Simon Winer: “Welcome everyone to an exciting new episode of the EB5 Insight podcast. I’m Simon Winer, and today I’m joined by Ricky Murray, Founder and Managing Director of Jet Global Solutions, a leading EB-5 consulting firm specializing in immigration compliance with over 20 years in the EB-5 industry. Ricky has helped hundreds of investors worldwide successfully navigate complex source of funds challenges. He’s worked directly with regional centers, fund administrators, and top immigration counsel to establish best practices that consistently withstand USCIS scrutiny. Ricky, welcome and thank you so much for joining us today.”
Ricky Murray: “Thanks so much for having me.”
Simon Winer: “What changes have you noticed in USCIS source of funds expectations since the Reform and Integrity Act was enacted in 2022?”
Ricky Murray: “One of the biggest changes in RIA was really the framework around how USCIS could look into funds — things like gifts and loans that weren’t clearly addressed before. One of the areas specifically enumerated in the RIA is the ability to look at gifted funds. If money is gifted for your investment, you’re expected to provide source of funds documentation for the gift giver — the person giving that gift. That wasn’t required pre-RIA. USCIS had a lot of latitude before and simply wasn’t able to dig that deep into those funds.”
Simon Winer: “So when the capital investment is coming from a gift — especially from a family member like a parent — the source of funds documentation for the gift giver is just as important as the investor’s own. Is that correct?”
Ricky Murray: “Absolutely. After RIA, the expectation is that you need the same source of funds documents from the gift giver as if it were your own money. You’re really going to need a lot of documentation from the gift giver to carry the burden that USCIS expects. And as you’re starting the process, ensuring that the gift giver is able and willing to provide that documentation is a huge piece of the puzzle. In many cases, once people understand how much documentation is actually required, they step back and say ‘I’m not sure I want to provide all of that to the government.’ If that happens, unfortunately, that’s not a viable source of funds.”
Simon Winer: “So it sounds like we’re essentially looking at double the work, double the information, double the financial history needing to be provided.”
Ricky Murray: “Correct. And it’s not just about the loan of the actual capital investment — it’s about whether you’re willing to give up all of the information needed. That is more information than ever right now for a concise EB-5 petition.”
Simon Winer: “How has the source of funds standard changed from the earlier post-RIA years to now, with these reports of top-down increased scrutiny?”
Ricky Murray: “The reality under this administration is that the U.S. immigration landscape has simply changed — it’s stricter, and that shows in all parts of immigration, but especially in EB-5. I look at it through a baseball metaphor. Preponderance of the evidence has always been the standard — meaning it’s more likely than not that the funds are lawful. Before, the tie always went to the investor. Now the tie always goes to the government. If you’re not able to show the specific documentation or the letter of the law that supports what you’re doing, they are not going to look favorably upon it. There’s a fear of repercussion within the government right now — people don’t want to make the wrong decision and approve something that could come back on them. So there’s a first instinct to deny rather than approve, which hasn’t always been the case.”
Simon Winer: “What specific documentation gaps are most often leading to direct denials or Notices of Intent to Deny, instead of the RFEs we used to see in I-526E cases?”
Ricky Murray: “The most prevalent issue right now is path of funds — how the funds actually get to the United States, from the country of origin into the new commercial enterprise bank account. Many of the countries with large EB-5 investor populations have currency restrictions — China, Vietnam — and getting money out of those countries is really hard. The expectation is that you provide documentation showing each step of how those funds traveled to the United States. That was always important, but it didn’t have to be documented as heavily or as strictly as it does now.”
Simon Winer: “What do investors need to watch out for when their source of funds involves moving through multiple countries or currency transfers?”
Ricky Murray: “There are a lot of areas to cover. First is a broken money trail — you need to show exactly which accounts the funds go into at every step. If money moves from China to Hong Kong and then mysteriously appears coming out of Macau into the United States, there are going to be questions about where it was in between. Third-party accounts are another issue — many investors use friends or family accounts to move money out of their home country. That can be acceptable, but you really need to explain whose account it is and why it was used. Currency conversion discrepancies are also a trigger — if the amount doesn’t reconcile with prevailing exchange rates, USCIS will call that into question. And timing gaps — if funds stall in an intermediate account for a significant period, you’re going to need to explain why. So much of this is really about telling the story and explaining how and why the money went where it did.”
Simon Winer: “How many years of financial records does USCIS generally expect to see?”
Ricky Murray: “The reality is there’s no set answer — it’s case by case. The original funds are the most important piece. Let’s use a property sale as an example. If you sell a property in Vietnam and use those proceeds for your EB-5 investment, USCIS’s interest isn’t really in the sale — it’s in how you acquired the property in the first place. What was your down payment? Where did those funds come from? If you were able to buy that property after one or two years of income accumulation, you may not need to go further back. But if it took you ten or fifteen years to save up for that property, USCIS is going to expect ten to fifteen years of documentation. That initial acquisition is the timeframe that matters — and unfortunately, it’s often the hardest to document because it was decades ago.”
Simon Winer: “How important is it for a potential investor to understand how long a proper source of funds package can take to build, especially with the grandfathering deadline in September?”
Ricky Murray: “The grandfathering deadline is September 30th of this year, and those six months sound like a lot of time. In EB-5 terms, it’s simply not. Source of funds is probably the most important thing in an EB-5 petition — more than picking a project. But many investors’ first instinct is to pick a project first and then figure out the source of funds. That’s backwards. Because of how much documentation USCIS requires, it takes far more time than any investor is expecting. Investors come to me saying ‘this all came from income’ or ‘I can easily get the sale document for that asset’ — and unfortunately, that often turns out to be the biggest hold-up. And as we get closer to the grandfathering date, this summer is going to be a rush. Projects are going to fill up fast. If you’re not done with source of funds, you may not be able to get into the project you wanted and could be forced into something that doesn’t fit your needs. Source of funds has to be the priority first — then move on to project selection.”
Simon Winer: “From the regional center side, what guidance should we be offering to investors who are new to this process?”
Ricky Murray: “Engage with an EB-5-trained immigration attorney early — so they can map out a realistic timeline and give the investor a real expectation of when they’ll actually be ready to invest in a project. That way, when they work with a regional center and there are only a few spots left, they can make an informed decision about whether that project fits their timeline or whether they need to look at other options. Managing those expectations is an important part of the process.”
Simon Winer: “Is there any belief that this level of scrutiny could ease under a future administration, or is this the new normal?”
Ricky Murray: “In my opinion, this is very administration-based. Every administration has different immigration priorities, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that if there’s a change of administration, the scrutiny could go back to a more reasonable and relaxed approach — back to the tie going to the investor. That said, source of funds scrutiny is not going away entirely. The RIA made it very clear that source of funds is an integral part of the EB-5 process to ensure lawful funds are entering the United States. That’s not changing. But the first instinct to deny? That’s something that can shift.”
Simon Winer: “How important is it for regional centers to perform thorough due diligence on their projects before rushing rural offerings to market, especially given USCIS’s recent inventory management announcements?”
Ricky Murray: “It’s incredibly important. Regional centers owe that duty to their investors — to make sure they have a thoroughly vetted project they’re comfortable with. One thing I want investors to understand: having an I-956F approval from USCIS doesn’t mean it’s a good project. It means the project is USCIS-compliant. Those are two wildly different things. Regional centers need to do their due diligence for the investors, and investors need to do their own research as well. When you’re investing that significant an amount of money, you have a duty to yourself to really dig into the project.”
Simon Winer: “What separates a USCIS-compliant project from one with genuinely strong due diligence?”
Ricky Murray: “A lot of it comes down to exit strategy — how that money is actually going to be returned. How are they planning to wind down the business? If it’s a loan structure, how are they expecting to get the loans repaid? Under the RIA, the sustainment period is two years, which creates a realistic expectation of getting your money back in a reasonable timeframe — but only if the exit strategy is credible. Job creation methodology matters too. Construction-based jobs are more secure than pro forma revenue projections, which are ultimately educated guesses. The closer the job creation cushion is to the minimum, the more nervous you should be. And developer skin in the game is important — the more the developer has personally committed to the project, the more incentive they have to make sure it succeeds.”
Simon Winer: “What are the specific things that most often separate a source of funds package that gets approved from one that triggers an RFE or gets denied?”
Ricky Murray: “I look at it through what I call the Three C’s: continuity, clarity, and credibility. You need to be clear about the whole story, tell the whole story, and document every step — that gives you the credibility you need to get approved. The failure to provide that story and that understanding of how the source and path of funds works is where you get RFEs and denials. And especially now, USCIS is looking more closely than ever at approvability at the time of filing. If there’s a legal deficiency — not just an evidentiary gap, but an actual legal deficiency — they’ll go straight to denial. That wasn’t always the case. As we approach the grandfathering deadline, I want investors to understand: when the program lapsed in 2021, people submitted skeletal filings thinking they’d get an RFE and fill in the gaps later. USCIS has already signaled that skeletal filings will be denied. You need a fully complete, fully approvable package at the time of submission. Don’t plan for RFEs. Plan for approval.”
Simon Winer: “So the takeaway is clear: approvable on filing — not approvable after a future RFE.”
Ricky Murray: “Absolutely. USCIS has made that their stance, and investors need to plan accordingly.”
Simon Winer: “thank you so much for joining us. For our viewers who want to learn more about your services, where can they find you?”
Ricky Murray: “You can find us at jetglobalsolutions.com, and I’m also available on LinkedIn as Ricky Murray. My firm’s priority is government service — all of us have about 20 years of government service experience, and now we’re turning that over to the private sector to really improve the process for investors and anyone going through the immigration journey.”
Simon Winer: “Thank you so much, Ricky. I’m sure we’ll speak again soon.”
Ricky Murray: “Absolutely. Thanks so much for having me.”