引言：TEA的基本定義為：人口少于2萬的城市郊區(qū)或失業(yè)率高于全國平均水平150%的地區(qū)。于是人們形成這樣的印象，TEA就是貧困地區(qū)。很多人更疑問，為什么像紐約曼哈頓這樣的地區(qū)會(huì)是TEA地區(qū)?下面推薦閱讀的這篇文章提供了解釋這個(gè)問題的要點(diǎn)，就是：1. 繁華但失業(yè)率高的地區(qū)可以是TEA;2. 高失業(yè)率是可以通過組合不同的就業(yè)統(tǒng)計(jì)區(qū)塊而產(chǎn)生;3. 這種組合由州政府進(jìn)行，不同的州政府有不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，美國移民局是認(rèn)同州政府的組合結(jié)果的。

　　原文作者：Suzanne Lazicki 美國EB-5項(xiàng)目文案策劃專家，以下為兆龍移民原文翻譯：

　　對(duì)于EB-5美國投資移民計(jì)劃來說，每過幾年都會(huì)出現(xiàn)關(guān)于目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)(TEA)的使用和定義的爭(zhēng)論。有人(例如最近的《西雅圖時(shí)報(bào)》記者)會(huì)關(guān)注那些建造在富人聚集的市中心區(qū)域而使用EB-5投資款的豪華酒店，并且會(huì)質(zhì)疑該等項(xiàng)目的可行性。諸如此類的項(xiàng)目幾乎總能獲得以50萬美元為累加單位的EB-5投資款(美國國務(wù)院數(shù)據(jù)顯示，歷史上的區(qū)域中心投資極少有以100萬美元為門檻的)，而最低50萬美元的投資金額則取決于項(xiàng)目是否位于TEA范圍內(nèi)�！段餮艌D時(shí)報(bào)》認(rèn)為，TEA地區(qū)50萬美元的投資額成為了被某些人利用的漏洞，這些人擅自將高失業(yè)率和低失業(yè)率地區(qū)捏合成一個(gè)TEA，然后在指定區(qū)域的繁華地段開發(fā)項(xiàng)目。該報(bào)編輯認(rèn)為，EB-5美國投資移民計(jì)劃創(chuàng)建者的本意是將EB-5投資款投入到那些經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條的社區(qū)，但對(duì)于如何定義TEA并沒有形成統(tǒng)一的指導(dǎo)方針，而且各州參與TEA指定也存在問題。這些問題都值得考慮一番。

　　首先，“目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)”一詞的確有固定的定義，該定義已由美國國會(huì)通過法律予以明確并在美國移民局的規(guī)程中得到了詳細(xì)闡述。該詞并非僅由各州進(jìn)行自行定義，也絕非等同于“經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條區(qū)域”。根據(jù)創(chuàng)建了EB-5美國投資移民計(jì)劃的1990年《移民法》的定義(僅局限于該法定義)，“目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)”一詞的含義是，“在投資發(fā)生之時(shí)，一個(gè)農(nóng)村區(qū)域或一個(gè)高失業(yè)率(至少高于全國平均水平的150%)地區(qū)”，及“在投資發(fā)生于目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)內(nèi)的情況下，司法部長(zhǎng)可以依據(jù)小節(jié)(A)限定一個(gè)低于(i)款規(guī)定的投資數(shù)額(但不得低于該數(shù)額的一半)(詳見1990年《移民法》PDF件第21-22頁)”。美國移民局的規(guī)章和政策反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)了這一法定定義，明確了最低投資金額，并闡述了有關(guān)指定確認(rèn)的實(shí)際問題(詳見《EB-5政策備忘錄》第7-8頁的討論)。

　　由于TEA定義已被寫入法律，因此改變定義便成為了一項(xiàng)法定事宜，且需要與國會(huì)代表進(jìn)行討論。但了解一下TEA定義的原本意圖還是值得的。1990年，美國國會(huì)決定根據(jù)具體就業(yè)情況(農(nóng)村地區(qū))來對(duì)EB-5美國投資移民計(jì)劃的TEA地區(qū)進(jìn)行定義。國會(huì)原本也可以采用貧困水平、犯罪率、教育程度、出口率、GDP增長(zhǎng)率、營業(yè)稅或其它旨在使經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條地區(qū)受益的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但最后國會(huì)選擇的是失業(yè)率。一個(gè)中位家庭收入達(dá)到3萬美元且失業(yè)率為7%的地區(qū)目前不能被認(rèn)定為TEA地區(qū);而另一個(gè)中位家庭收入達(dá)到10萬美元且失業(yè)率為15%的地區(qū)則可以被認(rèn)定為TEA地區(qū)。顯然，TEA的意圖是鼓勵(lì)在高失業(yè)地區(qū)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)。為窮人創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)以及將投資置于貧困地區(qū)同樣是值得追求的目標(biāo)，但國會(huì)偏偏沒有把這些目標(biāo)寫進(jìn)EB-5法律。

　　盡管法律和規(guī)章對(duì)TEA進(jìn)行了定義，但具體實(shí)施還需要各州的參與。各州可以選擇一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)并授予其指定TEA地區(qū)的權(quán)力，這需要充分的時(shí)間來判定(1)構(gòu)成目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)的合理地理邊界或政治分區(qū)，及(2)計(jì)算該地區(qū)的失業(yè)率使用何等數(shù)據(jù)。在審理EB-5申請(qǐng)案件時(shí)，美國移民局通常遵從各州的指定，但會(huì)復(fù)核所用的數(shù)據(jù)是否可被接受，以及所用的計(jì)算方法是否與各州勞工部確定的方法論一致。各州自行指定涉及的各種因素導(dǎo)致了各州對(duì)于TEA指定的差異。有些州立機(jī)構(gòu)會(huì)指定人口普查區(qū)組，而有些州則不會(huì);各州對(duì)于地理邊界的界定也會(huì)采用不同的方法;而且一系列不同的失業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)集都可能會(huì)被使用。(可參考Impact DataSource關(guān)于各州TEA指定異同的文章)因此，如果由一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)使用統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)使TEA指定變得更清晰、簡(jiǎn)單和公平。但同時(shí)也需要注意，由當(dāng)?shù)貐⑴c指定最重要的參考依據(jù)是什么。例如，如果根據(jù)人口分布和通勤模式進(jìn)行指定，TEA地區(qū)可以是一個(gè)包含郊區(qū)的很大一片區(qū)域，也可以是某個(gè)很小的居住區(qū)，或者還可以是在某條車流密集的高速公路旁某處的一片呈香蕉形的區(qū)域。當(dāng)?shù)氐慕?jīng)濟(jì)開發(fā)部門是可以有依據(jù)判定某個(gè)地區(qū)的TEA邊界是否合理的。但我無法設(shè)想某個(gè)聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)可以在美國任何地方找出曲奇成型刀形的TEA地理邊界。指定的州立機(jī)構(gòu)一般都是各州的勞工部或經(jīng)濟(jì)開發(fā)署，而這些機(jī)構(gòu)的利益都是與EB-5計(jì)劃的目標(biāo)相一致的，這就使得它們所做的裁決足夠合理。當(dāng)然項(xiàng)目開發(fā)商也會(huì)試圖劃分有利于其的地理邊界，但我實(shí)在想不出有比州立機(jī)構(gòu)更好的裁決者了。

　　根據(jù)目前的規(guī)定，如果某個(gè)地區(qū)的平均失業(yè)率保持高位，那么即便該地區(qū)的局部區(qū)域的失業(yè)率較低，該地區(qū)仍可能被認(rèn)定為TEA區(qū)域。如果是這樣的話，我們?cè)撊绾慰创�那些位于TEA失業(yè)率最低區(qū)域的EB-5美國投資移民項(xiàng)目?這樣的項(xiàng)目是不是顛覆了EB-5計(jì)劃的初衷?《西雅圖時(shí)報(bào)》認(rèn)為，位于西雅圖市中心TEA地區(qū)的EB-5美國投資移民項(xiàng)目并不合格。我們可以拿Potala Tower項(xiàng)目舉例。根據(jù)《西雅圖時(shí)報(bào)》的消息，這是一個(gè)位于Belltown高端居住區(qū)、造價(jià)高達(dá)1.9億美元的酒店項(xiàng)目。(事實(shí)上除了該報(bào)提供的消息，我對(duì)該項(xiàng)目一無所知)我認(rèn)為Belltown并非經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條區(qū)域，而緊鄰Potala項(xiàng)目的時(shí)尚人士也并不需要該項(xiàng)目創(chuàng)造的建筑就業(yè)或運(yùn)營就業(yè)崗位。而且，這些時(shí)尚人士也不太可能會(huì)接受這些就業(yè)崗位。相比之下，接受這些崗位的屋頂工、木匠、管家和管理人員更可能成為位于南部幾英里之外的較普通且失業(yè)率較高的居住區(qū)的居民。如果Potala Tower項(xiàng)目雇用西雅圖南部的居民，那么將西雅圖南部的居住區(qū)和Belltown一同視為目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)是否合理呢?這顯然是一個(gè)捏造出來的目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)，但如果Belltown周圍有能夠?qū)⒃谠摰貏?chuàng)造的就業(yè)和消費(fèi)隔離開來的屏障，那么從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來看是這么做是可行的。我們還可以試著將造價(jià)1.9億美元的Potala Tower項(xiàng)目的影響與可能會(huì)在西雅圖南部的蕭條地區(qū)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)、造價(jià)900萬美元的Econolodge項(xiàng)目的影響進(jìn)行比較。豪華酒店可能會(huì)成為更大的新雇傭方，但卻坐落于離大多數(shù)失業(yè)人群的居住區(qū)更遠(yuǎn)的地方。假設(shè)我代表的是西雅圖南部20%失業(yè)居民的利益，且不得不代表他們選擇支持其中一個(gè)項(xiàng)目——Potala或Econolodge，那么我必須仔細(xì)斟酌，甚至可能咨詢所在州的經(jīng)濟(jì)開發(fā)署。這不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問題，我會(huì)追究高檔商業(yè)不能位于下層街區(qū)的原因。設(shè)想，如果Belltown和西雅圖南部地區(qū)可以被合理且實(shí)際地稱為“地區(qū)”，而且Potala Tower可以坐落在西雅圖南部的高失業(yè)地區(qū)的話，那么我就不會(huì)如此不看好這個(gè)項(xiàng)目了。根據(jù)EB-5美國投資移民計(jì)劃現(xiàn)行的規(guī)定，一個(gè)位于TEA地區(qū)的EB-5項(xiàng)目不應(yīng)僅由于它的豪華特性或位于高端居住區(qū)這一事實(shí)而被否決，而否決的唯一原因只能是項(xiàng)目無法在高失業(yè)地區(qū)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。

　　或許也有人認(rèn)為現(xiàn)行的TEA規(guī)定設(shè)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)過低，使得太多地區(qū)都能被認(rèn)定為TEA地區(qū);或者認(rèn)為鑒于其它國家的投資者簽證門檻，50萬美元的EB-5投資額過低;或者認(rèn)為TEA定義錯(cuò)誤地將關(guān)注點(diǎn)聚焦在了失業(yè)上，而事實(shí)上有比失業(yè)更迫切需要關(guān)注的其它衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些觀點(diǎn)都是值得討論的。除非你沒有領(lǐng)會(huì)現(xiàn)有的TEA定義和規(guī)定，否則我想你不會(huì)認(rèn)為TEA定義和規(guī)定不存在、缺乏條理或在某些方面被顛覆了。為了避免無謂的爭(zhēng)論，不妨重讀一下Carolyn Lee寫的關(guān)于州立機(jī)構(gòu)指定EB-5目標(biāo)就業(yè)區(qū)的文章。

　　雖然我們目前討論的是有關(guān)TEA概念的誤解，但需要提醒的是，你也可以破費(fèi)雇人確認(rèn)你所在的區(qū)域是否可以被認(rèn)定為TEA地區(qū)。各州對(duì)于TEA指定存在的差異意味著，不存在統(tǒng)一的數(shù)據(jù)源或某個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的計(jì)算方法來可靠地判定你所在的區(qū)域是否屬于TEA地區(qū)，除非你所在的整個(gè)縣或MSA(大都會(huì)統(tǒng)計(jì)區(qū))失業(yè)率較高，或者你位于MSA以外的農(nóng)村區(qū)域(這樣的情況下不需要任何特別指定)。例如，如果你所在的州不指定人口普查區(qū)組并使用2013年美國勞工統(tǒng)計(jì)局或2011年美國社區(qū)調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)，那么購買一份根據(jù)2014年失業(yè)專用數(shù)據(jù)預(yù)測(cè)的符合要求的人口普查區(qū)組就不是那么明智的選擇了。如果對(duì)于你所在的區(qū)域是否屬于TEA地區(qū)有疑問的話，建議你向你所在地的指定機(jī)構(gòu)獲取政策信息。然后你就可以進(jìn)行TEA資格評(píng)估，并可考慮求助于那些研究你所在州地理區(qū)域規(guī)程和失業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)集的專業(yè)人士。

　　原文鏈接：

　　http://blog.lucidtext.com/2015/03/19/what-are-teas-and-how-do-they-work/

　　英文原文：

　　Every couple years, there’s a kerfuffle over the use and definition of the Targeted Employment Area (TEA) in the EB-5 program. People – recently Seattle Times journalists, for example – look at things like luxury hotels being built in wealthy downtown areas using EB-5 investment and ask wait a minute, is this right? Such projects nearly always get EB-5 investment in $500,000 increments (State Department stats show there’ve historically been very few Regional Center investments at the $1 million level), and the $500,000 reduced investment amount depends on the project being located within a TEA. The Seattle Times portrays the TEA reduced investment amount as a “loophole” being “exploited” by people who “gerrymander” a TEA by grouping high and low unemployment areas, then go on to develop a project in the prosperous part of the designated area. The Seattle Times editors believe that EB-5 program architects intended EB-5 investment dollars to be spent within depressed communities, that there aren’t centralized guidelines for defining TEAs, and that there’s a problem with state involvement in TEA designation. These points require some perspective.

　　First, the term “Targeted Employment Area” does have a set definition, articulated by Congress through law and elaborated by USCIS regulation. The term is not defined individually by states, and the term is not defined to equal “an economically depressed area.” The Immigration Act of 1990 that established the EB-5 program specifies that (in its own spelling): “the term ‘targetted employment area’ means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate)” and “-The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targetted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i)” (see PDF p 21-22 of IMMACT 1990). USCIS regulations and policy repeat this statutory definition, specify the reduced amount of capital, and elaborate practical issues in designation determinations (see the EB-5 Policy Memo p. 7-8 for discussion).

　　Because the TEA definition is in the law, changing the definition would be a statutory matter and a point to pursue with your Congressional representatives. But it’s worthwhile to look at the original intent. In 1990, Congress chose to define TEAs for the EB-5 program specifically in terms of employment (or rural areas). Congress could have defined TEAs based on poverty levels, crime levels, educational levels, exports, GDP growth rates, sales tax, or other metrics considered in other initiatives intended to benefit depressed areas, but it chose unemployment as the target. An area with median household income at $30,000 and unemployment of 7% would not currently qualify as a TEA; another area with median income at $100,000 and unemployment of 15% could qualify. The explicit intent with TEAs was to encourage job creation for high unemployment areas. Creating jobs for poor people and investing within poor neighborhoods are also worthy goals, but it happens that Congress did not choose to write such goals into the EB-5 law.

　　While the law and regulations define what constitutes a TEA, states are involved in implementation. Each state may choose an agency and give it authority to designate TEAs, which involves leeway to judge (1) appropriate boundaries of a geographic or political subdivision that constitutes the targeted employment area; and (2) which data set to use in calculating the area’s unemployment. In reviewing EB-5 petitions, USCIS generally gives deference to state designations, but double-checks that the data is acceptable and that calculations are consistent with methodologies established by the Department of Labor. The elements of state discretion lead to variation in TEA designations between states. Some state authorities will designate census tract groups and some won’t; states have different ways of deciding which geographic boundaries make sense; and a variety of unemployment data sets may be used. (Impact DataSource has a good article about state variation.) Just letting one agency decide for the nation using one yardstick would look cleaner, simpler, and more equal. But note what makes sense about local involvement. Based on population distribution and commuting patterns, for example, it might be reasonable to have a very large TEA area spanning certain suburbs, a very small one within a certain city neighborhood, and a banana-shaped one somewhere else along a busy highway. A local economic development agency could have a good basis for judging whether certain TEA boundaries make sense for the given region. I can’t visualize a federal agency coming up with one cookie cutter geography definition that fits from Alaska to Florida. Designated state agencies are typically labor departments or economic development authorities, which means their interests are aligned with the aims of the EB-5 program, making their discretion is as good as anyone’s. Of course project developers will try to draw geographic areas for their own advantage, but I can’t think of a better arbiter for this than the state authorities.

　　Under current rules, it’s possible to get TEA designation for an area whose average unemployment rate is high, even if parts of the area have low unemployment. So how do we feel about locating an EB-5 project in the healthiest part of the TEA? Would that subvert the intent of the EB-5 program? The Seattle Times suggests that TEA EB-5 projects in downtown Seattle fail the smell test. Let’s think about Potala Tower, which the Seattle Times describes as a $190 million hotel project in an upscale Belltown neighborhood. (Disclosure: I don’t know any more about this project than I learned from the Times.) I believe that Belltown is not depressed and that the hipsters living next door to the Potala project do not need the construction jobs or operations jobs that it will create. On the other hand, the hipsters next door probably won’t take the jobs. It seems more likely that the roofers and carpenters and housekeepers and managers who take the work will be residents of the less hip high-unemployment neighborhoods a few miles south. If Potala Tower would likely employ South Seattle residents, isn’t it reasonable to package those contiguous South Seattle neighborhoods with Belltown as a Targeted Employment Area? That’s gerrymandering, but could make economic sense, unless there’s a barrier around Belltown that isolates the jobs created and money spent there. And let’s consider the impacts of the $190 million Potala Tower project as compared with impacts of the $9 million Econolodge project that might be feasible to build smack within a depressed part of South Seattle. The luxury hotel would be a much larger new employer, but more distant from where most unemployed people reside. If I were advocating for those 20% unemployed residents of South Seattle and had to choose one project to encourage on their behalf, the Potala or the Econolodge, I’d have to consider carefully – maybe even in consultation with my good old state economic development authority. It’s not a simple question, and I wouldn’t bother asking why the upscale business can’t just locate to a downscale street. Assuming that Belltown+South Seattle can reasonably, practically be called “an area,” and that Potala Tower could make a dent in the high unemployment concentrated in South Seattle, I’m not getting bad whiffs off this situation. As the EB-5 program is currently set up, a TEA EB-5 project should not fail the smell test simply because it’s luxury or in an upscale neighborhood, but only if it seems unlikely to create jobs in a high-unemployment area.

　　It’s possible to argue that the current TEA rules set a bar that’s too low, allowing too many areas to qualify; or that the $500,000 reduced EB-5 investment amount is too low, considering investor visa thresholds in other countries; or that the TEA definition wrongly focuses on unemployment when other metrics may be more urgent today. Those points are worth debating. I don’t think you can argue that TEA definitions and rules do not exist or are incoherent or endemically subverted, unless you begin by not grasping what the existing definitions and rules are. To avoid debating from ignorance, consider re-reading Carolyn Lee’s article on State Designations of EB-5 Targeted Employment Areas.

　　And while I’m on the topic of TEA misconceptions, let me caution you about paying someone to “discover if your site qualifies as a TEA.” The variation among states means that, unless your entire county or MSA has high unemployment or you’re in a rural area outside an MSA (in which case, no special designation is required), there is no universal data source or one simple calculation that will reliably determine a TEA around your site. It’s not very helpful to buy a report predicting a favorable census tract combination based on proprietary 2014 unemployment data, for example, if your state won’t designate census tract groups and uses 2013 BLS/2011 ACS data. If in doubt about TEA possibilities for your site, I’d start by getting the policy from your area’s designated authority (there’s one list of designated agencies here). Then you can start assessing TEA qualification, and consider assistance from professionals who are current on your state’s geographic area procedures and unemployment data sets.