Simon Weiner, September 29th
The EB-5 Program ultimately sits at a three-way junction of immigration law, private finance, and economic policy. Within it, small administrative/statutory edits can result in large changes in practice. Along with the institution of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (known as “RIA”), U.S. Congress didn’t replace the engine of the program so much as re-work its parts. Visa allocation was re-aligned into specific categories. Petition filings were separated. And for prospective participants contemplating an EB-5 visa, comparing pre-RIA and post-RIA regimes is more than a historical exercise. It’s the lens through which to look to understand risk, compliance burden, and ultimately what it takes in modern times to achieve the EB-5 green card.
Pre-RIA: Large scale, uneven practice
The value proposition behind the program was familiar well before 2022. By investing in a U.S. business or enterprise and generating at least ten full-time U.S. jobs, one could ultimately gain permanent residence. When regional centers allowed the indirect model to be introduced, thus accounting for indirect jobs and induced employment, large-scale EB-5 investment projects became more populous. This “job-counting” advantage offered by the regional center model meant that EB-5 capital flowed in the door for real estate and infrastructure projects, and the projects in turn got built in larger numbers.
This growth was not without issue, however. For starters, job buffers above the ten-job minimum could often be thin. Intercreditor mechanics within capital stacks were often opaque even to the investors underwriting them. And in terms of compliance and due diligence, one regional center might be meticulous; another, improvisational. Additionally, EB-5 processing times often moved with filing waves, per-country caps, and the bandwidth of the consulates involved. The program was functioning; but predictability depended on the habits of the issuers as much as it did on the merit of the actual projects.
What RIA changed and why it matters
Professionalization was the motive of RIA. By raising the compliance floor and strictly aligning capital with policy goals, the EB-5 program could further evolve. The introduction of four features in particular had a huge impact in practice:
1) Separation of filings. Projects affiliated with a regional center now file Form I-956F; individual investors file I-526E. This bifurcation forces project-level evidence—budget, schedule, and job methodology—to stand on its own record rather than hiding piecemeal inside investor packets. For the investor, it means you are no longer inferring fundamentals from glossy summaries; you can ask for, and evaluate, the actual project file maintained by the EB-5 regional center.
2) Reserved visa set-asides. Rural, high-unemployment TEA, and infrastructure categories draw from dedicated visa pools. These lanes were designed to steer capital toward policy priorities; the practical effect is strategy. In certain cycles, set-asides are less congested than the unreserved pool, which can translate into different EB-5 processing times for similarly situated applicants who chose different lanes.
3) Integrity requirements. Third-party fund administration, promoter disclosures, and heightened oversight of regional center operations were codified. What once looked like “best practice” is now baseline. For investors, that means fewer black boxes: you can read the fund-admin mandate, see the use-of-proceeds controls, and examine the intercreditor terms that govern repayment priority.
4) Concurrent filing for those in the U.S. Eligible applicants inside the United States may file I-526E and I-485 together, obtaining work and travel authorization while the case is pending. The change does not alter final adjudication, but it reframes the lived experience of waiting—especially for F-1/OPT graduates and H-1B professionals.
It’s important to note that the enactment of RIA did not change the baseline EB-5 requirements. A lawful source and path of funds, at-risk capital, and a ten-job creation minimum are still the anchors. What changed is more-so an emphasis on proofs being auditable and internally consistent.
Changes for regional centers and sponsors
Post-RIA, compliance has become an asset for a strong regional center. Document systems that are audit-ready, third-party fund administration, and investor portals that tie monthly spend to line items are all compliance features creating an EB-5 landscape that is more transparent and reliable. Outside of regional centers, the evidence for job creation has grown denser. Models (RIMS II or IMPLAN) no longer use a single report as standard. Instead, draw approvals are matched to budget categories, lien waivers, and third-party inspections.
Stricter terms relating to EB-5 loan models have appeared as well; for example, a senior loan maturing before the end of a sustainment period is no longer a footnote; it has become a risk which needs a documented plan such as extension options, completion guarantees, or a credible refinance path. The focus has shifted towards providing a reasonable path towards risk when it previously didn’t really exist. Further, investors (along with their attorneys) expect to read through the weeds of intercreditor waterfalls, use-of-proceeds plans, and redeployment tactics now more than ever. The advantage of these things being clear could mean EB-5 processing times that are lessened, because of RFE’s (requests for evidence) that can be avoided.
How timelines have changed after RIA
The enactment of RIA didn’t simply just flip a switch to “faster” in relation to the EB-5 timeline for investors. Rather, pressure was re-distributed. While timeliness issues with some consulates and USCIS adjudication will likely always exist, set-aside categories allow petitions to (hypothetically) move briskly when demand is balanced. Also new is the ability for investors have more leverage. By choosing a project or project type that suits their own risk and timing, and a regional center that prioritizes transparency and compliance, investors can find more security. This kind of “change in the picture” means that satisfying EB-5 requirements cleanly and maintaining a job buffer can become/have become the drivers of the program, not just the slogans.
Due Diligence improvements
Post-RIA, one of the most significant differences is that due diligence questions should elicit concrete answers.
-
- Project Status – What is the I-956F receipt and/or approval date, and have any changes occurred since filing?
-
- Job creation buffer – If an investor assumes a 10-15% cost growth or a delay, how many jobs per investor remain?
-
- Capital Stack – Where does the EB-5 tranche sit in relation to other forms of debt and equity? Is repayment governed by waterfall priority, or a different method?
-
- I-829 Stage Submissions – How will things like monthly spend, inspections, and schedule updates be recorded for when it comes time for I-829 submissions? Are these things properly organized?
These are the aspects of a project/investment that must be considered along with the other key factors: country of origin, visa set-aside eligibility, and process path (e.g. adjustment of status vs. consular process). Each of these interact with EB-5 visa processing times differently; none should be left to assumption.
Bottom Line: More Legibility
The foundational anchors of the program remain. Meet EB-5 requirements, keep capital at risk, and create at least ten qualifying jobs per investor. Ultimately what RIA did (and is doing) is adjust the scaffolding and with it, shift how investors, attorneys, and regional centers coordinate risk and timeline management. If an investor chooses a well-underwritten project, sponsored by a regional center that treats compliance and due diligence as a product, their path is likely to be smooth. Perhaps then the clearest difference now, post-RIA, is that the investor has more tools – and clearer expectations – to manage EB-5 processing times without relying on hope or hearsay.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
In simple terms, what did RIA actually change about EB-5 for an investor like me?
RIA didn’t reinvent EB-5 so much as tighten the frame around it. The basic trade—make a qualifying investment, create at least ten U.S. jobs, and pursue an EB-5 green card—stayed intact. What changed is how everything is documented and monitored. Projects now file their own I-956F, investors file I-526E, there are reserved visa “lanes” for rural and other priority areas, and integrity rules (like fund administration and promoter disclosure) are spelled out instead of being optional “best practices.” For you as an investor, that means more paperwork up front, but also more transparency: you can see how the project is structured, where the EB-5 tranche sits in the capital stack, and how job creation is being tracked, instead of relying on marketing slides and verbal summaries.
Has RIA actually made EB-5 safer, or just more complicated?
A bit of both, honestly. RIA makes the program more complex on paper—new forms, new integrity rules, new set-aside categories—but the intent is to make the experience safer and more predictable. Regional centers are now expected to use third-party fund administrators, disclose promoter fees, and maintain audit-ready records, which helps reduce the “black box” feeling that some pre-RIA investors had. At the same time, EB5 requirements around lawful source of funds, capital at risk, and job creation have not loosened, and EB5 processing times can still fluctuate based on demand and government capacity. So you’re not getting a risk-free product, but you do have better tools to evaluate who is operating at a professional level and who isn’t.
How did RIA change the kind of people who are choosing EB-5 now?
Before RIA, a large share of EB-5 investors started the process from abroad, often working through migration agencies and expecting a long, somewhat distant waiting period. Post-RIA, a noticeable portion of new investors are already in the U.S.—F-1 students, OPT professionals, H-1B workers—who care as much about stability while waiting as they do about the final green card. Concurrent filing (I-526E plus I-485) allows many of them to apply for work and travel documents while the case is pending, which is a big shift. These investors tend to look more closely at EB-5 processing times, set-aside categories, and how the project is documented, and they are more likely to sit down with counsel to dissect fund-admin terms, job buffers, and capital-stack details in the EB-5 investment projects they’re considering.
What should I be asking a regional center now that I might not have thought to ask before RIA?
Post-RIA, you have more leverage to ask very specific, practical questions. For example: What is the current status of the project’s I-956F filing? Has USCIS issued a receipt or approval, and have there been any material changes since? You can ask how many jobs per investor are projected after a realistic stress test—say a 10–15% cost overrun or a quarter’s delay—and where the EB-5 tranche sits in the capital stack relative to senior debt and other equity. It’s also fair to ask how the regional center plans to capture evidence over time: will monthly spend, inspections, and schedule updates be logged in a way that makes I-829 preparation straightforward? Those kinds of questions go beyond marketing language and get to the heart of whether the EB-5 regional center treats compliance and documentation as a true product, not a box to check later.
Did RIA make EB-5 processing times faster, slower, or just different? (VIDEO)
RIA didn’t magically make everything faster across the board; it redistributed where the pressure shows up. The creation of reserved visa set-asides for rural, high-unemployment, and infrastructure projects means some lanes can move more quickly when demand is balanced, while the unreserved pool may still slow down if one country surges in filings. USCIS adjudication still has its own pace, and consulates vary in how quickly they’ve recovered and staffed up. The main difference now is that you have more knobs to turn: you can choose a set-aside category if it fits your goals, look for a project with front-loaded job creation and a clean evidentiary structure, and work with counsel to align your category choice and filing path (adjustment vs. consular) with your family’s calendar. EB5 processing times are still variable, but they’re a bit more manageable when you combine smart category selection with a well-documented, RIA-compliant project.