Investment Migration Council

Author: Niu Ltd

  • ‘Golden Visa’ Investment with Massive Improvement in 2016

    The inflow of funds into Portugal attracted by the country’s ‘golden visa’ fast-track residency programme for big foreign investors rose 87.5 percent last year to €874 million, according to figures released by the SEF Immigration Office.

    Total investment under the Residence Authorisations for Investment activity (ARI), as the scheme is officially known, was just over 875 million euros against a figure of 466 million euros in 2015.

    Overall, 1,414 ‘golden visas’ were issued under the programme.
    In December alone, 87 million euros came into the country, up 83.8 percent from the November total of €47 million and up 47 percent from December 2015.

    Of the 2016 total, the vast majority was in the form of property purchases, the threshold for which is €500,000.
    In December, 141 residence permits were issued, 131 of them for property purchases and 10 for capital transfers.

    Of the property purchases, four were for urban renovation projects – which have a lower threshold of €250,000 – bringing the 2016 total to nine.

    The first such permit was issued in July and the other four in October, after new rules came into effect in September 2015 offering special deals for urban rehabilitation and investment in science.

    In cumulative terms, since the ‘golden visa’ scheme was launched on 8 October 2012, total investment to December is 2.567 billion euros, of which 2.316 billion euros is for property purchases and 251 million euros for capital transfers.

    China is by far the country with the most citizens to have secured permits under the scheme, with 3,050 so far, followed by Brazil with 247, Russia with 148, South Africa with 137 and Lebanon with 72.

    Since 2013, a further 6,637 residence permits have been issued to family members of golden visa holders: 576 in 2013, then 2,395 in 2014, then 1,322 in 2015 and now 2,344 in 2016.

    In 2015, investment under the golden visa scheme slumped to about half the level of 2014, after a criminal investigation into suspected fraud in its administration prompted a crackdown and the programme’s suspension for several months.

    Source: theportugalnews.com

  • Turkey’s ‘Golden Visa’ Scheme Could Boost Foreign Investment

    Turkey’s real estate market is poised for a turnaround in international sales this year, thanks to a new citizenship law for foreign investors, said Spot Blue International Property in January, adding that the weakness of the Turkish lira will add to the appeal of investing in Turkish property.

    Foreigners who invest in property worth at least $1 million and hold it for a minimum of three years will be eligible for Turkish citizenship, according to the new law published by the Turkish Government on 12 January 2017. This is similar to the Golden Visa schemes offered to non-EU citizens wishing to be become resident in a number of European countries.

    Alternatively, Turkey’s new rules allow a foreign investor to become a Turkish citizen by either making a fixed capital investment in Turkey worth at least $2 million, buying $3 million worth of government bonds or depositing the same amount in a Turkish bank, or creating 100 jobs within Turkey.

    “After the slow-down in foreign sales in the second half of last year, caused mainly by the political coup and security concerns, this is a welcome positive move that should help attract buyers back,” said Julian Walker, director of Spot Blue. “The threshold of $1 million will suit wealthy Arab investors in particular. Last year, Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Russians bought the highest number of properties in Turkey. With this new law, we envisage this trend continuing, with interest from Syrians also growing.”

    In January, a senior Turkish Government official predicted the new law would trigger an extra $1billion in revenue from property sales in 2017. Most of the sales are expected to be in Istanbul, with other areas of interest including the south-eastern provinces of Gaziantep and Kilis, and the Black Sea region.

    “As a further sign of confidence, Turkey features on A Place in the Sun’s ‘Best Places to Buy in 2017’ list,” added Mr Walker. “They highlight Fethiye, Kalkan and Bodrum as particular hot spots with buyers.”

    Meanwhile, Turkey’s currency has continued to get cheaper for foreigners since the start of 2017, falling more than 10 per cent against the US dollar in the first two weeks of the year. This follows a year-on-year slump of 17 per cent during 2016.

    Most foreign buyers looking to benefit from the citizenship law begin their property search in Istanbul. Spot Blue is selling a selection of luxury apartments at a modern complex near Taksim Square in the very desirable Beyoglu district. Three-bedroom duplex units with terraces are available from $1,329,600, currently sold off-plan.

    Elsewhere, in the fashionable Bodrum area on Turkey’s Aegean coastline, Spot Blue is offering the chance to own one of two custom-built luxury villas on exclusive plots within walking distance of idyllic Koyunbaba Bay. The completed villa, fully furnished, is priced at circa $1,229,000.

    A third $1 million-plus option could be a luxury six-bedroom villa in the most sought-after area of Kalkan, namely Kalamar. The property has all mod cons, but the views alone are extra special.

     

    Source: cpifinancial.net

  • Politicians Demand Answers on Peter Thiel’s New Zealand Citizenship Since June 2011

    Politicians have called on the Government to explain why US tech billionaire Peter Thiel was granted New Zealand citizenship more than five years ago, saying there are many unanswered questions.

    The Department of Internal Affairs has confirmed Thiel became a citizen in 2011, but has not revealed the grounds for approving his application.

    It was revealed on Tuesday the German-born PayPal founder, who has bought at least three properties here, is a New Zealand citizen.

    A spokeswoman for the Overseas Investment Office said the 2015 purchase of a $13.5 million lifestyle block in Wanaka by Thiel’s company did not need to follow rules for the sale of sensitive land to foreign buyers due to Thiel’s citizenship.

    A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), which processes citizenship applications, said it did not usually comment on specific individuals but there was “sufficient public interest” in Thiel to merit comment.

    “The department confirms that Mr Thiel was approved New Zealand citizenship on 30 June, 2011.”

    However, the spokesman did not explain how Thiel obtained citizenship, saying only that all applications were considered “based on an assessment of relevant eligibility criteria”.

    Labour immigration spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said there were a number of unanswered questions about how Thiel became a citizen, given it was “very unlikely” he met the usual residency criteria.

    WEALTHY SHOULDN’T JUMP QUEUE – LABOUR

    “Someone of Mr Thiel’s international standing and wealth would find it difficult to hide in New Zealand, I think.

    “If the minister has determined that he is an exceptional person or he has exceptional circumstances, I think it’s very important for the minister to make it clear what those exceptional circumstances or conditions were.”

    Lees-Galloway said he was opposed to offering New Zealand citizenship to foreigners based on their wealth.

    “New Zealand has always considered itself an egalitarian country . . . in principle, to allow someone to jump the queue to citizenship because they are wealthy, I don’t think fits very well with New Zealand values.”

    NZ First leader Winston Peters said he did not wish to “cast aspersions” on Thiel, but wanted to know how he fit the criteria for citizenship, and whether a minister signed off the decision.

    “I’m not questioning anything about his engagement in New Zealand, but I think what we need to know was how was the citizenship requirement satisfied?

    “Because it doesn’t matter how big or how small you are, the requirements should be known.”

    GOVT SELLING CITIZENSHIP – PETERS

    Peters accused the Government of “selling citizenship” to rich foreigners who invested in New Zealand, without ensuring there were proper restrictions.

    “They’ve been out there with the so-called business investment category, which has been as you know an absolute farce . . . it has been the most loose regime you can imagine, and it’s virtually being changed and reformed and tinkered around with every year.”

    He was not opposed to a special category for investors, but said the regime needed integrity and proper monitoring.

    “If they’re coming in here and buying a $4 million house in Auckland, that is not a business investment. But if they’re buying a property inside the rules, which they’ve got proposals to create employment and expand exports from, it starts to fit what you might call best practice international description of foreign investment.”

    QUESTIONS DEFERRED

    A spokesman for Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne said Thiel became a citizen “years ago, long before he was minister”.

    “The first time he [Dunne] even heard his name was [Wednesday].”

    Stuff put a number of other questions to Dunne’s office, including how Thiel obtained citizenship, when, and under what category.

    However, his spokesman said the questions would be treated as an Official Information Act request, with a response required within 20 working days.

     

    Source: stuff.co.nz

  • No New Hungarian Residency Bonds to be Issued From April 2017

    The Hungarian Government Debt Management Agency (ÁKK) announced that the government will stop accepting requests for Residency Bonds on March 31stof this year.

    The Residency Bond system is a program that allows wealthy foreigners to essentially purchase a permit of permanent residency from the government in exchange for a deposit of 300,000 euros, which is later returned to the new Hungarian resident.

    While applications submitted before that date will still be processed, no new applications for residency bonds will be accepted after the end of March 2017.

    But although the government will no longer accept new applications, the program itself remains on the books, as the National Assembly has not voted to nullify the law authorizing the Residency Bond system. On a practical level, then, the Program has been indefinitely suspended, rather than legally ended.

    The program, which was started in June of 2013, has been no stranger to controversy; it was brought into the spotlight following Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s failed referendum on EU migrant quotas. While the referendum failed to gain a large enough turnout to be considered legally valid, in its aftermath far-right opposition party Jobbik seized upon the issue of the Residency Bond program as a way to paint the ruling Fidesz-KDNP coalition as being willing to “allow terrorists in for money.”

    Jobbik continued this theme into November, and demanded that Mr. Orbán include language banning Residency Bonds into his proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited quotas for the settlement of refugees. Fidesz and Mr. Orbán refused to assent to what they described as “blackmail” on the part of Jobbik, and in response the far-right party’s MPs abstained from voting, leaving the Prime Minister’s amendment short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass.

    In addition, while the government repeated over the course of 2016 that they would end the Residency bond program, they were slow in taking any steps to actually do so.

    The Residency Bond system is a program that allows wealthy foreigners to essentially purchase a permit of permanent residency from the government in exchange for a deposit of 300,000 euros, which is later returned to the new Hungarian resident.

    While applications submitted before that date will still be processed, no new applications for residency bonds will be accepted after the end of March 2017.

    But although the government will no longer accept new applications, the program itself remains on the books, as the National Assembly has not voted to nullify the law authorizing the Residency Bond system. On a practical level, then, the Program has been indefinitely suspended, rather than legally ended.

    The program, which was started in June of 2013, has been no stranger to controversy; it was brought into the spotlight following Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s failed referendum on EU migrant quotas. While the referendum failed to gain a large enough turnout to be considered legally valid, in its aftermath far-right opposition party Jobbik seized upon the issue of the Residency Bond program as a way to paint the ruling Fidesz-KDNP coalition as being willing to “allow terrorists in for money.”

    Jobbik continued this theme into November, and demanded that Mr. Orbán include language banning Residency Bonds into his proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited quotas for the settlement of refugees. Fidesz and Mr. Orbán refused to assent to what they described as “blackmail” on the part of Jobbik, and in response the far-right party’s MPs abstained from voting, leaving the Prime Minister’s amendment short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass.

    In addition, while the government repeated over the course of 2016 that they would end the Residency bond program, they were slow in taking any steps to actually do so.

    Officially, the government claims that the reason that they are ending the Residency Bond Program is that, since Hungary’s credit rating has been upgraded by ratings agency Moody’s, the country no longer has an economic need for the program. Despite this claim, however, the fact is that the program has not actually brought economic benefit to Hungary, since the interest paid by the government on the bonds is actually higher than market rates.

    And these interest rates, together with the way in which the bonds are administered, have helped turn the Residency Bond program into a source of political conflict and controversy. Because private individuals cannot apply for a residency bond on their own; rather, the application must be processed through one of one of five companies that have been approved by the Hungarian Parliament’s Finance Committee; four of these companies are based in countries that are popular as off-shore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Cyprus, and thus it is next to impossible to know who exactly runs these firms. In addition, the interest earned on the Residency Bonds does not go to the individual who paid for the bond, but rather to the company that processed it.

    In addition, these companies tend to charge service fees ranging from 45-60,000 euros. As a result of this, as of November 2016, these companies, which have processed 4033 applications, have made more than 110 billion forint (roughly 355 million euros) off the bond program. Since the companies keep both their service fee and the interest earned on the bond, these companies make around 90,000 euros on each bond they process.

    It is most likely, then, that the government has chosen to end the program due to an outbreak of corruption scandals surrounding the program. For example, in September it was discovered that the government was advertising the bond program to “middle and upper class” Africans (read our article here). Likewise, in China companies have been advertising the bonds at half-cost (150,000 euros), in exchange for which the company keeps the entire 300,000 at the bond’s expiration. And in addition, there have been reports of the Residency Bond program being used by foreign criminals seeking residency in Hungary, as in the case of one Russian citizen who, despite his tax-fraud conviction in Russia, was able to gain a Residency Bond. This was due to the fact that his “official” residence was in St. Kitts and Nevis, and a loophole in the bond program allowed him to submit proof of no prior crimes in the Caribbean tax-haven, which conveniently omitted his conviction in Russia.

    In all likelihood, the first 3 months will see a large increase in the number of residency bond applications now that the end date of the program has been announced; this can be gleaned from a similar phenomenon that occurred last year, when rumors about the program’s upcoming suspension caused a spike in applications in the last few months of 2016.

     

    Source: hungarytoday.hu

  • European Commission Publishes its Third EU Citizenship Report

    On the 24th January, the European Commission published its third EU Citizenship Report, presenting actions to ensure citizens can fully enjoy their rights when working, travelling, studying or participating in elections.

    Europeans are more than ever aware of their status as citizens of the Union and the proportion of Europeans wanting to know more about their rights continues to increase. Over 80 % of Europeans cherish, in particular, the right to free movement that allows them to live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU (December 2016 Eurobarometer). However, a lack of awareness means EU citizens do not fully exercise their right to vote in European and local elections and many are unaware of the right to consular protection. The 2017 EU Citizenship Report sets out the Commission’s priorities in further raising awareness of these rights and making them easier to use in practice.

    For more information:

     

    Source: European Commission

  • The Malta Key Employee Initiative

     

    Situated in the middle of the Mediterranean, as a full member of the European Union (EU), Malta is an ideal jurisdiction from which to do business within the EU and also outside the EU.  A number of international businesses have established a presence in Malta for this reason, taking full advantage of Malta’s strong legal and regulatory system, excellent commercial infrastructure and framework and competitive tax system.

     

    As a result of the increase in commercial activity in Malta, a number of Malta based companies require the services of employees from outside Malta.

     

    In this regard, the Maltese authorities have introduced the Malta Key Employee Initiative (KEI) to facilitate applications for residence and work permits for these employees.

     

    Eligibility

     

    The KEI provides a fast track service to highly specialised Third Country Nationals (ie non-EU/EEA/Swiss nationals) who are employed to work in Malta.

     

    The KEI is available for persons in managerial or highly technical posts that require relevant qualifications/experience relevant to the post in question.

     

    The KEI is also available to innovators involved in start-up projects which are endorsed by Malta Enterprise.

     

    Applications under the KEI may be submitted while the applicant is physically in Malta.  However, Third Country Nationals who require a visa to visit Malta must be in possession of such visa before travelling to Malta.

     

    Benefits

     

    Approved applicants will be issued with a residence and work permit in Malta valid for 1 year.  The permit may be renewed for a maximum of 3 years.

     

    The KEI facilitates the issuing of residence and work permits to prospective key employees within 5 working days from the date of submission of the application.

     

    Main Conditions

     

    The applicant must have an annual gross salary of at least €30,000 in Malta.

     

    The prospective employer must declare that the applicant has the necessary credentials to perform the relevant duties he/she is employed to do, and certified copies of relevant qualifications, warrants and/or relevant work experience will be requested.

     

    The applicant must be covered by a comprehensive full refund health insurance policy, showing all aspects being covered, which supports the applicant in the eventuality of requiring any type of medical assistance or hospitalisation during the whole period of stay in Malta.

     

    The applicant must lease or purchase a property in Malta in which to live during his/her stay in Malta.  If renting a property, a Rental Declaration Form must be submitted.

     

    Depending on the nationality of the applicant and the type of job being applied for, a relevant health screening might be required for approval from the Maltese authorities.

     

    Application Process

     

    Applications for the KEI follow the single application procedure for a single permit as regards residence and work, adopted in conformity with the relevant EU directive.

     

    A non-refundable application fee of €280.50 is payable to the authorities upon application.

     

     

     

    Author: Thomas Jacobsen
    Managing Director
    Papilio Services Limited

  • Citizenship-by-Investment Scheme ‘there to stay’ in Times of Renewed Economic Growth

    Traditionally, citizenship has been a legal status entailing the registration of an individual, including coming from a third country, with the government of a given country and his/her acceptance into that country’s political framework through legal means. Citizenship ‘by exception’ is the citizenship acquired in exceptional circumstances by an individual from another country, whereby the requirements normally prescribed by the citizenship laws of the given country for ordinary naturalisation are waived fully or partly. One way of acquiring citizenship by exception consists in investing a certain amount of money into the country whose citizenship is sought. Such a possibility exists in various areas of the world, including within the EU, in certain Member States such as in Cyprus.

    Cyprus’ citizenship by investment programme seems to be quite successful, if it is taken into account that it has yielded over €2.5 billion in revenues for the government since 2013 – the year the scheme was relaxed. Back then, new routes to fast-track citizenship were created in order to combat in particular the effects of the economic and financial crisis which hit Cyprus in March 2013. The Cypriot authorities had clearly indicated that they wanted to maintain and enhance the scheme, as a way to further encourage foreign direct investments and doing business in the country, notwithstanding any EU pressure. It now clearly appears that the scheme is ‘here to stay’ as Cyprus has now exited the macro-economic adjustment programme with international lenders since March 2016, has entered a new era of economic growth and is seeking as a result to create durable and at the same time flexible real market opportunities for potential investors.

    On 13 September 2016 the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cyprus further revised the scheme providing an overall more favourable framework to foreign investors and their immediate relatives. The minimum amount to be invested has now dropped from €5 million to €2 million through several routes, such as direct investment in immovable property, development and infrastructure projects on the island; the acquisition, incorporation or participation in businesses operating in Cyprus and lawfully employing at least five Cypriots or EU citizens; direct investment in alternative investment funds and other financial assets of Cypriot businesses or organisations operating in Cyprus and regulated by the Cyprus Stock Exchange Commission; or a combination of the above. The qualifying investment is therefore €2 million, out of which only €500,000 can be in governmental bonds. The emphasis has therefore shifted to investment in the real economy.

    Another significant change relates to the fact that investors must now hold a residence permit in Cyprus to qualify for citizenship, thereby reinforcing the link between the investor and the country while at the same time keeping it flexible enough. The application for residency is done, examined and issued at the same time as the application for the acquisition of citizenship is made. Immediate parents are entitled to apply along the investor himself, provided they also hold residence permits in Cyprus as described above and satisfy the requirement of a privately owned residence in Cyprus of a market value exceeding €500,000 plus VAT, which remains unchanged.

    For more information, please click here.

     

    Author: Dr. Stéphanie Laulhé Shaelou
    Academic and Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Law Alternative and Innovative Methods (ICLAIM)

  • Impact of the U.S. Election on EB-5

     

    Investors, regional centers, developers and others in the EB-5 industry have raised questions regarding the impact of the U.S. Presidential election on the U.S. EB-5 green card program. The short answer is that the impact on EB-5 is likely to be less than its impact on other areas of U.S. immigration law.

     

    At one level, everything remains the same. The Republicans controlled the Senate and House before; the Republicans still control the Senate and House. Senator Grassley was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Goodlatte was the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee before; they remain so. Representative Conyers will remain the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein replaces Senator Leahy as Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although she has been opposed to the EB-5 program, new Minority Leader Senator Schumer – a pro-EB-5 advocate – will have great influence. The key players in the Senate, in addition to Senators Grassley and Schumer, remain Senator Cornyn (Republican) and Senator Flake (Republican). No changes there. Senators Cornyn and Flake were not supporters of the President-Elect; and there is no reason to believe that their favorable positions on EB-5 would change as a result of the election.

     

    What’s changed is that President Obama is being replaced by President Trump. It has always been assumed that President Obama would almost certainly sign any EB-5 legislation that passes both Houses of Congress. His subordinates have played somewhat of a behind the scenes role in shaping proposed legislation, but it’s fair to say that his Administration has not provided any pro-EB-5 advocacy that is critical to the future of the EB-5 industry.

     
    In his place is President Trump. Although his views on so many aspects of U.S. immigration policy are well known, that does not apply to EB-5. What we do know is that the Trump Bay Street Project was the beneficiary of EB-5 capital, and one of his family members and chief advisors is a developer who has deployed EB-5 capital. We also know that a program such as EB-5 that has added hundreds of thousands of jobs for U.S. workers and brought billions of dollars of foreign direct investment to the U.S. is completely consistent with the Trump agenda.
     

    There are three other players with new prominence. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a long-time member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the nominee for Attorney General. During the campaign, it was obvious that Senator Sessions was the primary advisor to candidate Trump on immigration policy. One of his former staffers is the head of immigration policy implementation on the transition team, and his former chief of staff is likely to be a close advisor to President Trump in the new Administration. All of this is not good for progressive immigration policies; and, in fact, Senator Sessions has been the primary Senate supporter of immigration restrictionists. However, the one exception to his anti-immigration stances may be EB-5, since Senator Sessions is on record as supporting EB-5 projects in Alabama.
     

    Another key player is Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, who has been advising the immigration policy transition team. He has a history of being a restrictionist on all aspects of immigration policy. It is premature to know whether he will be setting his sights on the EB-5 program.
     

    Putting all this together, the key players in the Senate and House remain the same; and the role of the White House, if any, is not at all clear. With that as the big picture, we can focus on the immediate future of the EB-5 program and then venture, with trepidation, to a longer term prognostication.
     

    As was expected, the Regional Center EB-5 Program was extended to April 28 as part of the Continuing Resolution for all government programs. The next logical question is what do we expect will happen in the first quarter of 2017. Here the crystal ball gets cloudy.
     

    There are three possibilities.
    The least likely possibility is that Congress will let the program lapse. This was the least likely possibility before the election, and there is nothing in the election results that makes it more likely now. In addition to the fact that the program has many key advocates in Congress and that lapsing of the program would create widespread disruption of many projects around the country, the chances of a lapse are minimalized as long as EB-5 remains tied to the three other U.S. immigration programs requiring extension – E-Verify, religious workers and doctors. Each of those programs has important advocates who would want to make certain the programs don’t lapse. Most especially, E-Verify (an employer compliance program) has been mentioned on a number of occasions by candidate Trump as an important part of his immigration enforcement policy.
     

    The next possibility is a replay of 2016 – the program gets extended through September 30, 2017 without any substantive changes. Before the election, that was an unlikely scenario. If anything, the election results make this possibility at least slightly more likely. There are at least two reasons. The new Administration with its totally new set of priorities may keep the Senate Judiciary Committee’s agenda fully packed in the first quarter of 2017, leaving little or no time for a substantive debate on EB-5. This includes the likely confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Justice and many other federal appointments.
     

    Another reason why a debate on substantive provisions of EB-5 immigration law might be deferred – and this is purely speculation – would be if the Trump Administration, which is making reform of the immigration laws a priority, might prefer that no substantive debate on any immigration issue go forward until the Administration’s new team has a chance to devise its overall immigration policy strategy.

     
    The most likely possibility before the election – and still the most likely possibility – is that, during the first four months of 2017, Congress will finally agree on comprehensive EB-5 legislation, which would include a long term – probably 5 or 6 year – extension. Many in Congress want to get this issue behind them. If Senator Grassley and Congressman Goodlatte (advocating for rural interests) and Senators Schumer, Cornyn and Flake (advocating for urban interests) can bridge the rural-urban divide, there will be a new law and a long-term EB-5 extension.
     

    To end on a pessimistic note, a significant impact of the election is to diminish the chances of a legislative fix to the substantial EB-5 quota backlog for Chinese investors. While many have been advocating – and will continue to advocate – for inclusion in the EB-5 bill of a provision to recapture unused employment-based immigrant numbers (and possibly to apply those numbers to projects of special interest to the Congress, such as infrastructure, high poverty areas, manufacturing, etc.), the chances of that legislative strategy being successful in the near term remain somewhat slim.
     

    Before the election, the greatest hope for addressing the backlog problem was Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which was likely to be one of the earliest initiatives of the Clinton Administration. Comprehensive Immigration Reform – and certainly comprehensive immigration reform that would increase immigrant numbers – is now no longer a proposition that can be considered a realistic option in the near future. Also, any executive action to alleviate the problem is likely off the table. If legislative recapture through the EB-5 bill cannot be accomplished, litigation on the issue of improper counting of family members toward the 10,000 numbers could become the only option.

     

     

    Author: H. Ronald Klasko
    Managing Partner
    Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

  • St Lucia Citizenship-by-Investment Program – January 2017 Changes Will Lead to Increased Application Numbers

     

    The 28th May 2015 was a proud day for the Caribbean countries of Dominica, Grenada and St Lucia, as it was on this day that they signed visa waiver agreements with the European Union. They joined Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis, who were both granted visa waiver status by the EU in 2009.

     

    The immediacy of the overnight introduction of the new-found freedoms of travel into the Schengen area for citizens, belied the fact that it had taken many years of regional cooperation and discussions through CARICOM and the OECS to reach this point.

     

    Fast forward 18 months and the commerciality of the Caribbean Region’s citizenship-by-investment market is continuing to shape economic and political decisions. Recently we have seen major changes to all five of the programs, the most striking being St Lucia, who on 22nd December 2016, made significant structural changes, which included substantial reductions to the required investment levels to their Contribution Investment option. The changes will lead to increased application numbers and were as follows:

     

    • The removal of the requirement to demonstrate financial resources in the minimum sum of US$3m.

     

    • The removal of the annual cap of 500 applications per year.

     

    • It is no longer a requirement to visit St Lucia or an Embassy, High Commission or Consular Office to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance. The applicant can now provide a sworn declaration before an Attorney-at Law, Notary Royal, Notary Public, Consular Officer of Saint Lucia or Honorary Consul of Saint Lucia.

     

    • The Government Bond investment option has been reinstated with the addition of an administration fee of US$50,000 per application.

     

    • The immediate introduction of reduced amounts for their Contribution Investment option to the Economic Fund. The new Contribution Investment amounts are as follows:

     

    • Single Applicant: US$100,000.00 (previously US$200,000)

     

    • Applicant with spouse: US$165,000.00 (previously US$235,000)

     

    • Applicant with spouse and up to 2 dependents: US$190,000.00 (previously US$250,000)

     

    • Additional dependents: US$25,000.00 each

     

    • The Citizenship by Investment Board will in future retain 20% of Contribution Investment amounts to the National Economic Fund to enable effective marketing and promotion of the programme.

     

    In addition to the changes above, which came into force on the 1st January 2017, the Prime Minister also announced that early in 2017 another citizenship qualification option will be introduced. Namely, the establishment of a Saint Lucia Sovereign Wealth Fund into which applicants can invest for a stipulated period of time.

    The fund will be managed by professional investment managers and will provide investors with a greater assurance of the return of their capital, and a future return on their capital, than currently exists with the real estate option in the Caribbean.

     

    For potential investor’s this is great news and continues to make such programs, and the freedoms that they bring, more accessible to greater numbers of potential applicants.

    For the Governments, a time for reflection on where such a market led approach may ultimately lead and what collaborative steps may be taken to prevent the on-going future erosion of sustainable capital inflows into the region through this well-established route.

     

     

     

    Author: Mark Stannard IMCM
    Managing Director
    Newlands Global Citizenship Ltd

     

  • Becker’s Long Shadow: Close Call for Australian ‘Uniform’ Residence-By-Investment Scheme?

     

    High-end investor Residence-by-investment (‘RBI’, in form of Significant- and Premium Investor Visa)[1]  have long been but one segment within the overall choice of Australian immigration options: Its main systemic concern is the integration and regulation of the large influx of global migrants, keeping the overall intake under political control, allowing the Minister for Immigration to set cut-off figures to suspend applications for a given period.[2]

     

    It may have gone unnoticed that the Australian Government has until very recently, to be precise, until September 2016, considered -but not adopted- a shift of its entire visa system toward a singular charge-based regime for the right to permanent residence:[3] Its think tank, the Australian Productivity Commission, has issued the Migrant intake into Australia inquiry, which included a fresh consideration of the ‘Becker proposal’:[4] Its stated goals are to overcome fragmented, labyrinthine immigration law- and policy, as well as to raise revenue, by replacing traditional immigration venues such as skilled-based selection with a mercantile approach. In detail, Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate, has put forward the argument that a market-based system would attract skilled, productive, entrepreneurial persons, disproportionately young, most likely to become positive contributors to an economy.[5] Since the late 1980s, his suggestions are based on a ‘fair and equal’ approach to immigration, namely, the outright sale of the right to reside and become a citizen for a set fee equalling U.S. $50,000, payable by all migrants (but likely excepting humanitarian migration). Once implemented, such scheme may generate up to U.S. $50 Billion revenue per 1 Million migrants, and can be coupled with a repayable loan scheme for those without the economic means. Similar possibilities suggested include the auctioning off of citizenship.

     

    What seems to make these venues differ to existing RBI-schemes that target high-net worth individuals (HNWI) as a small fraction of migrants are perhaps their generality and uniformity of application. The recent Australian inquiry would then indicate a currently dormant potential toward comparably low-cost, highly numbered direct or general ‘investment’ migration, in form of fees or charges. Whether the terminology of ‘investment migration’ is chosen correctly here, the following seems safe to say: Should a nation implement Becker, thus opening a charge-based approach to the entirety of its immigrants, the impact on the global market for residence and citizenship, as well for its industry, could be profound. If anything, a looming wave of change may function as a reminder that governments are able and willing to consider the broader population as a direct ‘investor’ basis.

     

     

    Author: Michael B. Krakat IMCM
    Solicitor Supreme Court of Queensland & High Court of Australia,
    Investment Migration Practice, Stolar Law, and Australian Postgraduate Award Research Scholar, Bond University

     

     

    [1] The Significant Investor Visa of 5 Million AUS$, as well as the Premium Investor Visa of 15 Million AUS$, see https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/188- (accessed 15. January 2017).

    [2] Sections 84 and 85 of the Migration Act 1958 (Commonwealth), and see for instance in Vrachnas, Bagaric, Dimopoulos, Pathinayake, Migration and Refugee Law, Principles and Practice in Australia (3rd ed., 2012) Cambridge University Press, at 13-15, 26.

    [3] See the Migrant Intake into Australia Issues Paper, at 27-35, see https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/issues (accessed 15. January 2017).

    [4] The Productivity Commission’s report was sent to the Government for consideration on 13 April 2016, and was publicly released on 12 September 2016, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake#report; also see the Treasury and Immigration joint Media Release at https://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/019-2015/ (accessed 15. January 2017).

    [5] Gary Stanley Becker, A radical proposal to improve immigration policy (1987) Mimeo; Ibid., ‘Why not let immigrants pay for speedy entry?, at 58, in: Gary S. Becker & G. Nashat-Becker (eds.) The economics of life (1987) McGraw-Hill; Ibid., The Challenge of Immigration – A Radical Solution (2011), The Institute of Economic Affairs; Ibid., ‘An Open Door for Immigrants – the Auction’ (1992) October 14, The Wall Street Journal; Ibid. & Edward P. Lazear, ‘A market solution to immigration reform – Commentary (2013, March 1st), The Wall Street Journal; Ibid., Human capital : A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (1964) National Bureau of Economic Research.

Pin It on Pinterest

Skip to content