Officers in HK:                         Ms. Leslie Stojanov, Mr. Luc Bernard, Mr. Daniel A. Leblanc

 

 

The officer was suspicious about 2 recent deposits made in Apr 2006.  The officer wanted to check the bank deposit certificates against the amount in the bank pass books and would check the documents available to determine if they’re reliable.

 

The PA put shares under the name of spouse.  The spouse holds 60% share in the company (1999-2005).  To meet the BIQ requirements, the spouse transferred the shares back to the PA in 2006 since this is a family business.  The officer understood the explanation but considered that according to official documents, the profit distributed (1999-2005) should belong to the spouse.

 

 

The officer was concerned that the receipts were not notarized and no original receipts to support the money earned.  The PA offered to provide document to complete his/her file.

 

The officer seemed to be satisfied with the documents provided regarding the PA’s ownership of the company (company is under the name of father-in-law).

 

The officer did not see the PA’s name on the CVR.  The article of association (with ABIC stamp) has been provided.  The lawyer intervened that the officer could ask for a certificate from ABIC to confirm and clarify of the share ownership.

 

Many documents did not meet the BIQ requirements because they were not notarized (important documents like business license).  The PA became quite embarrassed at the interview as it made the officer less and less sympathetic to the case.

 

The reference letter said the PA worked from 1999-2005.  The business license states the mother company and the branch where the PA works opened in 2001.  There was a change of status/type but the PA had no document to prove it.  The officer had some doubts about the revenues earned (1999-2001).

 

 

 

The audit report was prepared by a CPA firm where the legal representative of the CPA firm is currently a shareholder in the PA’s company.  The officer considered the credibility of the audit report is weak.  The PA offered to use another CPA firm to re-do the audit reports to clear the doubt of the officer.  The lawyer added that the BIQ can verify the credibility of the audit report with the taxation documents.

 

 

The main concern the officer had was the PA’s management experience.  The PA, holding professional qualification, is running two companies (one professional company and one consulting company).  The PA explained that his/her professional title on the business card does not mean that the PA is practicing professional work in the company.  It is the requirements of company law that to be an owner of certain type of professional company (e.g. law firm), one needs to have the professional qualification and title.  The company has 38 employees and needs a manager to manage it.  The lawyer intervened that if the officer does not want to consider the management experience in the professional company, the officer can consider the PA’s experience in the consulting company.  The officer considered it a good argument and will verify it after the interview.

 

The PA was well prepared and clarified his/her duties in the state-owned company.  He/She explained the reasons why opening another company in 2004 doing the same business.

 

 

The PA told the officer that he had 4% of shares but when he/she left that company, he sold it.  The officer said this is a new fact and he would think about it.

 

The PA bought 2 properties in 2002 for RMB950,000 but his/her income made were lower than this property value.  The spouse lent some money but no proof for it.  The officer said without a proof, he/she could not accept his/her explanation.

 

The officer noticed in the bank record that some money transferred in and out in a short period.  The PA explained that it’s not his/her money but belonged to his/her brother who needed to make a money transfer.  The officer said the total PA’s asset and legitimacy of source of funds were not clear.  These issues had been raised at the 1^st lawyer briefing and could have been resolved if the immigration consultant had provided declaration/statement from the spouse (loan to buy property) and relative (brother’s money) BEFORE the interview.

 

 

The PA explained that he kept accounting receipts and invoices based on which the CPA prepared the audit reports.  The PA showed some accounting books.  The officer was concerned about the income earned by the PA (owned an individual type business) and wanted to check the personal income tax if they’re reliable and match with the audit report.

 

The PA told that the factory merged with the limited company in 1999.  According to the BIQ information obtained, the factory did not have any merge because both companies exist in the ABIC record.  The PA offered to provide clarification from ABIC.  The officer would review the file before to send the decision.

 

The factory became individual business type in 1996.  However, the BIQ obtained information that it was only set up in 2004.  The PA explained the time to apply, to complete the procedures and receiving approval.  However, the officer did not seem to be convinced.

 

The officer considered the proof of source of funds for RMB700,000 (1994-2000) was weak.  The PA showed some bank records to prove part of the money earned.

 

Proof of Income (cont’d)

The officer mentioned that the documents to prove the PA’s received income (source of funds since 2000) are not very strong.  The PA offered to provide additional documents to satisfy the officer requirements.

 

Contradictions in the taxation rate between the financial report and the tax vouchers were explained.  The officer wanted to review the documents and the calculation of the PA’s personal income before issuing a decision.

 

 

The PA was nervous but the officer was satisfied with the documentation and explanation by the PA.  The officer concluded the interview by saying that the PA was accepted.

 

The PA gave a lot better performance at the interview than at the briefing.  Unfortunately, the PA had a tough officer.

 

We take this opportunity to remind immigration consultants that update documents for immigration interview must be submitted earliest possible to avoid interview cancellation by BIQ-HK due to late arrival of very large number of documents.  The BIQ office and officer needs a reasonable time to examine all documents submitted, especially if the immigration consultants are sending a long list of update/new documents

*****