最近新推出的项目，看起来蛮靠谱的哦
业内人士怎么看呢？
欢迎见仁见智
业内人士怎么看呢？
欢迎见仁见智
美国投资移民 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
- 主题发起人 lylhm
- 发布时间 2011-07-15
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
TEA资格？
TEA资格？
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
抵押品何在？
抵押品何在？
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
tea:高失业率地区吧。曼哈顿的项目都能过tea的，是因为金融风暴导致失业率高
抵押品：该枢纽的第一租赁抵押权。
==============================
，乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽项目总投资金额为3.65亿美元，其中EB-5融资比例仅为20%。乔治华盛顿大桥属于美国最大的跨州政府机构纽约和新泽西港务局，该港务局为此项目直接出资2.79亿美元;而项目的建设合作方全球最大的建筑公司之一Skanska为该项目提供了一份竣工保证书，承诺该项目的如期完工。此外，为确保投资人50万美元投资本金的安全，该项目还为投资人提供了乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽的第一租赁抵押权，这也进一步奠定了该项目较高的安全系数。
据侨外集团透露，按照EB-5法案规定，要取得永久绿卡，投资人需直接或间接创造10个就业机会;而乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽及基础设施建设项目实际创造的就业机会为3288个，就业率盈余高达128%，远远超出法定要求的就业量，从而使得临时性绿卡条件解除更为可靠。
tea:高失业率地区吧。曼哈顿的项目都能过tea的，是因为金融风暴导致失业率高
抵押品：该枢纽的第一租赁抵押权。
==============================
，乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽项目总投资金额为3.65亿美元，其中EB-5融资比例仅为20%。乔治华盛顿大桥属于美国最大的跨州政府机构纽约和新泽西港务局，该港务局为此项目直接出资2.79亿美元;而项目的建设合作方全球最大的建筑公司之一Skanska为该项目提供了一份竣工保证书，承诺该项目的如期完工。此外，为确保投资人50万美元投资本金的安全，该项目还为投资人提供了乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽的第一租赁抵押权，这也进一步奠定了该项目较高的安全系数。
据侨外集团透露，按照EB-5法案规定，要取得永久绿卡，投资人需直接或间接创造10个就业机会;而乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽及基础设施建设项目实际创造的就业机会为3288个，就业率盈余高达128%，远远超出法定要求的就业量，从而使得临时性绿卡条件解除更为可靠。
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
纽约这类大城市的TEA资格不太容易定性的，现在连移民律师都搞不懂了。 看看这个律师的博客就明白了。
[HOT] Confusion reigns again on TEA issue
In the presentation material for June 30th 2011 EB-5 Stakeholders Teleconference, USCIS stated:
See http://www.eb-5center.com/files/12-11-09%20Adjudication%20of%20EB-5%20Re... for the December 11, 2009 Neufeld Guidance Memo.
The December 11, 2009 Memo, as far as I can ascertain, says mainly two things about TEA issue.
1. It first says TEA must be determined either at the time the investment is made or when I-526 is filed, whichever is earlier.
2. It also seems to say that although combining of contiguous census tracts may be indicative of "gerrymandering", such TEA designation accompanied by HUA certification letter from an authorized state agency is valid and will not be questioned by USCIS examiners.
Based on my above understanding of what the December 11, 2009 Memo says on the TEA issue, what USCIS now says on the TEA issue in the recent June 30th 2011 presentation material -- that "USCIS is currently reviewing the policy regarding TEA designations, keeping in mind that USCIS must fulfill its responsibility to ensure statutory and regulatory compliance while, at the same time, not rendering a state’s TEA designation immaterial." -- sounds ominous to me.
Adding to the further confusion, USCIS during the same teleconference unequivocally stated that census tract(s) are geographic (not political) subdivisions. Of course, nothing USCIS says or presents during EB-5 teleconferences is to be considered the official position of USCIS.
Also, the rumor is that USCIS has contacted certain state agencies in charge of issuing High Unemployment Area certification letters to "advise" them of what USCIS thinks is the correct procedure and standards in issuing such HUA certification letters.
In the meantime, EB-5 projects get stalled and delayed, and are concerned if they proceed based on the December 11, 2009 Memo and USCIS changes its policy on this issue, they will get caught in the middle. It's time for some USCIS officer to step in and say "enough is enough" on this issue and tell CSC examiners to stop questioning the state agencies' HUA designation letters. I have no idea why USCIS wants to invite further headaches when it has enough issues to decide.
To a more discerning potential EB-5 investors, all this may indicate "EB-5 law just is not stable enough to pursue". They may just say "Heck, I am not going to invest my hard-earned money and time to a Program when there are so many undecided and unclear issues on key aspects of I-526 and I-829 petitions. USA wants my money but doesn't want to give me permanent green cards even when I create jobs. Forget this." Honestly, I cannot say I disagree. The Regional Center Program reemerged around 2003, and USCIS still has not come up with clear policies and rationales on many key EB-5 issues -- that's just too long.
President Obama and politicians who say they want to create more jobs, are you listening?
纽约这类大城市的TEA资格不太容易定性的，现在连移民律师都搞不懂了。 看看这个律师的博客就明白了。
[HOT] Confusion reigns again on TEA issue
In the presentation material for June 30th 2011 EB-5 Stakeholders Teleconference, USCIS stated:
Targeted Employment Area
•USCIS is currently reviewing the policy regarding TEA
designations, keeping in mind that USCIS must fulfill its
responsibility to ensure statutory and regulatory
compliance while, at the same time, not rendering a
state’s TEA designation immaterial.
•In the meantime, USCIS is following the current policy
as set forth in the December 11, 2009 memo.
See http://eb-5center.com/files/June%20EB-5%20presentation%20063011.pdf for the June 30th Presentation.•USCIS is currently reviewing the policy regarding TEA
designations, keeping in mind that USCIS must fulfill its
responsibility to ensure statutory and regulatory
compliance while, at the same time, not rendering a
state’s TEA designation immaterial.
•In the meantime, USCIS is following the current policy
as set forth in the December 11, 2009 memo.
See http://www.eb-5center.com/files/12-11-09%20Adjudication%20of%20EB-5%20Re... for the December 11, 2009 Neufeld Guidance Memo.
The December 11, 2009 Memo, as far as I can ascertain, says mainly two things about TEA issue.
1. It first says TEA must be determined either at the time the investment is made or when I-526 is filed, whichever is earlier.
2. It also seems to say that although combining of contiguous census tracts may be indicative of "gerrymandering", such TEA designation accompanied by HUA certification letter from an authorized state agency is valid and will not be questioned by USCIS examiners.
Based on my above understanding of what the December 11, 2009 Memo says on the TEA issue, what USCIS now says on the TEA issue in the recent June 30th 2011 presentation material -- that "USCIS is currently reviewing the policy regarding TEA designations, keeping in mind that USCIS must fulfill its responsibility to ensure statutory and regulatory compliance while, at the same time, not rendering a state’s TEA designation immaterial." -- sounds ominous to me.
Adding to the further confusion, USCIS during the same teleconference unequivocally stated that census tract(s) are geographic (not political) subdivisions. Of course, nothing USCIS says or presents during EB-5 teleconferences is to be considered the official position of USCIS.
Also, the rumor is that USCIS has contacted certain state agencies in charge of issuing High Unemployment Area certification letters to "advise" them of what USCIS thinks is the correct procedure and standards in issuing such HUA certification letters.
In the meantime, EB-5 projects get stalled and delayed, and are concerned if they proceed based on the December 11, 2009 Memo and USCIS changes its policy on this issue, they will get caught in the middle. It's time for some USCIS officer to step in and say "enough is enough" on this issue and tell CSC examiners to stop questioning the state agencies' HUA designation letters. I have no idea why USCIS wants to invite further headaches when it has enough issues to decide.
To a more discerning potential EB-5 investors, all this may indicate "EB-5 law just is not stable enough to pursue". They may just say "Heck, I am not going to invest my hard-earned money and time to a Program when there are so many undecided and unclear issues on key aspects of I-526 and I-829 petitions. USA wants my money but doesn't want to give me permanent green cards even when I create jobs. Forget this." Honestly, I cannot say I disagree. The Regional Center Program reemerged around 2003, and USCIS still has not come up with clear policies and rationales on many key EB-5 issues -- that's just too long.
President Obama and politicians who say they want to create more jobs, are you listening?
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
枢纽的第一租赁抵押权==空气
枢纽的第一租赁抵押权==空气
Y
ylyyly
Guest
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
这座桥我不下经过40多次，很漂亮，双层大桥，我对当地很熟，
3288个就业机会，呵呵，数据很吉利，太多了吧，
现在在出这个项目的评估报告，有兴趣的可以联系我
这座桥我不下经过40多次，很漂亮，双层大桥，我对当地很熟，
3288个就业机会，呵呵，数据很吉利，太多了吧，
现在在出这个项目的评估报告，有兴趣的可以联系我
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
银行要这个抵押权干什么?叫银行去找租客？叫银行去零售场所？原来就有RITE AID这样杂货小卖部，新租客能和它去竞争吗？
由于没有所有权，出租权就是使用权，这个不是产权，不是产权用什么去抵押？
租赁权与抵押权发生了冲突，根据“买卖不破租赁”原则，以保护承租人为第一原则 买卖让路租赁。
租赁权的设立先于抵押权。当租赁合同先成立时，其后出租人又以该出租物设定抵押时，该租赁关系继续有效。从本质上讲，该抵押权并无优先于所有权的效力，这样以前已存在的租赁权也可以对抗后设立的抵押权而继续有效存在“抵押人将已出租的财产抵押的，抵押权实现后，租赁合同在有效期内对抵押物的受让人继续有效。”
举例说明：
租赁人C先生当初与房东A先生签订了为期五年的租赁合同，到现在已经履行了两年。后来，C先生忽然接到A先生的通知，告知他租赁合同要解除，并要求他立即搬出。原因是，A先生在一年前因欠B公司一大笔债务，故将该房地产抵押给了B公司。现因债务到期无力偿还，所以双方商定以7000元/平方米价格转让给B公司抵押。C先生顿然感觉租房实在无保障。
但是根据法律，A先生与B公司在协商以抵押物折价时，若没有征得C先生的书面承诺放弃优先购买权，A先生是无权将该抵押物以折价或者变卖方式处分的。
银行要这个抵押权干什么?叫银行去找租客？叫银行去零售场所？原来就有RITE AID这样杂货小卖部，新租客能和它去竞争吗？
由于没有所有权，出租权就是使用权，这个不是产权，不是产权用什么去抵押？
租赁权与抵押权发生了冲突，根据“买卖不破租赁”原则，以保护承租人为第一原则 买卖让路租赁。
租赁权的设立先于抵押权。当租赁合同先成立时，其后出租人又以该出租物设定抵押时，该租赁关系继续有效。从本质上讲，该抵押权并无优先于所有权的效力，这样以前已存在的租赁权也可以对抗后设立的抵押权而继续有效存在“抵押人将已出租的财产抵押的，抵押权实现后，租赁合同在有效期内对抵押物的受让人继续有效。”
举例说明：
租赁人C先生当初与房东A先生签订了为期五年的租赁合同，到现在已经履行了两年。后来，C先生忽然接到A先生的通知，告知他租赁合同要解除，并要求他立即搬出。原因是，A先生在一年前因欠B公司一大笔债务，故将该房地产抵押给了B公司。现因债务到期无力偿还，所以双方商定以7000元/平方米价格转让给B公司抵押。C先生顿然感觉租房实在无保障。
但是根据法律，A先生与B公司在协商以抵押物折价时，若没有征得C先生的书面承诺放弃优先购买权，A先生是无权将该抵押物以折价或者变卖方式处分的。
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
第一租赁抵押权，基本上是没有保障，可以说是个骗局
第一租赁抵押权，基本上是没有保障，可以说是个骗局
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
这样啊，那曼哈顿东河滨项目也是罗，那这个侨外可真大胆！
这样啊，那曼哈顿东河滨项目也是罗，那这个侨外可真大胆！
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
谢谢！这个讲解很透彻！
而且这个项目除了商铺有商业价值外，公交枢纽怎么抵押？你卖的掉吗？你抵给银行银行敢要吗？
还有，要仔细看它的就业报告，多少是在商铺产生的，多少是在枢纽（公交站）产生的，多少是在桥体上产生的。桥体上的就业CIS认不认恐怕得好好衡量。
谢谢！这个讲解很透彻！
而且这个项目除了商铺有商业价值外，公交枢纽怎么抵押？你卖的掉吗？你抵给银行银行敢要吗？
还有，要仔细看它的就业报告，多少是在商铺产生的，多少是在枢纽（公交站）产生的，多少是在桥体上产生的。桥体上的就业CIS认不认恐怕得好好衡量。
E
EB5AEB5
Guest
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
[FONT=宋体]因众多客户希望将[/FONT]520[FONT=宋体]大桥项目与其他的大桥项目进行客观比较，先整理如下：[/FONT]
[FONT=宋体]因众多客户希望将[/FONT]520[FONT=宋体]大桥项目与其他的大桥项目进行客观比较，先整理如下：[/FONT]
附件
-
两个大桥项目的对比.jpg
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
个人非常不喜欢纽约市区域中心的拥有人，是两个律师。他们的做法习惯性欺诈。举个例子，曼哈顿东河项目能说EB-5投资只占总投资比例的大约25%这种样子，端到市场上来，没有点作假的习惯是不会那么设计的。没有点说谎的勇气，是不敢端到市场上来的。
事实上河滨的改造政府投入的钱与那个酒店没有任何财务连带关系。居然能说成是一个项目。我的想法，这种区域中心，出一个这类造假的项目，就不要相信了。
如果说大部分项目虽然看上去有点一厢情愿，自己出钱很少，但是至少相对还真实。比如American Life，虽然自己不放钱，但是至少能感觉是实在地端个项目出来，没有欺诈的影子，态度是愿意做你就做。
而这两个律师是纯粹的为了做EB-5而包装项目。感觉上这两个人是从良心上就坏了。
个人非常不喜欢纽约市区域中心的拥有人，是两个律师。他们的做法习惯性欺诈。举个例子，曼哈顿东河项目能说EB-5投资只占总投资比例的大约25%这种样子，端到市场上来，没有点作假的习惯是不会那么设计的。没有点说谎的勇气，是不敢端到市场上来的。
事实上河滨的改造政府投入的钱与那个酒店没有任何财务连带关系。居然能说成是一个项目。我的想法，这种区域中心，出一个这类造假的项目，就不要相信了。
如果说大部分项目虽然看上去有点一厢情愿，自己出钱很少，但是至少相对还真实。比如American Life，虽然自己不放钱，但是至少能感觉是实在地端个项目出来，没有欺诈的影子，态度是愿意做你就做。
而这两个律师是纯粹的为了做EB-5而包装项目。感觉上这两个人是从良心上就坏了。
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
有道理，今天去听推介会感觉很差。NYCRC的头啥实质的也没讲，尽是扯；建筑公司的甚至拿了个安全帽去作秀。唯一让人觉得朴实的是miller mayer的律师。
最后连问答环节都省了，QW直接宣布只剩10个名额了，欲购从速。
这个paul levinsohn，从履历看，起初是做中学老师，后来做律师，之后是华尔街和地产投机，现在玩EB-5。
Paul Levinsohn, Esq.
Mr. Levinsohn is an attorney and businessman involved in numerous real estate and private equity transactions over the past 15 years. He owned, developed, and acted as counsel for real estate projects throughout the New York metropolitan area including single-family homes, apartment and commercial buildings. Over the past ten years, Mr. Levinsohn has acquired and sold more than 200 retail commercial properties to public REITs and individuals. Mr. Levinsohn’s experience also includes negotiating and obtaining financing for a diverse range of real estate investments.
In addition to his background in real estate, Mr. Levinsohn has conducted a variety of private equity transactions. In 2004, he and other investors acquired and privatized one of the largest convenience store and gas station chains in the northeastern section of the United States. The company, previously listed on the American Stock Exchange, licenses or operates 290 stores in three states. Mr. Levinsohn sold his position in the company in early 2008. Recently, Mr. Levinsohn, along with other investors, purchased the assets of a New England-based nutritional supplement company, which sells its products to national retailers such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS.
Mr. Levinsohn’s career also includes public service. In 2002, he was appointed Chief Counsel to the Governor of New Jersey. Under this post, Mr. Levinsohn oversaw a staff of twenty-one attorneys and coordinated all legal operations for the Governor’s Office. From 1995 to 1997, Mr. Levinsohn served as a law clerk for Judge Anne E. Thompson, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Prior to entering law school, Mr. Levinsohn was a charter corps member of Teach for America, a national teacher corps program that places teachers in rural and inner-city school districts. While participating in the program, he taught American History in a high school in Warren County, North Carolina.
Mr. Levinsohn received his undergraduate degree from Duke University. He also earned his J.D. and M.A. (Political Science) from Duke University. While in law school, Mr. Levinsohn was a member of the school’s Law Review, the Duke Law Journal. Mr. Levinsohn was appointed to the Duke University Board of Trustees where he served a three-year term.
有道理，今天去听推介会感觉很差。NYCRC的头啥实质的也没讲，尽是扯；建筑公司的甚至拿了个安全帽去作秀。唯一让人觉得朴实的是miller mayer的律师。
最后连问答环节都省了，QW直接宣布只剩10个名额了，欲购从速。
这个paul levinsohn，从履历看，起初是做中学老师，后来做律师，之后是华尔街和地产投机，现在玩EB-5。
Paul Levinsohn, Esq.
Mr. Levinsohn is an attorney and businessman involved in numerous real estate and private equity transactions over the past 15 years. He owned, developed, and acted as counsel for real estate projects throughout the New York metropolitan area including single-family homes, apartment and commercial buildings. Over the past ten years, Mr. Levinsohn has acquired and sold more than 200 retail commercial properties to public REITs and individuals. Mr. Levinsohn’s experience also includes negotiating and obtaining financing for a diverse range of real estate investments.
In addition to his background in real estate, Mr. Levinsohn has conducted a variety of private equity transactions. In 2004, he and other investors acquired and privatized one of the largest convenience store and gas station chains in the northeastern section of the United States. The company, previously listed on the American Stock Exchange, licenses or operates 290 stores in three states. Mr. Levinsohn sold his position in the company in early 2008. Recently, Mr. Levinsohn, along with other investors, purchased the assets of a New England-based nutritional supplement company, which sells its products to national retailers such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS.
Mr. Levinsohn’s career also includes public service. In 2002, he was appointed Chief Counsel to the Governor of New Jersey. Under this post, Mr. Levinsohn oversaw a staff of twenty-one attorneys and coordinated all legal operations for the Governor’s Office. From 1995 to 1997, Mr. Levinsohn served as a law clerk for Judge Anne E. Thompson, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Prior to entering law school, Mr. Levinsohn was a charter corps member of Teach for America, a national teacher corps program that places teachers in rural and inner-city school districts. While participating in the program, he taught American History in a high school in Warren County, North Carolina.
Mr. Levinsohn received his undergraduate degree from Duke University. He also earned his J.D. and M.A. (Political Science) from Duke University. While in law school, Mr. Levinsohn was a member of the school’s Law Review, the Duke Law Journal. Mr. Levinsohn was appointed to the Duke University Board of Trustees where he served a three-year term.
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
首先我声明，对Paul和George的看法纯属我个人看法。我只是憋不住想讲出来。因为我的确认为他们有欺诈性。但是毕竟这是我个人看法。希望大家还是以自己利益出发，仔细考察项目。
大家也能看出我个人不喜欢American Life自己不冒险的做法，但是我认为他们还真实。但对于纽约市区域中心，这些人是不负责的人。律师会早将自己的XX擦干净，即使今后投资者如果认为被误导了，想找他们，告他们是绝对不会有结果的。小心这个区域中心，还包括韩国人的时代广场酒店的项目。
以上均为非常主观的个人意见。
首先我声明，对Paul和George的看法纯属我个人看法。我只是憋不住想讲出来。因为我的确认为他们有欺诈性。但是毕竟这是我个人看法。希望大家还是以自己利益出发，仔细考察项目。
大家也能看出我个人不喜欢American Life自己不冒险的做法，但是我认为他们还真实。但对于纽约市区域中心，这些人是不负责的人。律师会早将自己的XX擦干净，即使今后投资者如果认为被误导了，想找他们，告他们是绝对不会有结果的。小心这个区域中心，还包括韩国人的时代广场酒店的项目。
以上均为非常主观的个人意见。
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
据说申请人反映，NYCRC的布鲁克林NBA网队球馆项目，已经有人I-526被拒，原因是项目的问题。
拒绝理由：项目实际投资问题，以及与产生的就业人数的必然联系问题。大量的投资与项目实际没有关系。
据说申请人反映，NYCRC的布鲁克林NBA网队球馆项目，已经有人I-526被拒，原因是项目的问题。
拒绝理由：项目实际投资问题，以及与产生的就业人数的必然联系问题。大量的投资与项目实际没有关系。
回复: 乔治华盛顿大桥公交枢纽和基础设施建设项目怎么样？
据说申请人反映，NYCRC的布鲁克林NBA网队球馆项目，已经有人I-526被拒，原因是项目的问题。
拒绝理由：项目实际投资问题，以及与产生的就业人数的必然联系问题。大量的投资与项目实际没有关系。项目有问题为什么不是全部被拒，而是有人I-526被拒？真有申请人向你反映吗？
据说申请人反映，NYCRC的布鲁克林NBA网队球馆项目，已经有人I-526被拒，原因是项目的问题。
拒绝理由：项目实际投资问题，以及与产生的就业人数的必然联系问题。大量的投资与项目实际没有关系。项目有问题为什么不是全部被拒，而是有人I-526被拒？真有申请人向你反映吗？
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
