four-page “business plan” is wholly inadequate and fails to meet the petitioner’s burden of showing that he will create 10 per- manent, full-time positions within the next two years.

在接下来的两年内创造10个合格雇员岗位。要成为“全面的”，商业计划必须足够详细，以使移民局能够就创造就业的潜力得出合理推断。仅凭结论性的断言，无法使移民局确定创造就业的预测是否比满怀希望的猜测更为可靠。 按照法规所设想的全面商业计划，至少应包含对业务、其产品和/或服务及其目标的描述。该计划应包含市场分析，包括竞争企业的名称及其相对优势和劣势、竞争对手产品和定价结构的比较，以及对新商业企业的目标市场/潜在客户的描述。该计划应列出已获得的所需许可和执照。如适用，应描述制造或生产过程、所需材料及供应来源。该计划应详细说明为供应材料和/或分销产品而签订的任何合同。应讨论该业务的营销策略，包括定价、广告和服务。该计划应阐明该业务的组织结构及其人员的经验。应解释该业务的用工需求，并包含招聘时间表以及所有职位的职位描述。应包含销售、成本和收入预测，并详细说明其依据。4 最重要的是，商业计划必须可信。 当然，任何精明的投资者都不会将50万或100万美元投入一项他未曾彻底研究过的业务。制定如上所述的全面商业计划，是任何寻求经营可行业务的商人的常规做法。在不知道一项业务是否可行以及是否具有长期生存潜力的情况下，无论是申请人还是移民局，都无法合理断定它将创造永久、全职的就业。要求尚未满足创造就业要求的申请人向移民局提交一份真实的商业计划，并不算过于繁重。其他行政机构，例如小企业管理局，以及私人金融机构，在向企业发放贷款之前，通常都要求提交详细的商业计划。永久居民身份的重要性并不亚于一笔贷款。 申请人的四页“商业计划”完全不够充分，未能满足申请人证明其将在接下来的两年内创造10个永久、全职岗位的责任。

213

213

CONCLUSION

结论

The petitioner is ineligible for classification as an alien entrepreneur because he has failed to establish that he has made an active, at-risk invest- ment and has failed to clarify the source of his funds. The petitioner has fur- ther failed to demonstrate clearly that his proposed business will result in the requisite employment creation.

申请人没有资格被归类为外国企业家，因为他未能证明其已作出积极、有风险的投资，也未能澄清其资金来源。申请人进一步未能清楚地证明其拟议业务将产生所需的创造就业。

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.

在这些程序中的举证责任完全由申请人承担。《移民与国籍法》第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361。申请人未满足该责任。因此，申请被拒。 命令：主任的决定被撤销。申请被拒。

214

214

In Visa Petition Proceedings

在签证申请程序中

EAC 96 063 51031

EAC 96 063 51031

Designated by the Acting Associate Commissioner, Programs, August 7, 1998

由代理副专员（项目）指定，1998年8月7日

DISCUSSION

讨论

The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center, and is now before the Associate Commissioner for Examinations on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 1 The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as

该基于就业的移民签证申请被佛蒙特服务中心主任拒绝，现因上诉而由负责审查的副专员审理。上诉将被驳回。1 申请人寻求根据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(2)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)，将受益人归类为

215

215