Blog

 

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

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)

 

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

 

The 28^th 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 22^nd 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 1^st 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

 

 

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 (3^rd 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 1^st), The Wall Street Journal; Ibid., Human capital : A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (1964) National Bureau of Economic Research.

 

In the United States, the EB5 program allows wealthy foreign national investors to obtain U.S. permanent residency to be able to live and work in the United States, indefinitely. After five years of permanent residency, the foreign national can apply for Naturalization (U.S. Citizenship). The term EB5 means, Employment Based Category 5, and is the bases for permanent residency by a personal investment of today either of $5000,000 USD or $1 million USD.

 

The foreign national investor files their petition and currently must wait at least one and a half years for the petition to be approved before they can apply for conditional permanent residency, which may take an addition several months. For Chinese investors, it is a longer process. The investors, and if applicable, their spouse and minor children may want to quickly enter the United States to live, work and if allowable, attend school, in a matter of months and not years. Can this be done? Yes!

 

To be able to enter the U.S. in a few months to own and direct a U.S. Business, then obtaining an E-2 Visa for quick entry is the answer. The Foreign National Investor wishing to immediately buy into, direct, and manage a new or existing business in U.S., the investor must obtain an E-2 visa. E-2 visas are Nonimmigrant Visas and not Green Cards, or Permanent Resident cards. No limitations on extensions of stay of the E-2 Visa. The spouse and minor unmarried children under 21 may enter and stay in the U.S. with an E visa if the foreign national investor maintains E status in U.S. Spouses can also apply for employment authorization.

 

Treaty Countries

There must be a treaty between the foreign national’s country of citizenship and U.S. before the alien may obtain the E visa. Please note the following link to the treaty countries: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/treaty.html

For an Existing business, a substantial irrevocably investment by the alien investor will occur when the alien investor has invested close to the value of the existing U.S. corporation.

 

Marginal Investments

The investment in the U.S. can’t be marginal.

The investor can show by a business plan revenues that will be generated by the U.S. based operation will be substantial to generate income and salary to the investor which would be beyond the normal living wage and the revenues high enough to pay for managers and staff employees.

 

CONVERTING AN E2 STATUS TO AN EB5 DIRECT STATUS

Once the investors is in E-2 status, possibly for a period of two to five years, the E-2 investor can prepare and file the EB5 petition for conditional permanent residency. Therefore, while the E-2 investor continues to operate the U.S. Business, the EB5 petition is filed and the U.S. immigration service will spend time adjudicating the petition. The EB5 petition must show an investment of USD $500,000 and can include the initial E-2 investment of USD $150,000 (as an examples) can be counted towards the EB5 USD $5000,000 investment requirement. The balance of Investment required for EB5 can be in the process of being invested and full time employees can be added.

 

The above E-2 and EB-5 process clearly and quickly satisfies the wishes of investors to enter the U.S. for the goal of U.S. permanent residency.

 

Editor: Edward C. Beshara
Attorney at Law / Managing Partner
Beshara