EB-5 and the 75-Country Travel Ban
The current country-based restrictions come from two distinct instruments that are often conflated: a State Department consular action suspending immigrant-visa issuance for nationals of roughly 75 countries deemed high-risk of becoming a public charge (grounded in INA § 212(a)(4) inadmissibility, not a presidential proclamation), and Presidential Proclamation 10998 under INA § 212(f), which fully suspends entry for 19 countries and partially restricts several categories for roughly 19 to 20 more. The § 212(f) proclamation is entry-focused and does not, by its statutory nature, bar adjustment of status for individuals already in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status. But because public-charge inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4) also applies at the I-485 stage, the entry/status distinction does not automatically shield adjustment applicants from the public-charge basis underlying the immigrant-visa suspension, so in-country investors should analyze both.
Where this requirement comes from
The current country-based restrictions rest on two separate legal instruments that must not be conflated. The first is a State Department consular action instructing posts abroad to suspend immigrant-visa issuance for nationals deemed at high risk of becoming a public charge; its legal basis is public-charge inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4), not a presidential proclamation. The second is Presidential Proclamation 10998, issued December 16, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, under INA § 212(f), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Section 212(f) authorizes the President, by proclamation, to suspend the entry of any class of aliens whose entry is found to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, for a period the President deems necessary, and to impose any restrictions on entry the President deems appropriate.
Both instruments are operative as of March 2026. The State Department public-charge suspension places roughly 75 countries under an indefinite pause on immigrant-visa issuance, meaning that consular officers at U.S. embassies and consulates in those countries do not issue immigrant visas, including EB-5 immigrant visas, to affected nationals while the suspension is in effect. It reaches immigrant-visa issuance abroad only and does not, by its terms, affect nonimmigrant classifications. Proclamation 10998, by contrast, fully suspends entry for nationals of 19 countries and partially suspends entry — covering the B-1/B-2, F, M, and J nonimmigrant categories and all immigrant visas — for roughly 19 to 20 additional countries, for a total of approximately 39 countries under the § 212(f) proclamation.
The affected countries are enumerated by Federal Register citation, and both lists are subject to change. Locke Immigration Law typically refers prospective and current clients to the current Federal Register text rather than to any prior enumeration. Country-list composition and scope are fluid; the AILA materials reviewed for this page do not enumerate every affected country, and the safest position for any client whose nationality may be affected is to confirm the current text before relying on this page or any other secondary source.
The textual constraint of INA § 212(f) is significant for the entry proclamation. The statute authorizes suspension of entry, not termination of cases of those already in the United States. The Supreme Court's interpretation of § 212(f) in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) confirmed broad presidential authority over entry decisions but did not extend the authority to cases of individuals already lawfully present in the United States. Proclamation 10998 is accordingly entry-focused, and its reach is correspondingly bounded. The public-charge immigrant-visa suspension, however, rests on an inadmissibility ground (INA § 212(a)(4)) that also applies at adjustment of status, so it is not bounded to entry in the same way; an in-country investor pursuing AOS can still face public-charge scrutiny at the I-485 stage.
USCIS has not promulgated regulations specifically addressing the current proclamations' interaction with EB-5 adjudication. Practitioners work from the statutory text, the proclamation text, and AILA practitioner guidance, with the understanding that case-by-case national-security review may also affect EB-5 adjudication outside the formal proclamation framework.
The analytical frame
### The entry / status distinction
The most consequential feature of INA § 212(f) for EB-5 strategy is that it operates on entry, not on status. An individual who is already in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status (H-1B, L-1, O-1, F-1 with appropriate authorization, E-2, or other) is not barred by a § 212(f) proclamation from filing an EB-5 petition (Form I-526E) or from filing for adjustment of status (Form I-485) where eligible. The statutory authority does not reach inside the United States to terminate cases that are not entry-dependent.
This means that a national of a 75-country state who is in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status when the restrictions issue, who maintains that status, and who pursues concurrent I-526E and I-485 filings (where the priority date is current and the underlying nonimmigrant status is otherwise compatible), is not barred by the § 212(f) entry proclamation from completing the adjustment-of-status process. The investor's path runs through USCIS adjudication of the I-485 rather than through consular processing abroad, and the § 212(f) entry suspension does not, on its face, reach the I-485.
The public-charge caveat is critical here. The immigrant-visa suspension that reaches 75-country nationals abroad is grounded in public-charge inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(4), and that inadmissibility ground applies at the I-485 stage as well. The entry/status distinction that limits Proclamation 10998 therefore does not automatically shield an adjustment applicant from the public-charge basis underlying the suspension; an affected investor should expect the I-485 to be examined on public-charge grounds and should document adequate assets, the investor's income and self-sufficiency, and any affidavit-of-support or comparable evidence accordingly. Whether a particular applicant clears public-charge review depends on the totality of the circumstances and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
For nationals of the 75-country list who are abroad when the restrictions issue, or who are in the United States but whose underlying status would require consular processing for completion (because, for example, the priority date is not current and the investor would need to depart and return on an immigrant visa), the public-charge suspension does block the immigrant-visa pathway. Consular officers in 75-country posts are not issuing immigrant visas to affected nationals. The blocked pathway forces alternatives: dual-intent nonimmigrant entry followed by AOS from within the United States, citizenship by investment in a non-banned country, or family-based or other employment-based alternatives.
For nationals of the 19-country full-pause list, the broader scope reaches nonimmigrant adjudications as well. Consular processing for these nationals is paused across categories. The strategies that depend on dual-intent nonimmigrant entry (typically H-1B or L-1 for EB-5 purposes) are unavailable through consular processing for 19-country nationals while the proclamation is in effect; nationals who are already in the United States in lawful nonimmigrant status remain inside the AOS pathway, but the population that can newly enter is constrained.
### USCIS adjudication during the proclamation period
USCIS has continued to adjudicate I-526E petitions filed by nationals of 75-country and 19-country states during the proclamation period. The petitions are adjudicated on the same statutory and regulatory framework that applies to all EB-5 investors: INA § 203(b)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 204.6, RIA Section L source-of-funds requirements, project-side documentation, and the post-RIA adjudication standards described elsewhere on this site.
What changes is the downstream pathway. An approved I-526E for a national who must obtain an immigrant visa abroad cannot, in practice, be acted upon at a 75-country consular post during the proclamation. The petition remains approved; the immigrant visa is not issued. The investor's options become: wait for the proclamation to lift, transfer the consular processing to a third-country post if eligible (subject to that post's discretion to accept third-country nationals), or pivot to AOS if the investor can lawfully reach the United States in dual-intent nonimmigrant status.
For investors with concurrent I-485 applications already pending when the proclamation issues, USCIS continues to adjudicate the I-485 on the merits. The proclamation does not, by its statutory authority, terminate pending AOS applications. AILA practitioners report that USCIS has not invoked national-security holds on EB-5 I-485s solely on the basis of the proclamation, though case-specific national-security review remains available to USCIS on its independent authority.
For I-829 (Form I-829, removal of conditions) adjudications, AILA practitioners have observed that some I-829 source-of-funds RFEs have included explicit national-security framing, and that "national-interest"-language denials are harder to overcome in removal proceedings. Whether this framing reflects an internal USCIS directive tied to the proclamations or independent case-specific review is not publicly clear. The defensive posture for I-829 filers from affected countries typically includes thorough source-of-funds re-documentation, declarations addressing national-security concerns where relevant, and forensic-accounting support in distressed-project scenarios.
The current immigration-court backlog of approximately 3.4 million cases, with individual hearings scheduled three to four years out, affects investors whose I-829 denials are paired with Notices to Appear (Form I-862). For investors from affected countries, removal proceedings introduce additional complexity where national-security framing has been part of the underlying USCIS posture.
What has supported eligibility
- Documenting status maintenance. For investors in the United States who are pursuing AOS and whose nationality is on the 75-country list, contemporaneous documentation of underlying nonimmigrant status maintenance (H-1B I-797 approvals, paystubs, employer compliance documentation; L-1 employment evidence; F-1 SEVIS records) has supported the ability to remain in the AOS pathway. Where status lapses, the investor's pathway becomes consular processing, which is the blocked pathway. - Source-of-funds defensive documentation. For investors from affected countries whose I-526E or I-829 may draw national-security framing, AILA practitioners recommend particularly thorough source-of-funds documentation, including the seven years of tax returns required by RIA Section L, the unlimited-look-back judgment disclosure under § L, business-registration documentation, and supporting declarations from CPAs, lenders, and donors as applicable. Whether any package satisfies USCIS expectations depends on the entire record and the discretion of the adjudicating officer.
What officers tend to flag
National-security framing in I-829 RFEs. AILA practitioners have observed I-829 source-of-funds RFEs that include explicit national-security framing. The framing tends to be qualitative rather than tied to specific evidentiary thresholds; responses typically address the framing through declarations and documentation rather than through legal argument alone.
Removal-defense exposure following denial. Where an I-829 is denied and a Notice to Appear is issued, removal proceedings before EOIR follow. For investors from affected countries, the proceedings may include national-security-flavored arguments that are difficult to overcome. Practitioners emphasize preservation of Matter of Herrera del Orden's de novo review right, motion to disqualify any temporary judges, and strategic use of subpoenas.
Status-maintenance lapse patterns. Investors who allow underlying nonimmigrant status to lapse during a proclamation period may find themselves outside the AOS pathway and inside the consular pathway, which for 75-country nationals is blocked. Where USCIS issues an RFE on the underlying I-526E during such a lapse, the response posture is sharply constrained.
Concurrent I-485 collapse on I-526E denial. Where a concurrent I-485 was filed but the underlying I-526E is denied, the I-485 fails. If the investor's underlying nonimmigrant status was not maintained during AOS pendency, unlawful presence may begin to accrue. AILA practitioners have flagged this as a recurring risk for concurrent filers.
Country-list shifts mid-adjudication. The proclamations have been modified previously, and the country list is subject to change by subsequent presidential action. Investors whose status changes from "covered" to "not covered" (or vice versa) by an amendment to the proclamation may see their pathways open or close on relatively short notice. Practitioners typically counsel investors not to rely on the current list as static.
What to weigh before filing
- Dual-intent NIV entry strategy. For investors abroad who can obtain a dual-intent nonimmigrant visa (H-1B or L-1 are the most common discussed pathways), entering the United States on the dual-intent visa and pursuing AOS from within the United States bypasses the § 212(f) entry bar for purposes of EB-5 completion. The strategy depends on the availability of qualifying employment, the ability to obtain the underlying nonimmigrant visa (which itself may be pause-affected for 19-country nationals), and the maintenance of that underlying status through I-485 adjudication. AILA practitioners describe this strategy as one of the principal workarounds. - Citizenship by investment (CBI) in a non-banned country. Several Caribbean CBI programs run approximately two to three months for an investment of approximately $130,000. AILA practitioners have described the use of CBI to obtain a non-banned-country passport, which then becomes the chargeability for immigrant-visa processing. Five CBI countries are on the ban list; others are not. The strategy is fact-specific: CBI requires due diligence on the issuing country's eligibility for U.S. immigrant-visa purposes, on the U.S. recognition of the CBI passport for chargeability, and on the investor's tax and reporting posture. Whether CBI is realistic in any particular case depends on the investor's profile and the current regulatory environment. - Third-country residency without CBI. Some investors qualify for residency or citizenship in a non-banned third country through long-term residence, family ties, or non-CBI immigration pathways. Where such residency is established and the investor's chargeability for U.S. immigration purposes shifts to the non-banned country, the immigrant-visa pathway may reopen. The mechanics depend on U.S. chargeability rules under INA § 202(b) and the specific residency posture. This approach is generally slower than CBI but may be a fit for investors with existing third-country ties. - Family-based or other employment-based alternatives. Where EB-5 is one route among several available to the investor's family, alternative immigration pathways (family-based I-130 petitions, EB-2 NIW where the profile supports it, EB-1A where the profile supports it) may not be subject to the same proclamation constraints. Whether any alternative pathway makes sense for any particular investor depends on the family configuration, professional profile, and timing.
What we tell clients
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 in cases involving nationalities affected by current INA Section 212(f) proclamations and in I-829 contexts where national-security framing has appeared in RFEs, 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 investors from affected countries, 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 investor cases. It is general information about how the current proclamations interact with EB-5 adjudication, not a prediction about any specific case and not a representation that any particular pathway 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. The country list and scope of the current proclamations are subject to change; current proclamation text should be verified against the Federal Register before any reliance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to Get Started?
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