加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠

在加拿大

很多花费型就业模式的项目宣称项目的建筑周期超过两年，所以可以计算直接就业。投资人对这点要小心。保守的计算，不管任何情况，都不要计算直接就业人数，只要看，间接就业的人数是否 可以满足投资人的绿卡需要。 移民局对直接就业有明确的定义，建筑上的直接就业和移民局的直接就业的定义不是一样的。保守的做法，是建筑上的直接就业不要算在EB-5的就业里。 移民局的直接就业要求是每个直接就业为每周工作35个小时的全职工作。两个兼职工作不等于一个全职工作。经济报告里的建筑的直接就业可以是按FTE来算，两个兼职工作可以算一个全职工作。 在这个问题上，829时移民局和区域中心可以有打不完的口水仗，这样投资人的829绿卡就有风险了

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠“经济报告里的建筑的直接就业可以是按FTE来算，两个兼职工作可以算一个全职工作。” -----哪一个称职的EB-5经济学家会这么说？说话要有证据。 一百个、一万个兼职也不算一个全职就业。 ==========================================“829时移民局和区域中心可以有打不完的口水仗？”---------（别吓唬初学者好不好？瓜田李下的，免得人家说你另有目的？） ------829的时候移民局审核什么？对于在I-526阶段已经批准的基于商业计划书的就业分析报告，可以说是确定了一个方法论，一个如何计算就业的方法。既然花费型的就业模型已经得到了认可，通常情况下，项目的建筑硬成本花费是主要的Input。 在I-829阶段就是看output, 就是看你的投资是否依然存在，商业计划书是否按计划执行，资金花费是否到位。 RIMS II或者IMPLAN Pro3.0 在计算就业方面的经济影响时，实际上并不需要区分兼职和全职就业。而这两个就业模型是移民局和其他机构认可并一直采用的方法。 比如说，CMB模式一直以来都是用同一个模式，包括就业模式，都是花费型，用这种方式他们保持很高的I-829通过率，在和CMB面谈中，CMB表示以后还是会一直采用这个不变的模式。这些项目都是仅需证明间接就业人数，无需计算实际直接就业人数，CMB作为老牌的区域中心，I-829的以往通过率也摆在那里。 如果有打不完的口水仗，现今EB-5 I-829去条件的成功率怎么还在93%呢？这个又怎么解释呢？

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关 超赞 赏 C columbiaman 0$(VIP 0) 2562012-07-30#3 回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠小v说得很有道理

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠你知道什么叫FTE吗？ 工期不到3年，AAO拒绝计算建筑工程直接就业的EB-5的移民申请。The petitioner submits evidence that the construction project should begin in 2009 and be completed in 201 1. The petitioner concludes that CIMC will employ the necessary employees for more than 24 months on this single project alone and will roll these positions over to new projects. The director concluded that constructions workers utilized for a limited duration construction phase of less than three years could not serve to satisfy the employment creation requirement.As stated above, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stated that the AAO had not abused its discretion “in construing full-time employment to mean continuous, permanent employment.” Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. The alien in that case had not documented that the construction positions, while full-time for a given week, would be continuous rather than intermittent as the workers’ skills were needed. For example, the plan in that case indicated that the number of framers required would fluctuate month to month. The court concluded that the jobs “do not appear to qualify as permanent, full-time positions, but rather arise when building trade skills are needed during a phase of construction.” While only a district court decision, this decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. 345 F.3d at 683. The phrase “construction crew workers” is extremely vague. It is not known whether these employees include workers in concrete, framing, finish carpentry, masonry and roofing trades as in Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. Solely for purposes of employment creation in the context of section 203(b)(5) of the Act, while the individual filling the position need not remain in the position, the position itself cannot be intermittent. Without a more detailed plan of which type of construction workers would be required in each phase, we cannot determine which of those positions, if any, are continuous rather than intermittent. In light of the above, the business plan is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has created or will create the necessary continuous positions.​

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠RFE补材料的解释：移民局不接受直接的短暂的建筑工作。建筑工程不到3年的，都当作短期的建筑工作。只有间接就业才是可以算给EB-5。 USCIS does not accept or credit creation of direct temporary “construction jobs” within a business plan or economic job creation forecasts activities which involve a limited duration construction phase of less than 2 years unless the scope, complexity, and the ongoing construction phase must be fully sustained for all the construction phase jobs for 2 years or more with respect to the size, scope, nature, engineering/technology challenges and breadth of the project for example a massive-scale nuclear power facility, or major Dam or a giant oil refinery, or similar type of massive and expansive and major engineering project. Shorter term construction jobs less than three years in duration have been determined to be of such a short term in nature as to not be sustained and to decrease and disappear as the initial construction activities wind down to completion. Such shorter term construction jobs in many locations are seasonal at best. Nevertheless, for all capital investment expenditures for the construction phase, all capital-induced “down-stream” support activities and “indirect” jobs impacted and associated with the construction activities such as suppliers, transportation, engineering, and architectural services, maintenance and repair services, interior design services, manufacturing of components and materials, etc., may be factored into the calculations for creation of indirect jobs.

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠“经济报告里的建筑的直接就业可以是按FTE来算，两个兼职工作可以算一个全职工作。” -----哪一个称职的EB-5经济学家会这么说？说话要有证据。 一百个、一万个兼职也不算一个全职就业。 ==========================================“829时移民局和区域中心可以有打不完的口水仗？”---------（别吓唬初学者好不好？瓜田李下的，免得人家说你另有目的？） ------829的时候移民局审核什么？对于在I-526阶段已经批准的基于商业计划书的就业分析报告，可以说是确定了一个方法论，一个如何计算就业的方法。既然花费型的就业模型已经得到了认可，通常情况下，项目的建筑硬成本花费是主要的Input。 在I-829阶段就是看output, 就是看你的投资是否依然存在，商业计划书是否按计划执行，资金花费是否到位。 RIMS II或者IMPLAN Pro3.0 在计算就业方面的经济影响时，实际上并不需要区分兼职和全职就业。而这两个就业模型是移民局和其他机构认可并一直采用的方法。 比如说，CMB模式一直以来都是用同一个模式，包括就业模式，都是花费型，用这种方式他们保持很高的I-829通过率，在和CMB面谈中，CMB表示以后还是会一直采用这个不变的模式。这些项目都是仅需证明间接就业人数，无需计算实际直接就业人数，CMB作为老牌的区域中心，I-829的以往通过率也摆在那里。 如果有打不完的口水仗，现今EB-5 I-829去条件的成功率怎么还在93%呢？这个又怎么解释呢？点击展开... 你知道什么叫FTE吗？ 现今829去条件项目有93%通过率的就业模型是什么，你知道吗？ 你知道还有上千个829PENDING 的案例，这些人挂在那里无法按时去条件，你知道为什么吗？

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠你知道什么叫FTE吗？ 工期不到3年，AAO拒绝计算建筑工程直接就业的EB-5的移民申请。The petitioner submits evidence that the construction project should begin in 2009 and be completed in 201 1. The petitioner concludes that CIMC will employ the necessary employees for more than 24 months on this single project alone and will roll these positions over to new projects. The director concluded that constructions workers utilized for a limited duration construction phase of less than three years could not serve to satisfy the employment creation requirement. As stated above, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stated that the AAO had not abused its discretion “in construing full-time employment to mean continuous, permanent employment.” Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. The alien in that case had not documented that the construction positions, while full-time for a given week, would be continuous rather than intermittent as the workers’ skills were needed. For example, the plan in that case indicated that the number of framers required would fluctuate month to month. The court concluded that the jobs “do not appear to qualify as permanent, full-time positions, but rather arise when building trade skills are needed during a phase of construction.” While only a district court decision, this decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. 345 F.3d at 683. The phrase “construction crew workers” is extremely vague. It is not known whether these employees include workers in concrete, framing, finish carpentry, masonry and roofing trades as in Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. Solely for purposes of employment creation in the context of section 203(b)(5) of the Act, while the individual filling the position need not remain in the position, the position itself cannot be intermittent. Without a more detailed plan of which type of construction workers would be required in each phase, we cannot determine which of those positions, if any, are continuous rather than intermittent. In light of the above, the business plan is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has created or will create the necessary continuous positions.​点击展开... 你说你连二三都分不清，你都二到什么程度了... full-time employment==FTE

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关 超赞 赏 M maslink007 0$(VIP 0) 572012-07-31#8 回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠继续解释清楚

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠你提供的CIMC上诉AAO失败的案例正好是说明：非区域中心的项目，在I-829阶段去条件有多难！3个人的小项目，每人被要求出资100万美元！（移民局不认可其TEA资格） 附件是AAO拒绝的决定和理由，有兴趣的可以去翻翻更多的早期AAO否决的反面教材，差不多全是非区域中心的自主投资移民项目。（原因在于自己在那里瞎摸索地搞？） According to the record, the new commercial enterprise involves three investors who will be seeking benefits pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act. Thus, for all three investors to qualify, the new commercial enterprise must create at least 30 new positions for qualifying employees. Section 203(b)(5)(D) of the Act, as amended, now provides:Full-Time Employment Defined - In this paragraph, the term 'full-time employment' means employment in a position that requires at least 35 hours of service per week at any time, regardless of who fills the position.============================================ 案件全景传真： Initially, the petitioner submitted a business plan indicating that CIMC would begin hiring in 45 days and within the next two years would hire a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and President, a Vice President of Marketing, a Vice President of Operation, a Vice President of Business Development/Corporate Secretary, four clerks, one receptionist, two foremen and 22 constructioncrew workers. The petitioner is the Vice President for Marketing, the two other investors who are seeking or will seek benefits pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act fill the other two vice president positions. Another investor who owns 85 percent of the company but who is not seeking benefits pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act is the CEO. The plan does not include a specific time tablefor hiring the clerks, receptionist, foremen and construction crew workers and does not break down the type of construction workers, which can include carpenters, plumbers and electricians. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted CIMC's quarterly returns for all four quarters of 2008 reflecting employment increasing from 14 employees to 33 employees. While two of the 33 employees in the fourth quarter of 2008 do not show wages that can account for full-time employment at minimum wage for the full quarter, we acknowledge that two employees were added in December 2008 and, thus, cannot be expected to show wages for the full quarter. The petitioner also submitted Forms 1-9 for 37 employees. All of the Forms 1-9 are incomplete.Specifically, section two is blank, including the certification by the employer. Thus, these forms cannot establish that the employees are qualifying. On January 29, 2009, the director issued a notice of intent to deny advising that transitory or temporary jobs cannot serve to meet this criterion. In response, the petitioner references the memorandum from William Yates, Acting Associate Director of Operations, Amendments Affecting Adjudication of Petitions for Alien Entrepreneurs (EB5), HQ4016.1.3 (June 10, 2003). The petitioner notes that the 2003 memorandum states that the jobs need not be retained until a reasonable time after conditional visa issuance. The petitioner submits evidence that the construction project should begin in 2009 and be completed in 201 1. The petitioner concludes that CIMC will employ the necessary employees for more than 24 months on this single project alone and will roll these positions over to new projects. The director concluded that constructions workers utilized for a limited duration construction phase of less than three years could not serve to satisfy the employment creation requirement. The director also expressed concern that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form SS-4 completed for CIMC lists the principal activity for the business as real estate rather than construction. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that there is no authority that requires the jobs to last three years and that real estate, a broad term, includes construction among other activities. As stated above, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stated that the AAO had not abused its discretion "in construing full-time employment to mean continuous, permanent employment." Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. The alien in that case had not documented that the construction positions, while full-time for a given week, would be continuous rather than intermittent as the workers' skills were needed. Id. For example, the plan in that case indicated that the number of framers required would fluctuate month to month. Id. The court concluded that the jobs "do not appear to qualify as permanent, full-time positions, but rather arise when building trade skills are needed during a phase of construction." Id. While only a district court decision, this decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. 345 F.3d at 683. The phrase "construction crew workers" is extremely vague. It is not known whether these employees include workers in concrete, framing, finish carpentry, masonry and roofing trades as in Spencer, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1039. Solely for purposes of employment creation in the context of section 203(b)(5) of the Act, while the individual filling the position need not remain in the position, the position itself cannot be intermittent. Without a more detailed plan of which type of construction workers would be required in each phase, we cannot determine which of those positions, if any, are continuous rather than intermittent. In light of the above, the business plan is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has created or will create the necessary continuous positions. Moreover, as the Forms 1-9 are incomplete, they cannot establish that any of the hired employees are qualifying.

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关你说你连二三都分不清，你都二到什么程度了... full-time employment==FTE点击展开... FTE employment = full-time equivalent. 查查为什么是equivalent. 基本概念都是250。别的都不用讲了。 FTE Definition: (full time equivalent definition)The definition of FTE (full time equivalent) is the number of working hours that represents one full-time employee during a fixed time period, such as one month or one year. FTE simplifies work measurement by converting work load hours into the number of people required to complete that work.​FTE Calculation FTE calculation is a two step process that determines how many hours of work there are in a department and how many hours one full time employee works. The total workload hours are then divided by the working hours of one employee. This calculates the number of full time equivalents that are needed.​

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠哈哈哈，小V啊，FTE是FULL TIME EMPLOYEE？我建议世贸通还是雇我吧~~

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠Full-time employment means employment of a qualifying employee by the new commercial enterprise in a position that requires a minimum of 35 working hours per week. In the case of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, "full-time employment" also means employment of a qualifying employee in a position that has been created indirectly from investments associated with the Pilot Program. 哪个区域中心的项目会去计算全职就业的等价物？移民局从未说过可以使用什么什么等价物计算方法来估算全职就业，USCIS一直要求拿出tax report、W-2表、I-9表，以及probative evidence of the number of new direct full time(35 hours oer week) jobs for qualified employees whose positions have been created as a result of the alien's investment. Although the generally accepted human-resources meaning for the "E" in FTE is "equivalent", the term is often overloaded in colloquial usage to indicate a "direct, as opposed to contract, full-time employee". As in "Jane is an FTE, whereas Ralph is a contractor". So Jane is a regular employee, and Ralph works only under contract, perhaps only with irregularity. The term WYE is often used instead of FTE when describing the contractor work. WYE stands for work year equivalent. 不管是FTE还是WYE，对于采用每周35小时的情形，移民局是通过就业岗位分享（job-sharing arrangement）的要求加以规范的。 这一定义不包括兼职职位的组合或者全职等值（FTE)的组合，即使相结合时，达到每周35小时的要求。就业岗位必须是永久性的，全职的和恒定的。 A job-sharing arrangement whereby two or more qualifying employees share a full-time position will count as full-time employment provided the hourly requirement per week is met. This definition does not include combinations of part-time positions or full-time equivalents even if, when combined, the positions meet the hourly requirement per week. The position must be permanent, full-time and constant. The two qualified employees sharing the job must be permanent and share the associated benefits normally related to any permanent, full-time position, including payment of both workman’s compensation and unemployment premiums for the position by the employer. 你有胆子去使用one full-time employee during a fixed time period, such as one month or one year？一个月的FTE你也敢用？

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关哈哈哈，小V啊，FTE是FULL TIME EMPLOYEE？我建议世贸通还是雇我吧~~点击展开... 说话是为了让人听懂的，如果会产生歧义，就应该避免使用缩略语。 说实话，做区域中心项目的移民公司是不会去研究尚处于学术讨论的Full Time Equivalent的，我们就以移民局官方网站的东西为指导，看“就业岗位分享安排”。 请看2012年7月3日改版的移民局网站。 http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=facb83453d4a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关 超赞 赏 因 因风飞过蔷薇 0$(VIP 0) 9382012-07-31#14 回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠论坛真是众生相啊~~有些人爱显摆专业是确实专业，比如马大姐；有些人不显摆但确实专业，比如村长；有些人想显摆但因为肚中没货还有自知之明，比如我；有些人爱显摆却肚中没货还偏偏爱装。。。。。

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠打酱油的路过

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠蔷薇，让我继续显摆一下，让我把话说完。RIMS II 模型统计的就业是不分全职，和兼职的。IMPLAN 模型可以转换成FTE（因为我曾经让我们的经济师做过这样的转换，这样数据更保守）。所以说，经济报告中的建筑上的直接工作人数是不可信的，因为这些工作不符合移民局对直接就业的定义。 The employment impact estimates from BEA’s RIMS II multipliers are simply one employed position at a firm, as measured by BEA. They are not full-time euivalents. The BEA data does not distinguish between full-time and parttime jobs, however, so the employment figures represent merely an estimate of how reported company payrolls are likely to change in response to changes in demand. Nonetheless, a common mistake in interpreting the RIMS II models is to confuse BEA “jobs” with Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) job impacts and employment statistics.​ 这个经济雪茄在自己的网站也劝区域中心和投资人不要计算直接就业的人数。这一点他却不在他的经济报告里标注。就象他网站说的，如果建筑工作统计直接就业，区域中心和投资人也要象直投项目一样，提交I-9表和W-2表。除非项目非常需要利用直接就业来凑人数融资，能不用直接就业最好。 但现在大部分的建筑花费型的项目，都是利用建筑的直接就业人数，把就业人数提高65%。最后到829阶段，项目方很难提供符合移民局要求的直接就业的证据，829阶段就非常危险。​ How are Construction Jobs Counted?​ We are probably asked that question more than any other. In general, it is always permissible to count the indirect and induced jobs from construction activity. These are calculated using the Expenditure Model. If, for example, construction expenditures for hard costs are $15 million, and output per construction worker in the county where the building is being constructed is $150,000, then 100 direct jobs would be created. These can't be counted, but the indirect and induced jobs, based on the IMPLAN multiplier, can be counted.​ The USCIS has ruled that if the construction project takes at least 2 years, direct jobs can also be counted. However, in order to use this method, you must show that the jobs are permanent. It is the position, rather than the person, that is important here. For example, if you were building a residential construction development with 100 homes, and an electrician worked (say) 2 weeks on each house but was employed continuously for 2 years, the job could be counted. Also, if two different electricians worked over this time span, the job could still be counted as long as the employment was continuous. By comparison, if you are building a shopping center and the site excavation team works for 4 months, the electricians for 6 months, the plumbers for 5 months, and so on, all those jobs would be considered temporary and could not be counted.​ Also, if you decide to use direct jobs, you must be able to produce W-2 and I-9 forms for each employee. Some contractors are reluctant to supply that information.​ The bottom line here is that unless you need the direct construction jobs to raise enough money, it is better not to count them. The major exception to this rule is for residential projects, where the workers go from one house (or condo, or apartment) to another over a period of several years. In those cases, we have been successful in counting direct jobs.​

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠Conclusion: The major cases, memos, and AAO decisions primarily addresses non-regional-center projects. However, today, the vast majority of I-526 petitions are submitted under the regional center program. Moreover, it is widely recognized that some USCIS adjudicators apply non-regional-center construction job rules to regional centers. The sheer magnitude of the EB-5 program calls for more transparent regulations and policies in the EB-5 arena. The EB-5 program has the potential to create even more jobs and alternative sources of investment capital - a "win-win" for all concerned. As a result, comprehensive, consistent, and predictable EB-5 adjudication guidelines are needed more than ever before.

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关 超赞 赏 E EB-5黑马 0$(VIP 0) 1,7562012-07-31#18 回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠怎么觉得中国中介和美国区域中心穿同一条开裆裤，对829风险避重就轻，做扣让中国投资人钻呢？？？

评论
回复: 建筑花费就业模型-小心用直接就业人数来鱼目混珠怎么觉得中国中介和美国区域中心穿同一条开裆裤，对829风险避重就轻，做扣让中国投资人钻呢？？？点击展开... 先给你记一笔，就怕你又改帖子，回头再慢慢找你算账~~

评论
不理闲事，不听废话，低头做事，抬头看路！均属个人观点，与所在机构无关RIMS II 模型统计的就业是不分全职，和兼职的。IMPLAN 模型可以转换成FTE（因为我曾经让我们的经济师做过这样的转换，这样数据更保守）。所以说，经济报告中的建筑上的直接工作人数是不可信的，因为这些工作不符合移民局对直接就业的定义。 The employment impact estimates from BEA’s RIMS II multipliers are simply one employed position at a firm, as measured by BEA. They are not full-time euivalents. The BEA data does not distinguish between full-time and parttime jobs, however, so the employment figures represent merely an estimate of how reported company payrolls are likely to change in response to changes in demand. Nonetheless, a common mistake in interpreting the RIMS II models is to confuse BEA “jobs” with Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) job impacts and employment statistics.​ 这个经济雪茄在自己的网站也劝区域中心和投资人不要计算直接就业的人数。这一点他却不在他的经济报告里标注。就象他网站说的，如果建筑工作统计直接就业，区域中心和投资人也要象直投项目一样，提交I-9表和W-2表。除非项目非常需要利用直接就业来凑人数融资，能不用直接就业最好。​ 但现在大部分的建筑花费型的项目，都是利用建筑的直接就业人数，把就业人数提高65%。------？最后到829阶段，项目方很难提供符合移民局要求的直接就业的证据，829阶段就非常危险。​点击展开... 这是你的一贯说话习惯？

  ·生活百科 过滤掉/开启峰值纹波信号？
·生活百科 需要获得CCEW和网络批准函