The EB-5 Proposed Rule is Here

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Please see the attached full comment regarding DHS Docket No. The principal recommendations are summarized below.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I filed my I-526E for a rural project in June 2026.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Having committed my family's capital to a rural EB-5 development through Form I-526E in August 2026 under the post-RIA framework, with India chargeability, I submit these comments to ensure the regulations provide workable certainty. Delays and unpredictable order in petition adjudications already risk leaving reserved visa numbers unallocated, making clear, predictable guidelines essential.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: On behalf of in (IIUSA), trade association of EB-5 Regional Center Program, please accept this set of comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 2, 2026 (CIS No. We will be submitting additional comments before commenting deadline.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In May 2026, I filed a Form I-526E petition alongside a concurrent adjustment of status application for an investment in a high-unemployment targeted employment area, under Indian country chargeability. Having maintained lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States since 2018, my decision to commit capital was guided by the two-year sustainment framework established under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Eight years ago, my wife and I moved to the United States, taking on substantial education loans that we worked tirelessly to pay off. Seeking long-term stability in this country amidst the constant uncertainty of temporary employment visas, we decided to file our I-526E in April 2026 under the post-RIA high-unemployment Targeted Employment Area category, committing virtually all our life savings into this process.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in September 2025 under the post-RIA EB-5 framework, for a rural project, with India as my country of chargeability. I am submitting these comments because the rules adopted now will directly affect the predictability of my investment, the treatment of my project, and my ability to rely on the rules that applied when I invested.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Gives the RC and developers a strict timeline to complete the project which is otherwise abused heavily by developers and rcs at expense of tax paying individuals life savings at risk

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter support the proposed two-year sustainment period because it would give investors a much clearer point at which their investment obligation can end. At the same time, the rule should be very clear about when the two years begin and what an investor can do once that period is complete.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an EB-5 immigrant investor with a petition based on an investment in a post-RIA regional center project.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As a rural TEA I-526E investor (Docket No. USCIS-2026-0100), I submit comments on three related provisions of this proposed rule: (1) the two-year sustainment/duration-of-investment requirement, where I ask DHS to clarify that the clock starts when capital reaches the New Commercial Enterprise rather than the Job-Creating Entity draw, confirm capital return is not contingent on I-829 approval, and oppose forced redeployment without investor consent; (2) the 120-day rural I...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Codifying a minimum two-year sustainment period under proposed 8 CFR 204.407(b), proposed 8 CFR 216.6, and INA 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) provides helpful regulatory structure. Yet, measuring that timeline from the moment capital reaches the job-creating entity creates an unfair burden.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter have already put my family's savings at risk in a rural project as a post-RIA investor from India, and I am writing because I am afraid that new interpretations will change the rules after I committed. That uncertainty weighs heavily on my family.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In 2026 I invested $800,000 into a high unemployment area targeted-employment-area project - Homefed Cota Vera 3 - through a regional center, and I write to strongly support the proposed rule's two-year sustainment period, measured from the deployment of capital. I urge DHS to keep this provision exactly as proposed.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My EB-5 filing has left me concerned about redeployment and the sustainment period. I support the effort to make the EB-5 rules more predictable, especially where the proposed rule can reduce uncertainty for investors who have already committed their capital and are waiting for their cases to move forward.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am the spouse and derivative beneficiary of an EB-5 investor with a pending Form I-526E. Our family's $800,000 investment in a regional center project in a USCIS-designated high unemployment area (HUA) was funded in substantial part by my own lawful employment earnings, which I gifted to my husband for this investment.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an EB-5 investor who, with my spouse, invested the full $800,000 in a regional center project in a USCIS-designated high unemployment area (HUA), in reliance on an approved Form I-956F, and whose Form I-526E is pending. I write on the Department's requested topic C (HUA designation and renewal) and the bridge-financing alternatives (Section IV.D.7).

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Hello, I am a current investor in EB5 program. When my family decided to pursue permanent residency through a rural EB-5 project in April 2025, the statutory changes introduced by the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA) were the single most important factor in our decision.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in January 2026, racing a clock that has nothing to do with the merits of my case: my teenage daughter is close to aging out. She has lived in this country since first grade and is now in college, and this petition is the difference between keeping my family together and stable, both financially and emotionally, or watching years of our lives unravel.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in March 2026 as an India-chargeable, post-RIA investor in a rural project. I support the proposed rule in these areas, but request the following clarifications.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security Docket ID: USCIS-2026-0100 I am writing chargeable to India who has invested under the post-Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) framework in a rural project. Because applicants from India face significant visa backlogs, predictable petition adjudication and clear guidance on capital sustainment directly impact my family's future and financial security.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Having placed my life savings at risk by filing my Form I-526E in January 2026 for a rural project, my foremost personal worry is navigating prolonged and unpredictable wait times. Between slower Form I-485 processing and narrower advance parole travel windows, it is increasingly difficult to visit my aging parents in India while remaining confident about returning to the United States.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My I-526E petition is filed in March 2026, as a post-RIA investor from India investing in a rural project, and the details of this proposed rule will directly shape how long my capital stays at risk and how predictable my path forward will be. I support writing the two-year sustainment expectation into regulation under INA 203(b)(5)(A)(ii) and proposed 8 CFR 204.407(b), but the start-date language deserves close attention.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My EB-5 investment is in a high-unemployment TEA project, and my country of chargeability is India. Because I am a post-RIA investor, clear rules about the investment period, job creation, and protections if my regional center fails are especially important to me.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an EB-5 investor with a Priority Date of July 2023. I am Indian born national, and I selected an investment under the post-RIA framework in a high-unemployment TEA.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My family and I have filed an I-526E for a rural project in Aug 2026, charged to India. Visa availability for overseas appointments remains severely limited, which keeps processing unpredictable and has lengthened overall waits.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526e petition as a rural investor participating in a hotel development. My immigration journey depends on a well-functioning program, yet current administrative hurdles are deeply concerning.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: am an EB-5 investor in the Yellowstone Club Phase II rural project in Big Sky, Montana. I made my qualifying EB-5 investment in March 2025 in reliance on the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 and the applicable USCIS rules and policies in effect at that time.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Having waited in the EB-2 line for more than a decade with an Indian chargeability date, I committed my family's life savings in April 2025 to file an EB-5 petition for a rural project. My daughter wants to pursue a career in medicine, and without a viable path to permanent residency, she faces the immediate threat of aging out of her legal status.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in February 2026, after months of researching projects and options since July 2026. In that short window alone, EAD/AP validity dropped from five years to eighteen months, and processing times for I-526Es, EADs, APs, and I-485s doubled or tripled.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an Indian born national, and my investment was structured after the Reform and Integrity Act for a project in a high-unemployment targeted employment area. Because I must rely on my regional center and the project throughout the immigration process, effective oversight directly affects my interests.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to provide feedback on the proposed EB-5 rules. Processing for Form I-526E is slow and unpredictable, which risks leaving reserved visa numbers completely unused.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: When I submitted my I-526E petition in March 2026 for a targeted employment area project in a high-unemployment location, I placed my confidence in the integrity and predictability of this path. Charged under India's visa allocation, I am deeply concerned about the expanding adjudication delays affecting every stage of the EB-5 process.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: The benefits/risks of the EB-5 program need to be codified and deterministic. Multiple investors including me who invested in 2025 with the hopes of attaining the concurrent petition filing benefits (526E + 485) of employment authorization and travel document of five years validity had to see this cut short to 18 months alongside steadily lengthening form I-485 processing queues after making the full 800K investment, because of delays from USCIS in adjudicating these petit...

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my petition in September 2025, under the post-RIA rules, in a rural project, with my chargeability to India. What has weighed on me since is not the amount I committed but how little of the road ahead I can predict: the adjustment application, the work permit, and the travel document all sit on timelines no one can forecast.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E and I-485 concurrently in May 2025 under the rural EB-5 category. My I-526E has been approved, but my I-485 is still pending.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E petition for a rural project in December 2025, and I am still waiting for approval even after 8 months. As an Indian investor, my family and I are deeply concerned that USCIS keeps stretching its processing timeframes without any clear accountability on how long these windows can expand.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter applied for my I-526E in March 2026, and my biggest concern is that new policies or rule changes could later be applied to investors who already made their decisions and investments, rather than only to future filings. I believe that would be unfair to investors who relied on the rules in place when they invested.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an EB-5 investor from India with an investment in a TEA high-unemployment project. I support several parts of this proposed rule, but I urge DHS to make the final regulations clear, predictable, and protective of investors who have relied on the existing framework.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter respectfully submit this comment who filed a Form I-526E under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). I support DHS’s efforts to strengthen the integrity, transparency, and accountability of the EB-5 program and to take appropriate action against fraud, intentional misrepresentation, criminal conduct, and other misconduct.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Background: When I filed my EB-5 case in Nov 2025, I relied on the rules and processing framework in effect at that time. Since then, I have seen how quickly those expectations can change even after an investor has filed.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My biggest fear is simple: years of immigration delay, followed by uncertainty about my capital. My I-526E file/plan date is May 2025, my chargeability is India, and the project is rural.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: When I submitted my Form I-526E in April 2025 for a rural EB-5 project, I did so relying on the governing framework and established operational records at that time. As an applicant born in India facing significant visa queue delays, I am deeply concerned that shifting regulatory requirements mid-stream will retroactively alter the ground rules of my pending petition and destabilize my family's future.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As a rural EB-5 investor with a pending Adjustment of Status, I urge USCIS to establish 5-year validity periods and automatic extensions for EADs (Form I-765) and Advance Parole (Form I-131). The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 mandated priority adjudication for rural investments to drive growth in underserved communities.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter support several parts of the proposed EB-5 rule, but I believe the final rule should provide clearer and more workable protections for investors. My main concerns are the beginning and end of the two-year investment period, the amount of time available after a regional-center failure, and the treatment of investment amounts and future inflation adjustments.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter submit this comment who made the required investment and filed an immigrant petition and adjustment of status application in reliance on the EB-5 statutory and regulatory framework. I support DHS's effort to implement the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) through clear regulations.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Title: Public Comment on EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 Proposed Rule My EB-5 investment was made under the post-RIA framework, with my project located in a rural area. I am concerned that changes made after investors have already committed capital could alter the rules that those investors relied upon when making their investment decisions.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: After eleven years of working in the United States, I have saved a modest nest egg and am now putting about 75% of it into a rural EB-5 project scheduled for a September 2026 filing. I am taking this step to keep working and eventually retire here, which makes fair rules and honest regional center oversight deeply personal to me.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: The $800,000 I invested is almost all of my life savings. Choosing EB-5 was a very difficult decision because I had to choose between immigration and keeping my life savings due to the immigration problems I was facing.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Public Comment I made my EB-5 investment with the expectation that I could understand the requirements I needed to meet and plan accordingly. Because the timing of important investment requirements can depend on events controlled by the project rather than by me, I believe the final rule should provide investors with clear and predictable standards.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: The proposed change to bridge financing raises a significant concern for investors whose projects were structured in reliance on the current Policy Manual guidance. Because I have not provided personal timeline or project details, I am focusing this comment on the reliance interests that arise when a project was structured under the existing rules.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Tighter restrictions would diminish that ability.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: USCIS-2026-0100 EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022; Ensuring the Integrity of the EB-5 Program Dear U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, I am an EB-5 investor who recently filed an I-526E petition with a concurrent I-485 application.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Protect Existing EB-5 Investors and Preserve Job Credit for Previously Approved Bridge-Financing Structures I am an individual EB-5 investor in a project whose Form I-956F was approved in January 2026. Relying on that approval, the project’s disclosed financing structure, and existing USCIS policy norms, I filed my Form I-526E in February 2026.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In February 2026, I committed my family's hard-earned savings to an I-956F approved rural project in India's chargeability queue, placing full trust in the rules published by USCIS at that time. Pulling the rug out from under families who thoroughly reviewed active agency guidance and invested in good faith severely undermines the credibility of the entire EB-5 program.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: When I planned my EB-5 investment this year, I understood that my capital could remain committed for a substantial period because of visa availability. What concerns me is the possibility that, even after the required sustainment period has been completed, I could remain unable to recover my investment because capital is redeployed into a project I did not choose.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: U.S. respectfully submits the attached comments concerning DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0100 and RIN 1615-AC94.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to submit a formal comment as an active EB5 investor, regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2026 (Vol. Specifically, my comment addresses the proposed regulations in § 204.426, titled "Redeployment of alien investor capital".

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to submit a formal comment as an active EB5 investor, regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2026 (Vol. Specifically, my comment addresses the proposed regulations in § 204.426, titled "Redeployment of alien investor capital".

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in April 2026 for a rural project. My biggest concern is that rules governing my investment could change after I invested, in ways that negatively affect my eligibility or the job creation of the project I selected under the rules that applied at the time.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Having spent a decade stuck in the backlogged EB-2 queue, I submitted my Form I-526E in July 2026 under the high-unemployment TEA category for India chargeability. My primary anxiety is that administrative delays in the EB-5 program will stretched into another decade of uncertainty, turning a massive capital commitment into a frustrating waste of time and money while I remain on temporary visas without basic stability or international travel freedom.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As a prospective EB-5 investor from India intending to invest in a rural project, I am closely following the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed updates to the program. The choices made in this rulemaking will directly impact my financial security and my family’s future path to U.S.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My investment is tied to a December 2025 I-526E date, and the project already has an approved Form I-956F. I acted based on the requirements that USCIS had established at that time.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In February 2026, after about 15 years of building our net worth, my wife and I planned to invest $800,000, a significant portion of what we had built, into a rural EB-5 project. We moved forward because the post-RIA framework gave us a reasonable degree of predictability: the required investment period would be a minimum of two years and would not depend on when a visa became available.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am an investor from India with a rural EB-5 project. The proposed rule addresses several issues that directly affect how long my capital remains exposed, how job creation is treated, and what happens if my regional center fails.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My suggestions below: Protect reliance on approved projects. If an I-956F was filed or approved before the final rule, a later amendment should not subject unchanged portions of the project to new substantive standards.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter planned my I-526E filing for December 2025 after spending years navigating the uncertainty of the U.S. With India as my country of chargeability, timing and visa availability are not abstract issues for me.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Comment on proposed 8 CFR 204.407(e)(1) (bridge financing and job-creation credit), 91 Fed. , a Dallas-based investment firm and EB-5 pioneer, has for more than 15 years sponsored over 50 EB-5 transactions across multiple USCIS-designated regional centers, served more than 1,700 investors, and deployed EB-5 into projects with total capitalization exceeding $3 billion.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: USCIS should set a definitive two-year sustainment deadline starting from capital deployment. This creates clear expectations, treats applicants from all nations equitably despite visa backlogs, and maintains investor interest while fully protecting U.S.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter have been legally living and working in this country with my family since 2012. With an EB-2 priority date of 2015 and my elder son having grown up here since he was three and now approaching college, I made a major financial decision in October 2025.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am planning to file my I-526E in August 2026 for an investment in a rural EB-5 project. Because my investment is being made under the current rules, clear transition rules and predictable handling of my case are very important to me.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E petition in July 2026 for a rural project, and my family has put absolutely everything we have into this process. Because we are subject to the visa backlog for India, my biggest fear is the severe delays and apparent inefficiency at USCIS.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter invested through the post-RIA EB-5 program in a rural project, and I currently have an I-829 petition pending that I filed in May 2026. The proposed rule addresses important integrity concerns, but it also raises a serious issue for investors and projects that relied on the rules and agency guidance in place when their transactions were structured.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter have already invested into a project which got initial support from bridge loan and got clear post receiving EB5 investor. I feel that having bridge loan supports project development and reduce risk of project timeline and possible going into default.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: To USCIS, Preparing to file my I-526E petition for a high-unemployment targeted employment area project in the second quarter of 2026 has demanded immense planning. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposed rule.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E petition in March 2024 based on a rural project, and my I-485 was approved in May 2025. Because my application was approved under an already approved I-956F, my investment should be governed by the laws in place at that time.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: On bridge financing, I am concerned about the proposed change and how it would reach projects already underway. Bridge financing is standard in real estate and infrastructure - a large share of projects rely on temporary capital that EB-5 funds later replace - so a rule that stops counting jobs tied to repaid bridge loans would unsettle deals structured in good faith under current guidance.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E for a rural EB-5 project in September 2026, and I am concerned about how the proposed changes could affect investors who have already made decisions based on the rules and guidance in place when their projects were structured. I appreciate DHS’s effort to provide clearer rules, but the final rule should protect reasonable reliance by investors in pending cases.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Bridge loans Allow bridge financing but impose restrictions, such as: * maximum bridge-loan maturity; * limiting the percentage of project costs funded through bridge financing; * requiring a stronger connection between the bridge financing and the EB-5 capital.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My capital sits in a high-unemployment targeted employment area project, my petition falls on the post-RIA side of the line, and my country of chargeability is India. That combination means the rules this proposal settles will govern my case for years, and the details of the drafting matter more to me than the general direction.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am planning to become an EB-5 investor as a future filer from India. Before making such a major financial commitment, two points are especially important to me: how long my capital will remain invested and how much I will be required to invest.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In April 2026, I filed my Form I-526E petition for a rural project. Facing India chargeability, my main anxiety stems from the potential for endless capital redeployment, where investors are routinely left with unsatisfactory choices.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in November 2025, and I am now about one year into the process. I am a post-RIA investor from India in a rural project.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter have been in this country since 2012, legally working and maintaining the required paperwork. After waiting since 2015 for an employment-based green card through EB-2 for India, my family and I relied on the EB-5 process created by Congress.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter value the United States deeply and want to continue building my life here. I invested $800,000 in EB-5, putting almost all of my retirement savings into the program, and that capital has already been invested and at risk for about a year.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed our EB-5 application in June 2026. Before our investment, we were told that the maximum time for funds to be deployed to the JCE would be 90 days, but afterward that estimate changed to three to six months.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: To the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: USCIS-2026-0100).

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter filed my I-526E in November 2025 as a post-RIA investor from India in a rural project. I made my investment and filing decisions under the EB-5 rules and agency guidance then in place.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter assume you mean 5,000 characters (the regulations.gov comment field limit), not 5,000 words. Here’s a tighter version that preserves all your required points.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing on DHS Docket USCIS-2026-0100-0001. I filed my Form I-526E in January 2026 as a post-RIA investor.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: My I-526E petition has now been pending for one year after we applied in September 2025 as a post-arrival investor from India. Because my daughter came to the United States at the age of one and is starting college this year, we are facing the reality that she will age out in about three years and is currently missing vital internship opportunities to learn and build her future.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am a post-RIA investor in a rural EB-5 project. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule because clear and predictable rules are important to investors who rely on the EB-5 program.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am a post-RIA investor in a rural EB-5 project. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule because clear and predictable rules are important to investors who rely on the EB-5 program.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am a post-RIA investor from India in a high-unemployment TEA project. I have already committed my capital to the EB-5 process, and my investment was made based on the rules and USCIS guidance applicable to the project at that time.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter plan to file my I-526E petition in July 2026 as an investor chargeable to India in a high-unemployment TEA project. Because this proposed rule could affect projects that are already being structured under existing guidance, I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am filing this public comment as an individual EB-5 investor. In 2025, I committed $800,000 to a rural Targeted Employment Area (TEA) initiative-specifically the Yellowstone Club Phase II project in Big Sky, Montana, facilitated through an approved regional center.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to share my comments on the proposed rules for the EB-5 program (USCIS-2026-0100). Having filed my I-526E in March 2025 for a rural project under India country chargeability, I have a direct interest in how these regulations are finalized.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter commend the Department for proposing a definition of "infrastructure project" and for inviting comment on that definition and the documentation needed to establish eligibility. This comment focuses on a single issue the commenter believes is critical to ensuring the set-aside functions as Congress intended: expanding the range of qualified entities that may participate in EB-5 financing while preserving the governmental role in administering public infrastructure projects.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter support aligning the sustainment period to long-term job creation. Two years is insufficent for meaningful investment.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter support strengthening EB-5 integrity, but I urge DHS to add an explicit, lifecycle-wide grandfather clause. As drafted, the rule would apply new substantive standards to investors who committed capital and filed before this rule was proposed, and who will first encounter those standards at the Form I-829 stage, when nothing can be restructured.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: 2770-24; RIN 1615-AC94 - "EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022; Ensuring the Integrity of the EB-5 Program; Automatic Revocation of Petitions for Immigrant Classification," 91 Fed. The full comment is attached as a PDF; this field summarizes it.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Defining qualifying infrastructure projects generically leaves decision-making too arbitrary. Providing more specific examples, or at least providing a more detailed definition of categories, would reduce confusion and increase the probability of approval.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In 2025, I invested $800,000 into a rural Targeted Employment Area (TEA) project through a regional center. I am writing to strongly support the proposed rule's two-year sustainment period, measured from the deployment of capital, and I urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adopt this provision exactly as proposed.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter submit this as a good-faith EB-5 investor who invested in reliance on a project application (Form I-956F) and petition (Form I-526E) that USCIS approved under the rules then in effect, and who has not yet filed to remove conditions (Form I-829). I support program integrity, but three provisions, if applied to investors already in the program, would break faith with those who followed the rules as they existed.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: DHS should expressly confirm that the new job-creation standards in proposed 8 CFR 204.407(e) - particularly the elimination of bridge financing and the "but-for" nexus requirement - will not be applied at the removal-of-conditions (Form I-829) stage to investors whose project applications (Form I-956F) and petitions were approved before the effective date. Applying these standards to such investors would give the rule an impermissible retroactive effect on completed trans...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As a good-faith EB-5 investor whose project application and petition were approved by USCIS under the rules in effect at the time of my investment, I respectfully urge DHS to apply the substantive job-creation changes in this rule particularly the elimination of bridge financing (proposed 8 CFR 204.407(e)(1)), the "but-for" job-creation nexus, and the prohibition on visitor-spending methodologies (proposed 8 CFR 204.407(e)(3)(iv)) prospectively to new investors only, and n...

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am a conditional permanent resident who invested in the EB-5 program in good faith and whose project application and petition were approved by USCIS under the rules in effect at the time. I have not yet filed to remove conditions.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: 2770-24; RIN 1615-AC94 - "EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022; Ensuring the Integrity of the EB-5 Program; Automatic Revocation of Petitions for Immigrant Classification," 91 Fed. The complete comment, with full analysis and proposed regulatory text, is attached as a PDF; this field summarizes it.

AI generated summary

This comment addresses proposed 8 CFR 204.407(c) and 204.401, which appear to require EB-5 petitioners to document the lawful source of ALL capital in the NCE - including funds from non-petitioner co-investors not seeking EB-5 classification. I respectfully submit this requirement is inconsistent with the existing regulatory framework, practically unworkable, and has already been rejected by a federal court.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: COMMENT SUMMARY - Docket USCIS-2026-0100 This comment addresses two interconnected concerns with the proposed rule implementing the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022: COMMENT ONE - Sustainment Standard (Proposed 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1), 91 FR at 40770-72): The proposed rule creates a two-tier sustainment system that subjects pre-RIA investors to an open-ended sustainment obligation lasting fourteen to sixteen years due to visa retrogression, while post-RIA investors satisfy...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Elimination of Repaid Bridge Financing as Qualifying Capital Prohibiting the use of EB-5 capital to repay bridge financing severely prejudices existing EB-5 applicants and Regional Centers (RCs) that structured their financial and job creation plans around established USCIS policies. Regional Centers routinely rely on bridge loans to advance critical funds to Job-Creating Entities (JCEs) while I-956F applications remain pending.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: USCIS-2026-0100) that seeks to eliminate the use of bridge financing for job creation in the EB-5 program. While I fully support USCIS’s overarching goal of ensuring program integrity under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), a blanket ban on bridge financing is a fundamentally flawed approach that will severely undermine the legislative intent of the EB-5 program: economic growth and job creation.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As an existing investor in EB5, I find the clause about prohibiting the use of EB5 capital as a bridge loan concerning. Applying such a new enforcement for existing investors may jeopardize their immigration plans and may cause financial loss as well.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: On behalf of , please find attached This comment on the proposed rule, EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022; Ensuring the Integrity of the EB-5 Program (DHS Docket No. This comment addresses the proposed definition of "Infrastructure Project" at proposed 8 CFR 204.401 and the scope of "public works project," and responds to the Department's specific request for comment on the types of projects that may meet the definition of an infrastructure project (Public Participation,...

AI generated summary

This comment includes an attachment on regulations.gov. Open the filing to read the full text; no separate body text was posted in the API.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: USCIS-2026-0100 Comment on proposed 8 C.F.R. § 204.410(b)(1) - material changes; source of capital I am an immigration attorney with more than 15 years of EB-5 experience representing hundreds of investors worldwide, especially H-1B professionals who have spent years contributing to the U.S.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Comment on Proposed Rule Regarding Full-Time Employment I respectfully urge DHS to retain the current allowance for job-sharing arrangements within the definition of full-time employment. While job-sharing may have been used infrequently in prior EB-5 petitions, it remains critically important for many direct EB-5 businesses, particularly in the food and beverage (F&B), hospitality, retail, and franchise industries.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to submit a formal comment regarding the proposed rule implementing the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA), specifically concerning the definition and commencement trigger of the 2-year sustainment period for post-RIA Regional Center investors. While the proposed rule helpfully codifies the transition to an investment-based timeline rather than a residency-based timeline, the current language regarding when capital is considered "placed at risk" and "...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: In 2025 I invested $800,000 into a rural targeted-employment-area project - Yellowstone Club Phase II in Big Sky, Montana - through a regional center, and I write to strongly support the proposed rule's two-year sustainment period, measured from the deployment of capital. I urge DHS to keep this provision exactly as proposed.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: This proposed change is going to hurt the US economy more than help since it will prevent from a lot of potential investors to invest capital in US markets and eventually hurt economic development and local economy in general.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: The proposed rule grants DHS broad authority to impose monetary penalties, suspensions, debarments, and terminations on regional centers, but it does not clearly specify evidentiary standards, appeal timelines, or proportionality guidelines for these sanctions. Without more precise procedural limits, this creates a real risk of arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement, and could expose good-faith investors to loss of status or capital based on a regional center’s miscon...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule implementing the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. I appreciate USCIS’s efforts to strengthen program integrity, improve transparency, and protect good-faith investors.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter strongly support extending the EB-5 investment sustainment period beyond two years. The primary purpose of the EB-5 program is to promote long-term investment, sustained economic growth, and job creation in our country.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter strongly support the proposal to eliminate the use of repaid bridge financing as a basis for demonstrating EB-5 job creation. In EB-5 practice, it creates significant abuse.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: While supporting the goal of protecting genuine good-faith investors when a Regional Center is terminated or an NCE/JCE is debarred through no fault of the investor, I believe the proposed regulation may generate potential collusion and moral hazard. Specific Recommendations: Expand the circumstances where priority date retention should be denied to include situations involving the investor’s own fault or lack of due diligence, not only proven fraud.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Comment 1 - 8 CFR 204.425(a)(2): Define how the fund administrator's "cosignature" is executed. The rule requires the fund administrator to "serve as a cosignatory on all separate accounts" and to approve transfers "with a written or electronic signature," but does not say how - bank signature card, dual-authorization on each wire, or platform-based electronic approval.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter invested $800,000 through a USCIS-designated regional center after the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act. My family has already received our conditional permanent residence, and one of the reasons I was comfortable making this investment was USCIS's guidance that the required sustainment period is generally two years from deployment of the capital.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Re: Proposed 8 CFR 204.401, Definition of "Capital" - Treatment of Trust Structures and Retirement-Account-Sourced Funds; Request for Transition Clarity Given the September 30, 2026 Grandfathering Deadline I. Introduction This comment addresses the proposed definition of "capital" at 8 CFR 204.401, limiting trust-held capital to assets "held in a revocable living trust of which the investor is the settlor and beneficiary and to which the investor has unrestricted access."...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Supplemental Comment Regarding the Meaning of “Qualifying Investment” Under INA Section 203(b)(5)(M) I respectfully submit this supplemental comment regarding DHS’s proposed implementation of INA section 203(b)(5)(M), specifically the meaning of “qualifying investment” when a good-faith investor seeks to preserve eligibility after regional center termination or NCE/JCE debarment. The proposed rule should clarify how USCIS will interpret &ldquo...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: INTRODUCTION This comment is submitted in strong SUPPORT of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the EB-5 Regional Center Program (91 FR 40676). The commenter is an advocate for working-class economic integrity.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: As an individual EB-5 investor, I strongly support the proposed rule’s codification of the two-year sustainment period measured from the date capital is fully deployed and made available to the job-creating entity. I made my investment under the post-RIA framework with the understanding that my capital would need to remain at risk for at least two years, not for an open-ended period tied to unpredictable visa backlogs or processing delays.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Please release my investment in 2 years. I trust Reform Integrity Act & am awaiting my funds for leading a better life in USA.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: EB5 United/RC gave me confidence that my capital wouldn't be trapped indefinitely, and it was mentioned in the PP that the investment’s sustainment period is 2 years from the date deployment in the project. Extending this period would have made me reconsider the investment entirely.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: USCIS should adopt a clear rule that the EB-5 sustainment period ends two years after capital deployment. This approach provides certainty, treats investors from all countries fairly regardless of visa backlogs, and encourages continued participation in the EB-5 program while fully preserving the program’s job creation objectives.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Reform Integrity Act is a soule of EB5 program. That 800k repayment help me for start ups and Make America Great Again.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter chose to invest $800,000 in an EB-5 project in Montana because the two-year sustainment period provided clarity and confidence that my investment would not remain tied up indefinitely. If the rules had allowed for an open-ended investment period, I likely would not have moved forward with the investment.

AI generated summary

This comment argues: The 2 year sustainment period makes sense, since that is a realistic time frame for creating jobs. We invested the amount keeping this timeline in mind and the rule gives us peace of my mind in case there's a backlog for my country.

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter am writing to express my strong opposition to any extension of the EB-5 sustainment period.As an immigrant investor, I committed $800,000 of my personal capital into a project in YellowStone Big Sky.My decision to invest was heavily based on the clear, structured rules in place-specifically, the two-year sustainment period. Extending this period retroactively or changing the expectations mid-stream undermines investor trust and creates severe financial unpredictability f...

AI generated summary

This comment argues: Eliminating the use of repaid bridge financing as a basis to demonstrate - This elimination will create tremendous problem for the existing EB5 visa applicants who has filed petition based on regional center operation where investment are made based on I-956F filing and RC has already structured the project financials and job creation planning based on existing USCIS policies. Bridge finance is a widely used strategy for Regional Centers when they accept EB5 applicants bas...

AI generated summary

This comment argues that the commenter respectfully submit this comment regarding the proposed implementation of protections for good-faith EB-5 investors, including the provisions related to INA section 203(b)(5)(M), amendments, subsequent investments, and removal of conditions. DHS should clarify in the final rule that, for a good-faith investor who previously invested the full required amount of capital and whose capital was sustained at risk but later lost due to business failure, fraud, receivership, reg...