Direct EB-5 vs. Regional Center EB-5

Direct EB-5 requires the investor to invest $1,050,000 (or $800,000 if the project independently meets TEA criteria) in a single new commercial enterprise that the investor will typically operate. The NCE must create 10 full-time W-2 jobs (35+ hours per week per position) within the required period. The Policy Manual requires a comprehensive, Matter of Ho–compliant business plan; supporting documentation includes the formation documents of the NCE, the operating agreement, evidence of the investor's role, and a job-creation timeline tied to the operating budget. The NCE may be a small operating business (a franchise, a restaurant, a manufacturing operation, a professional service firm, or a self-developed hotel are common), but it must produce direct W-2 employment rather than indirect or induced jobs.

Regional-center EB-5 routes the investor's capital through a designated regional center that has filed a Form I-956F project application before any investor's I-526E is filed. The investor's capital flows to the new commercial enterprise (NCE), which in turn deploys to a job-creating entity (JCE) typically through a loan or equity structure. The investor counts direct, indirect, and induced jobs through an economic methodology (typically RIMS II or IMPLAN), subject to RIA caps: indirect jobs cannot exceed 90 percent of total if construction lasts at least two years, or 75 percent if construction is shorter, with direct construction jobs further discounted by a fraction equal to construction months divided by 24. Tenant-occupancy jobs remain possible but cannot be relocated. The investor typically has no operational role; the regional center and the JCE manage the project.

The post-RIA adjudication environment, since the June 2025 reinstitution of the CISNA / EDLO directive, has reshaped both pathways. Direct EB-5 cases now draw aggressive scrutiny on the Matter of Ho business plan, the W-2 job-creation timeline, and the investor's actual operational role; thin business plans that cleared in 2018-2019 are drawing direct denials. Regional-center cases draw aggressive scrutiny on the project-side documentation (I-956F sufficiency, fund-administrator status, integrity-fund compliance, annual I-956G filings), the source-of-funds package (now requiring seven years of tax returns under RIA Section L), and the project's real-world operational status. AILA practitioners (Andrew DeRoll Black, Ricky Murray, Robert Devine) report that things approved 8-9 months ago now draw RFEs, NOIDs, or direct denials.

The 2026 regional-center termination wave is a defining feature of the current environment. USCIS issued termination notices to investors of every terminated RC in September 2025. Termination notices typically list three options under RIA Section M (INA § 203(b)(5)(M)) but do not always provide a substantive explanation of the underlying USCIS action. Most affected investors are conditional residents whose children have aged out of derivative status, which makes the 180-day Section M window operationally tight. As of March 2026, no NCE/JCE debarment has been issued despite the RIA's authority, and there is no mechanism for investors to request a debarment because proposed Form I-527 has stalled (comment period closed December 22, 2025).

Direct EB-5 business-plan adequacy. USCIS has issued RFEs and direct denials on direct EB-5 petitions where the Matter of Ho business plan lacks the operational specificity USCIS expects: hiring timeline, role descriptions tied to W-2 employment authorization, marketing plan, and revenue projections tied to job creation. Practitioners typically respond with revised business plans, supporting documentation of operational deployment, and declarations from the investor confirming role and capital deployment. Whether the response is persuasive depends on the entire record.

Direct EB-5 single-investor compliance. USCIS may issue RFEs questioning whether the direct EB-5 NCE has a single investor, particularly where the NCE has multiple equity holders or where pre-RIA pooled-investor arrangements have not been fully unwound. Responses typically include the cap table, operating agreement, and evidence of the post-RIA structure.

Regional-center I-956F insufficiency. Where the underlying I-956F is incomplete, outdated, or inconsistent with the current project state, USCIS has issued RFEs at the I-526E level questioning the project's bases of eligibility. Responses typically include amended or updated I-956F filings and project-side reconciliation memoranda. Whether the project-side documentation satisfies USCIS expectations is decided case-by-case.

Regional-center termination notices. As described above, the 2025-2026 termination wave has produced termination notices citing administrative or substantive grounds. The 180-day Section M window applies; investors have three options (continue, re-associate the NCE with another approved RC, or new qualifying investment) at a reduced filing fee of $3,675. Whether any particular Section M response succeeds depends on the underlying USCIS action and the investor's posture.

Source-of-funds RFEs across both pathways. SOF RFEs are common in both direct and regional-center cases. Vivian Zhu has described SOF as an area where USCIS has significant discretion and where standards evolve without formal announcement. The federal courts in Battineni v. Mayorkas (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2024) and Zhou v. Noem (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2025) narrowed USCIS's reach by limiting de-novo demands for sourcing of pre-petitioner owners and by holding that immediate-source documentation is sufficient, but the rulings are not binding on adjudicators outside the parties.

"Approvable when filed" denials. Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), USCIS has issued direct denials on petitions missing the seven years of tax returns now required under RIA Section L, missing judgment statements, or missing business-registration documents. Both pathways are affected; direct EB-5 cases face additional exposure where the business plan does not satisfy Matter of Ho at the petition stage.