Officers in HK:                         Ms. Leslie Stojanov, Mr. M. Clermont-Desforges, Mr. Jean-Paul Benoit

 

 

The interview was difficult with the officer who complained about the quality of the documentation (original documents were not brought and some important documents not notarized).  Despite the PA repeated several times that he could rectify the notarization after the interview, the officer mentioned to the PA that the interview’s now not after.  The officer mentioned to the PA that the immigration consultant should be more careful in the case preparation.

 

The PA joined the current company in Apr 2005, file was submitted in July 2005.  The officer was complaining that important information concerning that change of employment was submitted only 5 days before the interview.

 

The officer verified the PA’s assets and appeared lost because the PA has many bank accounts.  The officer did not understand the banking transactions about the transfer of PA’s bonds (RMB 1.7M) into fixed deposits.  The cash in bank was increased from RMB 1.7M to RMB 2.3M.  However, the PA repeated the assets were the same.  The difference was in fact the dividends received.

 

The officer wanted to refuse the application because the PA did not have 3 years management experience to qualify.  The PA told the officer not to forget his management experience in previous company.  The officer mentioned he could not recognize that company’s assets because the ABIC stamp was not notarized.  The PA explained very well.  The officer then agreed to ask the PA to obtain a properly notarized document.

 

Despite the good quality of the documentation and the performance of the PA during the interview, the officer had a complaint about some new documents provided only at the interview.  Please be reminded that to provide all new documents AT LEAST 5 DAYS BEFORE the interview.  Some officers are very strict on this matter.

 

 

The officer was satisfied about the quality of the documents in file and the PA’s explanation.  One only concern the officer will verify with BIQ is “…. Our audit is for the special purpose of the consignee without any other use for corporate loan guarantee, our CPA holds no responsibility as usual by any improper use of this report”.  The officer may be/may be not request for additional document on this issue.

 

 

The officer asked few easy questions on the managerial experience, e.g. how many employees, who takes cares of the finance, etc.)

 

The PA was from a “professional occupation”, must well understand the obstacle(s) and must demonstrate his/her experience as “full time” business management with no doubts.

 

 

The PA made RMB 6M from employment income.  The officer asked the PA if he/she could provide part of the bank record concerning salary and bonus received.  The PA explained the income was deposited into credit card and said that bank record could be provided.  To prove a part of the origin of funds, the officer will request credit card bank records for 2003-2005.  The officer noticed the signature of the letter of recommendation not notarized.  She will probably request notarization of the signature.

 

The officer considered the PA did not have proof for the source of funds for the initial investment (RMB 1.8M in 1999) in the company.  The PA mentioned it’s the profits from another company.  The officer seemed will need the audit reports (1998-1999).

 

There’s no proof of dividends in 2004-2005.

 

The officer asked not more than 5 questions on the chengbao period and mainly verified the documents, business contracts signed.  At the end of the interview, the officer mentioned he/she will evaluate the accumulation of funds and a possibility of asking for audit report (chengbao period).

 

The main difficulty in the PA’s interview seemed to be the cash in bank but this was, according to the lawyer, due to the confusion from the officer.  The officer was thinking to ask for more bank proof of salary and profit received (payment of individual tax on dividends well documented and shown to the officer) and will give the file a review before making decision.

 

 

Capital was increased (RMB 1.8M) in 2001.  The origin of money was from the company’s RMB 2M capital reserves.  Balance sheet attached with the CVR was shown.  However, the officer will probably request additional documents about the capital reserve.

 

The capital reserve was RMB 7M in audit report 2003.  The PA showed receipts for assets (loans were contracted).  The officer will need more documents, i.e. purchase contract of the assets and loan agreements 2003 (loan agreements 2004-2005 shown to officer).

 

The fixed assets increased (RMB 10M) in 2005 owing to purchase of new equipments.  The officer will probably ask some documents and explanation to prove such increase.

 

The officer focused on the origin of funds and it seemed the officer found the proof very good.  The PA was accepted after 1 hr 15 min interview.

 

The PA improved a lot after the briefing and could give clear explanation at the interview.  The officer seemed to believe the PA.  The application was accepted on the spot.

 

In 2 partners’ cases, it could happen that the 1^st PA’s interview was pretty hard and the officer was confused on some aspects.  When the help of 2^nd PA who did a good job explaining and confirming everything said by the 1^st PA and a contract provided, the officer was better in re-arranging his/her understanding of the two files.  The officer might ask for additional documents with respect to the management experience of the 1^st PA.

 

One officer spent some time on checking passport, diplomas, marriage certificate, confirming some information on the PA’s application form, explaining QIIP requirements and financing options, asking motivation to immigration (e.g. main industries, other city name(s), unemployment rate), talking in French and asking PA to translate (as expected, PA didn’t understand). 

 

The officer asked the PA if he/she is shareholder of company X because the officer obtained some information.  The PA kept saying “NO” and explained his/her name was there was due to the reform in 2004 when the company gave shares to some senior former staff.  The PA said he/she could get a letter to explain this matter.  At the end of the interview, the officer said he/she will take time to review all documentation and might give an opportunity to provide additional document to explain the shareholding matter.

*****