The recent executive order restricting nationals of approximately 75 countries from obtaining U.S. immigrant visas has prompted significant concern among EB-5 investors and practitioners alike.
In this episode of the EB5 Insight podcast, Houston EB5’s Simon Winer speaks with attorney Edward Bishara — Managing Partner of Bishara P.A. in Orlando, Florida, and one of the country’s most decorated immigration attorneys with over four decades of exclusive U.S. immigration practice — to separate fact from fear, examine the legal mechanisms behind the ban, and lay out the practical pathways available to investors from affected countries.
Attorney Edward Bishara
Managing Partner, Bishara P.A. — Orlando, Florida
Exclusively practicing U.S. immigration law since 1983. Recipient of AILA’s highest award for outstanding contributions and recognized as one of the Best U.S. Immigration Lawyers in the country. A founding practitioner of EB-5 immigration with over 32 years in the program.
The Legal Mechanism Behind the Travel Ban
The executive order restricting nationals of approximately 75 countries from obtaining U.S. immigrant visas is not an act of Congress. It is a presidential proclamation, issued under executive authority and grounded in the President’s constitutional powers as well as Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — the statutory provision that authorizes the President to suspend the entry of any class of aliens when their admission is deemed detrimental to the national interest.
The order directed the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to identify countries whose nationals, in the administration’s assessment, pose national security concerns. That determination triggers the suspension of immigrant visa issuance for citizens of those countries at U.S. consulates abroad.
Critically, because the ban originates from an executive order rather than legislation, it can be modified or rescinded by the President at any time. Attorney Bishara notes that President Trump has a long and personal familiarity with the EB-5 program — having been directly involved in EB-5 financed development projects — and that ongoing lobbying efforts within the EB-5 community may prove effective in carving out accommodations for investor visa applicants.
What the Ban Does — and Does Not Affect
A point of critical clarity: the travel ban restricts the issuance of immigrant visas at U.S. consulates abroad. It does not prohibit nationals of affected countries from filing EB-5 petitions. It does not invalidate previously filed or approved petitions. And it does not prevent individuals from these countries from entering the United States on valid non-immigrant visas.
In this respect, Bishara draws a useful historical parallel: the current situation is functionally similar to the visa retrogression that has affected EB-5 investors from high-demand countries like China and India for years. During periods of retrogression, investors filed their petitions, waited for visa numbers to become available, and ultimately received their green cards — sometimes years after the initial filing. The program endured and continued to attract capital throughout those periods. The same framework applies here.
What the Travel Ban Does and Does Not Affect
- Does NOT prevent nationals of banned countries from filing I-526E petitions
- Does NOT invalidate already-filed or approved EB-5 petitions
- Does NOT prevent entry to the U.S. on a valid non-immigrant visa
- DOES restrict the issuance of immigrant visas at U.S. consulates in affected countries
- DOES create a waiting period before consular immigrant visa issuance — similar in effect to retrogression
- Can be modified or lifted by executive action at any time
The Adjustment of Status Pathway: A Viable Route for U.S.-Based Investors
For nationals of affected countries who are already present in the United States on a valid non-immigrant visa, the travel ban presents a far less significant obstacle. Under U.S. immigration law, an individual who entered the country lawfully and in genuine non-immigrant status may, after a period of time, elect to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence — without departing the United States and without requiring a consular immigrant visa.
This means that an investor from a banned country who is in the U.S. as a visitor, student, or other non-immigrant visa holder can file an EB-5 petition and, when eligible, file a concurrent adjustment of status application. Upon filing, they would become eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and an Advance Parole travel document — allowing them to work and travel internationally while the green card application is adjudicated, entirely within the United States.
Attorney Bishara raises one important caution: the intent standard. U.S. immigration law requires that individuals entering on non-immigrant visas do so with genuine non-immigrant intent — meaning the purpose of entry is temporary in nature and there is an intention to return abroad. It would be improper, and potentially harmful to a future green card application, for an investor to enter the United States with the preconceived intention of immediately applying for permanent residence. Bishara recommends that any intent to pursue adjustment of status arise naturally after arrival — and suggests a minimum of 90 days as a conservative buffer before initiating that process.
Dual Nationality: A Practical Workaround
For investors who hold citizenship in both a banned and a non-banned country, dual nationality presents a meaningful strategic advantage. A foreign national who can apply for and receive an immigrant visa based on their citizenship in a non-restricted country may be able to proceed through consular processing abroad — provided they apply at a consulate in the non-banned country and do so as a national of that country, not as a national of the banned country.
Bishara advises against attempting to obtain an immigrant visa at a consulate located within a banned country, even if the applicant holds dual nationality with a non-banned nation. The cleaner and more defensible approach is to pursue consular processing entirely through the non-banned nationality’s diplomatic channels.
Is There an Economic Risk to EB-5 Projects?
One of the more pressing questions for regional centers and project developers is whether the travel ban will materially reduce the pool of available EB-5 capital — and whether that reduction poses a risk to ongoing projects. Bishara’s assessment is measured: the impact is real but not structurally threatening to a well-run program.
His reasoning draws again on the retrogression analogy. During periods of retrogression — when investors from certain countries faced multi-year waiting periods before they could even apply for their immigrant visas — EB-5 regional center projects continued to raise capital and operate successfully. Investors accepted the waiting period as part of the immigration pathway and remained committed to their investments. The current situation introduces a similar delay mechanism, but does not eliminate the pathway or the underlying demand for U.S. permanent residence.
Regional centers serving investor markets from non-affected countries, and those with diversified investor bases, are best positioned to absorb any near-term reduction in demand from affected nationalities. For projects relying heavily on investor pools from banned countries, active communication, legal guidance, and the presentation of adjustment-of-status alternatives will be essential to maintaining investor confidence.
Legal Challenges and the Lobbying Landscape
While legal challenges to executive immigration orders are not without precedent, Bishara is candid about the difficulty of mounting a successful judicial challenge to a presidential proclamation grounded in national security authority. Courts have historically given the executive branch wide deference in this area.
The more productive avenue, in his view, is legislative and political lobbying. The EB-5 community has established advocacy channels — including through organizations such as AILA and various regional center industry groups — and the program’s job creation mandate and demonstrated economic contributions make it a defensible carve-out candidate. Given President Trump’s documented personal and professional history with EB-5 financed real estate projects, targeted engagement through those channels may yield accommodations that judicial challenges could not.
Planning Considerations for Families and Investors
For families from affected countries who are navigating school enrollment, relocation timing, and financial commitments, Bishara emphasizes the importance of careful planning — while cautioning against any approach that compromises the non-immigrant intent required for lawful entry.
Specific considerations include: understanding the timeline before an EAD will be issued and employment can lawfully begin; recognizing that departure from the United States before Advance Parole is obtained will result in abandonment of a pending adjustment of status application; and exploring remote learning options for children during any initial period before work authorization and stability are established.
The core message is that planning possibilities is entirely appropriate and prudent — but that the intent at the moment of entry must be genuine. Arriving at a U.S. port of entry with luggage suggesting permanent relocation, or stating at the border that the purpose of entry is to pursue a green card, would be inconsistent with the non-immigrant intent standard and potentially damaging to a future application.
EB-5 vs. Alternative Pathways: A Cost Analysis
For investors evaluating whether the current environment warrants a pivot to alternative visa strategies — E-2 treaty investor visas, L-1 intracompany transfer visas, or direct EB-5 business investment — Bishara offers a straightforward cost comparison that consistently favors the regional center model.
An E-2 investor visa requires substantial capital deployment into a U.S. business, ongoing operational expenses, and is limited to nationals of treaty countries. An L-1 intracompany transfer requires the investor to build a qualifying organizational infrastructure in the United States, including hiring executive or specialized knowledge staff. Direct EB-5 business investment requires the investor to personally manage job creation and maintain operational oversight. Each of these pathways demands sustained financial commitment well in excess of the EB-5 regional center minimum investment amount.
By contrast, the regional center model offers a defined capital commitment, a professional management structure, a transparent compliance framework, and a clear immigration pathway — at a total cost that Bishara characterizes as the least expensive route to U.S. permanent residence available to foreign national investors today.
The Bottom Line: EB-5 Remains Viable
Attorney Bishara’s concluding assessment is unambiguous. The travel ban introduces a delay mechanism for investors from affected countries — but delay is not denial. The EB-5 regional center program remains one of the most effective pathways to U.S. permanent residence available to foreign nationals and their families. The grandfathering protections under the RIA make filing before September 30th, 2026 more important than ever. And for investors already present in the United States, adjustment of status represents a fully viable route to a green card that operates entirely outside the scope of the consular immigrant visa ban.
His final word of advice — directed at every prospective EB-5 investor regardless of nationality — was characteristically direct: do not attempt to navigate this process alone. The EB-5 pathway involves immigration law, securities compliance, source of funds documentation, tax planning, and project due diligence. Each of those disciplines requires professional guidance. The regional center, the immigration attorney, the investment advisor, and the international tax accountant are not optional — they are the team that makes a successful outcome possible.