H-1B holders considering EB-5 often file the I-485 concurrently with the I-526E. This page walks through what concurrent filing entails, how 245(c) and 245(k) interact, and how practitioners typically handle the H-1B fallback.
You are in the United States in H-1B status, often years into an EB-2 or EB-3 backlog, and you are considering filing an EB-5 petition. Because the EB-2 and EB-3 priority dates for India and China have remained heavily retrogressed, EB-5 set-aside categories (rural at 20%, high-unemployment area at 10%, infrastructure at 2%) have functioned in 2025 and into 2026 as one of the few employment-based pathways with current visa availability for these countries.
The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA) introduced the ability to file Form I-485 concurrently with Form I-526E when a visa number is available at filing. For an in-country H-1B holder whose set-aside category is current, this means the EB-5 petition and the adjustment-of-status application can be submitted together, with the I-765 (EAD) and I-131 (Advance Parole) filed alongside. The benefit is independence from the H-1B employer relationship once the EAD issues, and the ability to remain in the U.S. while the I-526E is adjudicated.
Concurrent filing is not free of risk. The I-485 is dependent on an approved I-526E, and if the I-526E is denied while the I-485 is pending, the adjustment falls. Whether the H-1B remains a workable fallback depends on whether it has been maintained throughout. This page describes the framework and the trade-offs we typically discuss with H-1B clients before they file.
The statutory anchors are INA § 203(b)(5) (EB-5 classification) and INA § 245(a), (c), (k) (adjustment of status and bars). Concurrent filing of I-485 with I-526E is permitted under the RIA when a visa number is available at the time of filing. As of March 2026, the rural, high-unemployment, and infrastructure set-aside categories remain "current" for all countries in the Visa Bulletin, meaning concurrent I-485 filing is available for in-country investors regardless of country of chargeability, subject to status maintenance. The unreserved EB-5 category remains current for most countries but is backlogged for both mainland China and India.
Section 245(c) of the INA bars adjustment for individuals who have failed to maintain lawful status, engaged in unauthorized employment, or violated the terms of nonimmigrant status. INA § 245(k) softens this bar for employment-based applicants by overlooking up to 180 aggregate days of post-admission status violations or unauthorized employment. Section 245(k) is now expressly available to EB-5 adjustment applicants under the RIA framework.
The I-485 application package typically includes the I-485 itself, biometrics fee, medical examination on Form I-693, supporting civil documents, and concurrent I-765 (EAD) and I-131 (Advance Parole) applications. Combined EAD and AP "combo cards" are no longer reliably issued together; practitioners report processing times of approximately six months to one year for EAD and AP, with significant inconsistency between cases. There is no AOS adjudication advantage for rural-set-aside cases despite priority I-526E processing on the petition side.
Conditional permanent residence flows from I-485 approval if the I-526E is approved first. INA § 216A and 8 C.F.R. § 216.6 govern the I-829 removal-of-conditions stage that follows. Whether concurrent filing is the right path depends on the investor's underlying status, country of chargeability, the strength of the I-526E petition, and the visa-bulletin posture at the moment of filing, all decided case-by-case.
Set-aside category current, H-1B in good standing with at least one year of validity remaining, employer relationship workable.
This is the most common posture. The investor files the I-526E, the I-485, the I-765 EAD application, and the I-131 Advance Parole application concurrently. The H-1B is maintained in parallel through extensions and amendments as needed. Once the EAD issues (typically six months to one year, sometimes longer in current processing), the investor has flexibility to leave the H-1B employer if the engagement no longer fits. The H-1B remains the safety net while the I-526E is adjudicated. Whether this approach fits a particular investor depends on country of chargeability, status-maintenance feasibility, and the strength of the underlying petition.
H-1B fully stable for the I-526E adjudication horizon, set-aside category at risk of retrogression by adjudication time, or cash-flow constraints on the additional filing fees.
Some investors file the I-526E alone and wait for approval before filing the I-485. The advantage is fewer concurrent filing fees and a cleaner adjudication posture. The disadvantage is that the visa-bulletin landscape may shift before approval; if the set-aside category retrogresses by the time the I-526E is approved, the I-485 cannot be filed in-country until the priority date is current again. This option also forecloses early access to the I-485 EAD. Whether deferred filing is preferable depends on the investor's tolerance for visa-bulletin risk and the projected I-526E processing timeline.
Investor anticipates leaving the U.S. or plans extended international travel during adjudication, or has a country of chargeability that makes consular processing cleaner.
If the investor expects to leave the U.S. for an extended period, consular processing through the National Visa Center may fit better than AOS. The downside is that the investor relinquishes the I-485 EAD and the ability to remain in the U.S. without H-1B sponsorship during the wait. Consular processing also exposes the investor to Section 212(f) entry-bar proclamations (the 75-country indefinite pause on immigrant-visa issuance and the 19-country pause on all application types) where the investor's country of chargeability is on the relevant list. Whether consular processing or AOS is the right posture is decided case-by-case.
Investor has a defensible EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, or family-based path independent of the EB-5 filing.
Parallel-track filings are not unusual for sophisticated investors. The EB-5 petition may sit alongside an EB-1A self-petition, an EB-2 NIW, or a family-based I-130 where eligibility exists. Each path is independent for adjudication purposes, and approval on a non-EB-5 track may make the EB-5 fallback unnecessary. The cost is the additional filing and attorney work. Whether parallel filings are appropriate depends on the strength of each path, decided case-by-case.
EB-5 approval rates have fallen materially over the past several adjudication cycles, and the rate at which USCIS issues Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny, and direct denials has risen sharply. The June 2025 reinstitution of the CISNA/EDLO directive (instructing officers to deny rather than RFE in close cases) and the routine pairing of I-829 denials with Notices to Appear in removal proceedings are reshaping how EB-5 practice is done. Profiles that we and other firms saw approved without challenge two or three years ago are now drawing aggressive scrutiny, particularly on source-of-funds tracing and partial-investment timing, and some are being denied outright on records that, on their face, look as strong as records that previously cleared. Officers also vary considerably in how they apply discretionary judgments under the post-RIA framework. This climate is not unique to H-1B holders pursuing concurrent I-485 filings, but it is real, and it informs how we counsel clients before, during, and after filing.
This page describes patterns we have seen across many H-1B-investor cases. It is general information about how this type of filing is typically analyzed, not a prediction about any specific case and not a representation that meeting any particular evidence pattern will result in approval. EB-5 outcomes turn on the entire record, the strength of the legal and factual arguments, the current adjudication climate, and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
Tell us about your immigration needs and we'll be in touch to discuss how we can help.
Immigration counsel to Fortune 500 employers at a national firm · Adjudicated 12,000+ visas at the U.S. Consulate, Mexico · Working in U.S. immigration since 2008
Featured in Newsweek, Condé Nast Traveler, Daily Mail