The sustainment period is the temporal companion to the at-risk requirement, and the rules differ materially between pre-RIA and post-RIA filers, with the post-RIA start date currently the subject of pending federal litigation that may reshape the framework for investors filing today.
The sustainment requirement traces to INA § 203(b)(5)(A)(i), which conditions EB-5 eligibility on the investor's investment in a new commercial enterprise that contributes to job creation. For pre-RIA filers, the operative regulation is 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(iii), which requires that the investor's capital remain at risk throughout the two-year period of conditional permanent residence. USCIS continues to apply this rule to pre-RIA petitioners. The pre-RIA framework therefore ties sustainment to immigration status: the clock begins when conditional residence begins (typically the date of admission as a conditional resident or the I-485 approval date) and runs until the I-829 is filed.
The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 changed the framework for petitions filed under post-RIA standards. INA § 203(b)(5)(A)(i), as amended by RIA, requires the capital to "be expected to remain invested for not less than 2 years," without tying that period to conditional-residence status. USCIS's interpretation of this provision lives in a December 2023 update to the USCIS EB-5 Q&As on its website, which states that the post-RIA two-year sustainment begins when the full investment is made to the NCE and placed at risk, including being made available to the JCE. That interpretation has not been promulgated as a regulation; it sits in non-regulatory web guidance, and USCIS promised a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by November 2025 but has not issued one as of mid-2026.
The post-RIA interpretation is now the subject of pending federal litigation. IIUSA v. DHS, Civ. No. 1:24-cv-918-ACR (D.D.C. filed Mar. 29, 2024), challenges the December 2023 web-guidance interpretation under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that USCIS adopted a substantive rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The case is pending; whether the courts will accept USCIS's "from full deployment" reading, require a different start date (such as conditional-residence onset, by analogy to the pre-RIA rule), or remand for rulemaking is unresolved. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), which eliminated Chevron deference, makes it more likely that the courts will read RIA's sustainment provision without deferring to USCIS's web guidance.
The interpretive ambiguity here is unusually consequential. For backlogged investors whose conditional residence may not begin for years after I-526E filing, the post-RIA "from full deployment" reading can mean that the sustainment period expires before conditional residence even begins, materially changing the investment lifecycle. AILA practitioners therefore treat the sustainment-period analysis as one of the most active interpretive areas in current EB-5 practice, and we draft and counsel with explicit acknowledgment that the framework may change.
USCIS analyzes sustainment differently depending on the filer's regulatory cohort.
Pre-RIA filers (those who filed I-526 before March 15, 2022, or whose petitions are governed by pre-RIA standards under transition rules) are governed by 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(iii). The investor's capital must remain at risk throughout the two-year period of conditional permanent residence. The clock begins when conditional residence begins and runs until the I-829 is filed (or until the conditional residence is otherwise terminated). USCIS continues to apply this rule, and pre-RIA filers face the longer-tail sustainment posture: backlogged Indian and Chinese investors may not begin conditional residence until many years after their initial deployment, and the at-risk capital must be maintained throughout that extended period through redeployment.
Post-RIA filers are governed by INA § 203(b)(5)(A)(i) as amended, requiring that the investment "be expected to remain invested for not less than 2 years." USCIS interprets the start date in a December 2023 web Q&A as the date of full deployment to the NCE and availability to the JCE. Under that interpretation, the two-year clock can theoretically expire before conditional residence begins, particularly for investors from backlogged countries or in retrogressed set-aside categories. USCIS has not formally promulgated this interpretation as a regulation, and the IIUSA v. DHS litigation is pending in D.D.C.
The practical analytical questions, in our experience, fall into several categories. The first is the start date documentation. For post-RIA filers operating under USCIS's current web-guidance interpretation, practitioners typically document the date of full deployment to the NCE and availability to the JCE explicitly: bank records showing the capital arriving at the NCE, NCE-to-JCE flow documentation, and where applicable a regional-center confirmation of full deployment. The start-date evidence becomes important if the petition is later challenged on sustainment grounds.
The second is continuity of the at-risk posture through the period. Sustainment incorporates the at-risk requirement: capital that is structured at-risk at the start but loses its at-risk character mid-period (because, e.g., a JCE loan matures and the funds return to the NCE without redeployment) fails sustainment. We address at-risk and redeployment in detail on separate topic pages.
The third is the interaction with conditional residence. For pre-RIA filers, conditional residence and sustainment are intertwined; for post-RIA filers, they may be decoupled. Post-RIA filers whose sustainment period would have expired before conditional residence begins face a documentary question of how to demonstrate, at I-829, that sustainment was satisfied during a period that may pre-date the conditional-residence period. Practitioners typically retain bank records, NCE financials, and regional-center confirmations from the deployment date forward, with the I-829 record in mind.
The fourth is the climate. The post-RIA interpretation is in litigation and may change. The CISNA / EDLO directive, reinstituted in June 2025, instructs adjudicators to deny in close cases. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), the "approvable when filed" standard, is being applied to sustainment-period defects rather than left to RFE-curing. AILA practitioners flag sustainment as one of several areas where adjudication outcomes have shifted without formal regulatory change. How any particular sustainment posture is analyzed is decided case-by-case by the adjudicating officer.
The following are documentation patterns AILA practitioners have observed supporting approval in prior cases, framed for both pre-RIA and post-RIA filers. Each is a frame, not a checklist; whether any particular package satisfies the requirement is decided case-by-case.
- Deployment-date documentation (post-RIA). Bank records and NCE-to-JCE transfer documentation establishing the date of full deployment to the NCE and availability to the JCE. Practitioners typically include subscription-agreement confirmations, escrow-release records (where escrow was used), wire records into the NCE, and NCE-to-JCE transfer documentation. The deployment-date record is the foundation for any later sustainment defense, particularly if USCIS's "from full deployment" interpretation is upheld in IIUSA v. DHS.
- Conditional-residence-onset documentation (pre-RIA). The date of admission as a conditional resident or the I-485 approval date, together with the corresponding capital-flow records establishing that the investment was at risk on that date. Pre-RIA filers face the additional documentary burden of showing that the at-risk posture was maintained throughout the two-year conditional period, often through redeployment records.
- Continuity records throughout the sustainment period. Bank statements and NCE financials covering the period from start to end, showing that the capital remained deployed and at risk throughout. For projects whose underlying loan or equity matured before the sustainment period ended, redeployment records bridge the gap. Practitioners typically retain these records contemporaneously rather than reconstructing them at I-829.
- Regional-center confirmations. For regional-center investments, a confirmation from the regional center identifying the deployment date, the at-risk posture, and (where applicable) the redeployment schedule has supported sustainment findings in prior cases. The confirmation is not a substitute for the underlying records, but it provides a structured narrative anchor.
- Project-completion or operating-status records. Where the project's operating posture is relevant to sustainment (because, e.g., the at-risk character of the investor's position depends on the project's continued commercial operation), records establishing the project's operating status throughout the period (financial statements, leasing records, construction-completion records) support the sustainment showing.
- Redeployment plan and execution documentation. Where capital was returned to the NCE before sustainment ended and redeployed, the redeployment-plan documentation, the redeployment-execution records (subscription agreements, capital-flow records into the redeployment vehicle), and the regional-center confirmation that the redeployment is within the same NCE and constitutes "actual undertaking of business activity" rather than pure secondary-market trading. We address redeployment in detail on a separate topic page.
Disputed start date (post-RIA). The officer applies USCIS's December 2023 web-guidance interpretation that sustainment begins at full deployment to the NCE and availability to the JCE, and questions whether the deployment was "full" or whether the JCE actually received the capital. Practitioners typically respond with NCE-to-JCE transfer documentation, JCE-side bank records, regional-center confirmations, and where appropriate a brief preservation of the IIUSA v. DHS legal hedge that the underlying interpretation is in litigation. Whether the officer accepts the deployment-date showing is decided case-by-case by the adjudicating officer.
Capital returned to NCE before sustainment ended without redeployment. The officer asserts that the at-risk posture was lost when the JCE loan matured (or when the JCE returned capital to the NCE for any other reason) without redeployment within "a reasonable amount of time." Practitioners typically respond with the redeployment plan, the redeployment-execution records, and a narrative explaining the timing. Where the redeployment did not occur within the policy-manual-favored twelve-month window, practitioners document the reason and the alternative satisfactions of the at-risk posture. Whether the response is sufficient is decided case-by-case.
Pre-RIA sustainment gap. The officer asserts that the petitioner's at-risk posture lapsed during the two-year conditional period because the capital was returned to the NCE without redeployment, the project failed and the redeployment vehicle is not identified, or other similar facts. Pre-RIA filers face this pattern more commonly than post-RIA filers because the conditional-residence-tied clock is longer for backlogged investors. Practitioners typically respond with whatever continuity records exist, redeployment documentation, and where applicable a forensic-accounting reconstruction. Whether the gap is curable is decided case-by-case.
I-829 sustainment re-examination. The officer raises sustainment questions at I-829 that were not raised at I-526 / I-526E approval. AILA practitioners describe I-829 sustainment re-examinations as increasingly common in 2025-2026, paralleling the broader trend of I-829 source-of-funds re-examination. Practitioners typically respond with the full deployment-and-continuity record, retained from the original deployment, and where appropriate a forensic-accounting declaration tying the records together. Whether the re-examination is overcome is decided case-by-case.
Secondary-market redeployment. The officer rejects a redeployment into a financial-instrument trading position on the ground that USCIS Policy Manual Vol. 6, Part G, Chapter 2 § A.2 requires redeployment to constitute "actual undertaking of business activity" rather than pure secondary-market trading. Practitioners typically respond by re-characterizing the redeployment as a commercial activity within the NCE or, where the redeployment cannot be re-characterized, by addressing the at-risk consequence directly. Whether the redeployment is treated as a commercial activity is decided case-by-case.
Litigation-related uncertainty. The officer applies the December 2023 web-guidance interpretation as if it were settled regulation, without acknowledging the IIUSA v. DHS challenge. Practitioners typically preserve the legal argument that the underlying interpretation is the subject of pending federal litigation and that any final agency action based on that interpretation is subject to APA review, while addressing the petition on the merits under the current USCIS reading. Whether the legal hedge is given weight is decided case-by-case by the adjudicating officer.
Sustainment shapes investment timing, project selection, and the redeployment posture investors should expect. Several strategic considerations are worth foregrounding for both pre-RIA and post-RIA filers.
Pre-RIA versus post-RIA filers face fundamentally different sustainment postures. Pre-RIA filers must maintain at-risk capital through the entire two-year conditional residence period, which for backlogged investors can run many years after deployment because of the long visa-bulletin wait. Post-RIA filers, under USCIS's current web-guidance interpretation, run a two-year clock from full deployment that may expire before conditional residence begins. The choice of investment vehicle, the redeployment posture, and the documentary practice all differ across the two cohorts. Practitioners typically draft and counsel with explicit recognition of the cohort the investor falls into.
Plan for redeployment at I-526E filing for backlogged post-RIA investors. Even under USCIS's "from full deployment" reading, backlogged investors whose conditional residence will not begin for years still need to maintain at-risk capital through the I-829 stage, because at-risk-in-fact is required for the entire investment lifecycle even where the formal sustainment period is shorter. Redeployment planning at I-526E filing tends to read better at I-829 than redeployment planned in response to a maturity event years later. We address redeployment in detail on a separate topic page.
**Preserve the IIUSA v. DHS hedge.** Post-RIA petitions filed under the current USCIS interpretation should preserve the argument that the underlying December 2023 web guidance is the subject of pending federal litigation. Whether the litigation succeeds is unresolved, but the hedge protects the petitioner's position if the courts eventually require a different start date. Practitioners typically include a brief notation in the cover letter and the supporting brief without making it the primary defense.
Document deployment-date evidence contemporaneously. Whether the courts ultimately accept USCIS's "from full deployment" reading or some alternative, deployment-date evidence is the foundation for any sustainment defense. NCE bank records, NCE-to-JCE transfer documentation, regional-center confirmations, and escrow-release records (where escrow was used) tend to be most useful when collected at the time of deployment rather than reconstructed at I-829 years later.
Anticipate I-829 sustainment re-examination. AILA practitioners describe I-829 sustainment re-examinations as increasingly common in 2025-2026. Anything stated at I-526E about sustainment posture becomes the evidentiary baseline at I-829, and adjudicators may reopen sustainment questions four or more years after I-526 / I-526E approval. The cautious documentary practice is to maintain a continuous record from deployment through I-829 filing.
The interpretive frontier may shift. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), eliminated Chevron deference and increases the likelihood that the courts will read RIA's sustainment provision without deferring to USCIS's web guidance. Combined with the IIUSA v. DHS APA challenge and the still-promised-but-unissued NPRM, the post-RIA sustainment framework is among the most likely areas to see a substantive change before many post-RIA filers reach I-829. We track the litigation and the rulemaking docket and counsel clients with explicit acknowledgment that the framework may change.
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. Sustainment postures that we and other firms saw approved without challenge two or three years ago are now drawing aggressive scrutiny, particularly around deployment-date documentation, redeployment continuity, and the post-RIA two-year start date that is currently in litigation, and some petitions 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 backlogged investors or those in projects with shorter capital lifecycles, 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 petitions and project reviews. It is general information about how the sustainment period 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, the pending IIUSA v. DHS litigation outcome, 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