Establishing secure connection…Loading editor…Preparing document…

Proposal for Changes to EB-5 Processing

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

PROPOSAL FOR COMMENT

Posted:

Comment period ends:

Proposed Changes to USCIS’s Processing of EB-5 Cases

Congress created the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program in 1990 to create jobs and spur investment in the United States. The EB-5 program is available to prospective immigrants who invest in a new commercial enterprise that will create at least 10 full-time jobs in the United States. EB-5 investors may petition to participate either on their own or under a USCIS-designated “Regional Center.” Regional Centers are public or private entities that promote economic growth, regional productivity, job creation, and capital investment. USCIS accepts petitions for interested investors on Form I-526 and applications for Regional Center designation on Form I-924.

Proposals submitted under the EB-5 Program are often complex, involving business plans supported by expert analyses evidencing that the EB-5 Program’s legal criteria are met. The proposed steps outlined below respond to concerns stakeholders and petitioners have raised about the often-complex EB-5 proposal process and reflect USCIS’s long-term commitment to realizing the EB-5 Program’s fullest job-creation potential and to addressing stakeholder concerns about process challenges.

Background

Regional Centers submit I-924 applications in one of two varieties. First, “actual” applications present “shovel-ready” business projects that are sufficiently developed to support the immediate filing of actual I-526 petitions from participating investors. “Actual” applications are supported by specific business plans and economic analysis, the actual capital-investment structures and documentation for the investment offering, the anticipated regional economic impacts, and the Regional Center’s operating plan and structure. The review of the specific documentation to be provided in I-526 petitions for projects that can be started immediately after the approval of the I-924 application promotes efficiency and predictability within the EB-5 immigrant petitioning process as issues can be identified and resolved within the I-924 application prior to the filing of any I-526 petitions. Second, “exemplar” applications present feasible business projects that are not yet “shovel ready,” together with an exemplar I-526 petition, for a preliminary determination of EB-5 compliance. The “exemplar” process allows Regional Centers to seek approval of new, job-creating projects in principle before the business projects are fully developed to the point where participating investors can submit their I-526 petitions.

Proposed Step 1: Accelerated and Premium Processing of “Shovel-Ready” Cases

USCIS proposes to prioritize “actual” I-924 applications to ensure that eligible, shovel-ready business projects get underway as quickly as possible. First, we will offer accelerated target processing times for “actual” Regional Center filings. Second, we will make “actual” I-924 application Regional Center filings eligible for the USCIS Premium Processing Service (PPS). (PPS offers 15-day turnaround and enhanced customer service for an additional fee.) Clear filing guidelines for “actual” vs. “exemplar” I-924 applications and I-526 petitions will be provided to the public through a revised I-924 application, I-526 petition, and instructions for these forms. I-924 applications including a hybrid of “shovel-ready” and “exemplar” documentation will be accepted for processing as “exemplar” applications. Third, accelerated target processing times will also apply to the I-526 petitions associated with approved “actual” I-924 applications, and PPS will be available for those petitions as well. Prioritizing shovel-ready cases will also create a strong incentive for the public to file clear, focused applications and petitions.

The following target processing times will apply both to initial and amended I-924 applications and EB-5 petitions:

Case Type Current Target Processing Time Actual Processing Time Proposed Target Processing Time
I-924 – “Actual” (Shovel-Ready) Project 4 Months 5 Months 2 Months
I-924 – “Actual” (Shovel-Ready) Project – Premium N/A N/A 15 Days
I-924 – “Exemplar” Project 4 Months 5 Months 5 Months
I-526 – RC “Actual” (Shovel-Ready) Project 5 Months 6 Months 2 Months
I-526 – RC “Actual” (Shovel-Ready) Project – Premium N/A N/A 15 Days
I-526 – Regional Center “Exemplar” Project 5 Months 6 Months 5 Months
I-526 – Not Affiliated with a Regional Center 5 Months 6 Months 5 Months
I-829 6 Months 5 Months 3 Months

Proposed Step 2: Specialized Intake Teams for I-924 Applications, with Direct Customer Access

USCIS proposes to create Specialized Intake Teams to handle the initial intake and review of I-924 applications. The teams will have expertise in economic development and analysis, as well as EB-5 Program requirements. Members will include USCIS economists, business analysts, and adjudicators, and each team will be supported by legal counsel.

The intake teams will determine if an I-924 application filed as an “actual” application meets the “actual” filing guidelines, and will work to ensure that each “actual” or “exemplar” I-924 application package is ready for adjudication. The teams will review the package for all required documentation and evidence and communicate directly with the I-924 applicant in writing to address identified questions or needs.

Proposed Step 3: Enhanced Decision Process for I-924 Applications, with Option for In-Person or Telephonic Interview

USCIS proposes to have an expert I-924 Decision Board render decisions in I-924 applications. The Board will be composed of a USCIS economist and two USCIS adjudicators, and will be supported by legal counsel. The Board will receive a case for disposition from the Specialized Intake Team, and the Board’s first step in each case will be to approve the I-924, to route the I-924 back to the intake team for a Request for Evidence (“RFE”), or to issue the applicant a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”). If the Board issues a NOID, it will offer the applicant the opportunity to have an in-person or a telephonic interview with the Board to inform its final decision. If an applicant believes an RFE has been issued unnecessarily and the application is ready for adjudication, the applicant can request the issuance of a NOID for the purpose of obtaining an interview. The Board will audiotape or otherwise memorialize the interviews for the record. The Board will then ultimately approve or deny the I-924. I-924 approval letters will clearly identify whether the case was approved as an “actual” or “exemplar” application. Business plans, economic analysis, and I-526 documentation approved in an “actual” I-924 application, if unchanged, will be given deference in the filing of associated I-526 petitions, and such petitions will be eligible for accelerated target processing times and for PPS.

Signature:

Date:

Enter text✕

What the Proposal for Changes to EB-5 Processing Is

The Proposal for Changes to EB-5 Processing is a formal submission that lays out recommended procedural, regulatory, or operational modifications to how USCIS and related agencies adjudicate EB-5 investor petitions. It typically describes current pain points (for example, backlog, source-of-funds review, or regional center oversight), presents specific policy or workflow changes, and includes proposed implementation steps, anticipated impacts on petitioners and projects, and any draft regulatory language for reviewers and counsel.

Why a Clear Proposal Matters for EB-5 Adjudication

A structured proposal helps align policy intent with operational practice, supports evidence-based regulatory drafting, and can reduce adjudicative inconsistency and processing delays while clarifying resource needs for USCIS and oversight bodies.

Why a Clear Proposal Matters for EB-5 Adjudication

Who Typically Prepares or Reviews These Proposals

Government attorneys, USCIS policy staff, immigration counsel, investor representatives, and industry associations prepare or review EB-5 processing proposals.

  • Immigration attorneys and compliance teams drafting legal analysis and source-of-funds protocols.
  • Regional center operators or project sponsors proposing operational oversight and reporting changes.
  • USCIS policy analysts and adjudicators evaluating feasibility and consistency with statute and regulations.

Clear role definition reduces review cycles and helps translate policy changes into enforceable adjudication steps.

Core Components of a Professional Proposal for Changes to EB-5 Processing

A strong proposal organizes legal rationale, operational detail, stakeholder impact, and an executable timeline so reviewers can assess compliance, resource needs, and practical effects on case processing.

Executive Summary

Concise overview of recommended changes, objectives, and expected outcomes; designed for decision-makers who need a high-level view of legal and operational impacts.

Problem Statement

Clear description of current processing issues, supported by data where available (e.g., backlog metrics, denial causes, regional center concerns) to justify proposed remedies.

Legal Analysis

Assessment of statutory and regulatory authority, consistency with ESIGN/UETA where e-records are implicated, and any necessary changes to USCIS policy guidance or rule text.

Operational Changes

Detailed step-level changes for adjudicators and intake staff, including field edits, evidence checklists, training needs, and updated SOP language.

Impact Assessment

Estimate of processing time changes, resource and staffing implications, and potential effects on investors, developers, and visa issuance timelines.

Implementation Plan

Phased timeline, responsible parties, monitoring metrics, proposed effective dates, and sample form or notice language to facilitate adoption.

Step-by-Step: Prepare and Submit a Proposal

Follow these sequential steps to produce a proposal that is thorough, evidence-based, and ready for agency review.

  • 01
    Draft: Write full proposal with legal and operational sections.
  • 02
    Internal Review: Circulate to counsel and compliance for technical edits.
  • 03
    Stakeholder Input: Gather feedback from affected parties and subject-matter experts.
  • 04
    Submit: Send to the designated agency contact or docket with supporting exhibits.

How to Configure an Online Submission Workflow

Configure digital fields, signer roles, and integrations so the proposal, attachments, and audit trail move smoothly through reviewers and archives.

Field Configuration
Signature Field Require name, title, date; lock after signing
Attachment Handling Accept PDF/DOCX and enforce max file size per attachment
Authentication Use email plus SMS or organization SSO for key signers
Audit Trail Capture IP, timestamp, and action log for every signer

Where to File, Send, or Route the Proposal

Identify the correct recipient and routing channel before submission to ensure the proposal reaches policy or operational staff for action.

  • USCIS Policy: Submit directly to the USCIS policy mailbox or assigned program inbox when indicated.
  • Regulatory Docket: For rulemaking input, submit via the federal docket per instructions in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
  • Congressional Correspondence: Route suggested statutory changes through relevant congressional staff if legislative action is requested.
  • Stakeholder Distribution: Share a redacted version with industry groups and counsel for broader comment.

Digital Signing and eSubmission Technical Considerations

Use secure eSignature and document management platforms that support required formats, audit trails, and enterprise authentication for official submissions.

  • File Formats: PDF and DOCX are standard and widely accepted by reviewers.
  • Authentication: Support email, SMS, and SSO for strong signer attribution.
  • Integrations: Connectors to Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, and Box facilitate storage and sharing.

eSignature Vendor Pricing and Feature Comparison for Proposal Workflows

Basic pricing and feature differences for common eSignature vendors. signNow appears first for neutral comparison; verify vendor plans for enterprise discounts or add-ons before procurement.

signNow DocuSign Adobe Sign PandaDoc HelloSign
Starting Price $8/user/mo $15/user/mo $14/user/mo $19/user/mo $15/user/mo
Free Trial 7-day trial Varies Varies Varies Varies
Bulk Send Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Audit Trail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HIPAA Compliant Yes Yes Yes No No

Timelines, Deadlines, and Expected Processing Stages

Different channels and procedures have distinct timing expectations; plan for comment, review, and implementation windows accordingly.

Internal Drafting Timeline:

Allow 2–6 weeks for drafting and internal legal review depending on scope.

Stakeholder Comment Period:

Public/regulatory comment windows are commonly 30–60 days for proposed rules.

Agency Review:

Policy review and clearance can take several weeks to months.

Implementation Phase:

Phased rollout and training typically span 1–3 months once approved.

Monitoring Period:

Post-implementation reviews and metrics collection often run 6–12 months.

Key Milestones and Stages for a Proposal Lifecycle

Track proposal progress through discrete milestones so stakeholders know what to expect at each stage.

01

Draft Completion

Finalize full text, exhibits, and data appendices for review.

02

Internal Approval

Obtain sign-offs from counsel, compliance, and executive sponsors.

03

Public/Stakeholder Input

Collect and summarize comments from external stakeholders and industry groups.

04

Submission and Follow-up

File with the target agency or docket and maintain a stewardship plan for responses.

Common Mistakes When Preparing an EB-5 Processing Proposal

  • Failing to tie recommendations to concrete operational steps, which leaves reviewers unsure how to implement changes.
  • Omitting data or sample cases that demonstrate the scope of backlog or adjudication errors, weakening the evidence base.
  • Submitting draft regulatory language that is legally inconsistent with statute or existing USCIS guidance.
  • Neglecting to assess resource and training implications, causing unexpected implementation delays when changes are adopted.

Penalties and Risks of an Incorrect or Incomplete Proposal

Regulatory Delay: Extended adoption timelines and additional reviews
Operational Disruption: Increased adjudicator confusion and inconsistent decisions
Legal Vulnerability: Risk of legal challenge or noncompliance
Reputational Harm: Stakeholder trust erosion
Resource Waste: Costs from rework and additional training
Implementation Failure: Partial or ineffective process change

Required Information Elements and Security Considerations

Authentication: Signer identity and multi-factor methods
Audit Trail: IP, timestamps, and action logs
Encryption: TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit; AES-256 at rest
Compliance: ESIGN, UETA, SOC 2, ISO 27001
HIPAA: BAA required for PHI-related submissions
21 CFR Part 11: Applicable for FDA-regulated electronic records

Examples: How Other Organizations Use eSign and Structured Proposals

These examples show how secure eSignature and structured submissions support complex regulatory or investor-related workflows.

Optica Ventures LLC

Optica centralized investor agreements and compliance exhibits into a single digital package for reviewers.

  • The platform simplified signatures and recordkeeping.
  • The interface is simple and easy-to-use for our team; more importantly, it is just as easy for our customers.

Martin Properties

A development firm moved investor disclosures and escrow certifications into a template workflow.

  • Templates reduced repetitive drafting.
  • I can process and execute all of these documents online with 100% compliance and built-in security.

Who Has Authority to Sign the Proposal

Authorized Representative

Chief Compliance Officer or designated legal counsel may sign or certify the proposal on behalf of an investor entity; ensure authority is documented by corporate resolution.

Agency Signatory

For acceptance or concurrence, an assigned USCIS policy lead or program manager signs internal acceptance records per agency delegation.

FAQs and Troubleshooting for Completing the Proposal

Answers to common questions about legal validity, eSignature, submission channels, and recordkeeping when preparing a proposal for EB-5 processing changes.


Need help? Contact support

be ready to get more
Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users