EB-5 is the one category where the applicant has already performed before the government acts. The money is invested, the jobs are being created, and the file sits. Few delays in immigration law carry this much financial exposure while producing so little information.
Last updated:
I-526E — the petition. The initial filing establishing the investment and the job creation plan. Until it is approved nothing else moves: no visa, no adjustment, no certainty for the investor or the project.
I-829 — removing conditions. Filed at the end of the conditional residence period. These are the notoriously long ones, and the position is uncomfortable: conditional residence continues on a receipt notice while the family lives with an unresolved status for years.
Both are adjudicated by USCIS and both are subject to the same principle — an agency has to decide within a reasonable time.
Under the reforms Congress enacted in 2022 the program was restructured, and for petitions filed since then a wait of roughly a year or more without adjudication is a reasonable point to assess a case. For I-829 the practical bar is longer simply because the queues are, but multi-year silence with no request for evidence and no movement is exactly the pattern courts respond to.
Two factors make an EB-5 case urgent rather than merely frustrating: a child approaching the age-out threshold, and a project whose timeline or financing depends on the petition being decided. Both should be raised at the evaluation stage, because both shorten the runway.
Courts weigh the concrete cost of waiting, and in EB-5 that cost is unusually easy to evidence. Capital is deployed and cannot be recovered while the petition is pending. A conditional resident cannot plan around a status that has no end date. A derivative child may lose eligibility entirely to the passage of time. A regional center project may face its own deadlines.
This is not an abstract inconvenience, and presenting it precisely — with figures, dates and documents — is much of the work in these filings.
The investor is the natural plaintiff, and derivative family members are frequently included where they are affected in their own right. Where a regional center or project entity is also harmed by the delay, its position can be considered as well. As with employment-based cases, who is named is a strategic decision rather than a formality.