EB-5 teaching case
A California smart logistics center: learning EB-5 through one case
The previous pages covered the concepts and the comparison between the two ways of participating. This page puts them inside one case: a logistics center in a California targeted employment area (TEA) that builds, runs smart warehousing and operates electric transport. By the end you should be able to ask the right questions yourself.
Legal and policy citations verified:2026-09-09
This page is written from a business concept provided to us. Every amount, layer, priority, period and cash figure on it is a teaching scenario used to explain how an EB-5 structure works. None of it is a verified live offering, funding received, approved job model or government approval, and none of it is an offer or solicitation.
Eight parts
The case in eight parts
Each part opens with a direct explanation, then a diagram or worked example, with technical detail available when you want it.
First: the ten EB-5 basics lessons
Get the entities, capital stack, jobs and filings clear before anything else.
Second: this case
See those concepts inside one complete, internally consistent scenario.
Third: the project comparison
Return to the direct-versus-regional-center comparison, the nine business models and the 22 due-diligence fields.
Part one
What the business actually does
Set immigration aside for a moment. A logistics center exists because someone pays to store, pick, pack, ship and move goods. The case sets out three revenue lines: warehousing and in-facility handling, order fulfilment (shipping for e-commerce and brand clients), and regional transport and delivery. Each has identifiable customers, a clear basis for charging, and staffing needs.
In the case premises, transport uses manned electric trucks with the related clean-energy support, and that can serve as the base operating scenario: it changes energy, maintenance and dispatch arrangements. Whether it can actually run depends on the applicable vehicle, carrier, driver, site and charging permissions and qualifications, on insurance, and on whether the operating economics work. This page does not claim the project holds any permit.
Autonomous driving is a stated technology direction, not a precondition for opening. Treat it as a conditional option: it requires the applicable permits and compliance status, unit economics that hold up in real operations (whether the cost and revenue per trip, per mile and per order work), and matching safety and insurance arrangements. Until each of those is documented, autonomy cannot be described as an available capability and no timeline can be attached to it.
Why customers pay: three revenue lines
Warehousing and handling
Charged by area, pallet position and handling volume. Smart-warehouse equipment changes throughput and staffing mix; it does not change the fact that customers pay to store and handle goods.
Order fulfilment
Charged by order volume, pick-and-pack activity and returns handling. Customers are e-commerce sellers, brands and distributors, so revenue moves with their actual volume.
Regional transport and delivery
Charged by trip, mileage, time window or contracted volume. Electric trucks and charging infrastructure belong to this line's assets and costs.
On autonomy: state the conditions, not a date
The case lists autonomous driving as a future upgrade. Getting there requires at least: the applicable vehicle and operating permissions, a compliance arrangement matched to the vehicle type and use case, unit economics that can be checked, and a safety and insurance plan.
California publishes its autonomous-vehicle permit requirements through the responsible state authority; the scope and conditions for heavy commercial vehicles have to be checked against the official rules in force at the time. This page reaches no conclusion that any vehicle or route is permitted.
There is also an immigration dimension: automation changes staffing. That is covered in part four, and it is why a plan cannot claim near-unstaffed operations and large operating payrolls at the same time.
Case premises (from the concept provided)
- Located in a California targeted employment area (TEA).
- The business covers logistics-center construction, smart warehousing, electric trucks and clean-energy transport, with autonomous-driving technology as a stated direction.
- Proposed funding: $3m existing sponsor stock, $10m preferred equity, a $50m bank loan and $50m of EB-5 capital, totalling $113m.
- The sponsor personally puts in $3m; the $10m of preferred equity comes from family foundations managed by the sponsor's company.
- The regional center, the new commercial enterprise (NCE) and the job-creating entity (JCE) are separate legal entities driven by the same coordinated, affiliated management system, described as broadly acting in concert.
- Job creation is meant to cover the full lifecycle, including actual operations, not construction alone.
- Construction is expected to take under two years; no specific number of months was given.
- California state and county land or policy concessions are a scenario premise.
Still to be confirmed by documents (including this page's added teaching assumptions)
- No address and no TEA proof were provided. This page assigns no TEA category (rural or high-unemployment area) and claims no rural priority.
- The sponsor's “existing stock” is treated as common equity in this teaching model; the actual share class has not been verified.
- To make priority legible, this page assumes: the $50m bank facility is a senior loan with a first lien; the NCE makes a $50m subordinated loan to the JCE (no second-lien security is assumed for it); and the $10m of preferred equity ranks ahead of the $3m of common equity at the project level. These ranks and instrument forms are assumptions; actual documents control.
- EB-5 investors hold interests in the NCE; the project-level loan is held by the NCE. Even with sponsor-side management across the entities, an individual EB-5 investor does not thereby control the JCE and does not automatically share all project-level residual upside.
- “Family foundations” follows the description provided; this page makes no finding about charitable or tax status.
- For the government concessions, no grant document, land contract or valuation has been provided to or verified by us — not provided does not mean such documents do not exist. So this page assigns them no amount and keeps them outside the $113m stack to avoid double counting. A concession is also not a statutory infrastructure category.
- Government approval, public guaranty, infrastructure designation, USCIS approval, bank commitment, funding received, and any government guarantee share of a loan: none has been provided or verified.
- Construction is described only as “expected to take under two years”; no month count or completion date has been provided.
Part two
Where the money goes, and who is who
Separate two questions: which entities the money actually passes through, and who manages or oversees whom. They have to be drawn separately, or “one team” gets misread as “one wallet”.
EB-5 investors (several individuals)
capital for ownership interests in the NCE (shares / membership interests / limited partnership interests; form not fixed here)
New commercial enterprise (NCE)
Investors hold ownership interests in the NCE, not interests in the JCE.
New commercial enterprise (NCE)
assumed $50m subordinated loan
Job-creating entity (JCE)
The loan is held by the NCE. No second-lien security is assumed for it here.
Bank (external)
$50m senior loan (assumed first lien)
Job-creating entity (JCE)
Goes directly to the project entity, not through the NCE and not through the regional center.
Sponsor personally
$3m common equity
Job-creating entity (JCE)
Treated as common equity in this teaching model: first loss, residual return.
Family foundations (managed by the sponsor's company)
$10m preferred equity
Job-creating entity (JCE)
The contributor is the foundation capital, not the sponsor personally. Managing money is not the same as providing it.
The four money paths are independent. EB-5 capital goes into the NCE in exchange for qualifying ownership interests in the NCE; the NCE then puts capital into the JCE through the assumed subordinated loan. The bank loan and the project-level equity go straight to the JCE, not through the NCE. This case does not fix the NCE's legal form: it could be a corporation, an LLC or a limited partnership, with investors correspondingly holding shares, membership interests or limited partnership interests — the actual documents govern. Whichever form applies, it does not change the teaching assumption that the NCE lends to the JCE, and it does not mean an investor may lend to the NCE.
Solid line: money ｜ Dashed line: management, coordination and compliance (not a path the money must take)
EB-5 investors (outside the system)
Several individuals participating through the NCE, normally not in the JCE's day-to-day operations.
Money (solid)
Bank (outside the system)
An independent commercial lender that lends directly to the JCE.
Money (solid)
The sponsor personally (contributor)
$3m of common equity straight into the JCE, taking first loss. Personal money and foundation capital are two different pots.
Money (solid): $3m common equity ⟶ JCE
Family foundation capital (managed by the sponsor's company)
A separate contributor. This money enters the JCE directly as $10m of preferred equity. Being managed by the sponsor's company does not make the sponsor personally the contributor, and it is not combined with the sponsor's personal $3m.
Money (solid): $10m preferred equity ⟶ JCE
Management (dashed): the sponsor's company --- family foundation capital
Coordinated sponsor system (one affiliated management group; the legal entities stay separate)
Regional center (RC)
Carries compliance, oversight and reporting duties. Money does not have to pass through it, and this diagram places it in no cash chain. A regional center is not a government agency.
New commercial enterprise (NCE)
Receives the EB-5 capital and issues the ownership interests the investors hold; makes the assumed subordinated loan to the JCE. “NCE” is an EB-5 role, not a legal form — this case does not fix whether it is a corporation, an LLC or a limited partnership.
Job-creating entity (JCE)
Builds and operates the logistics center, creates the real jobs, and carries the bank loan and project-level equity.
NCE JCE：Money (solid)
The sponsor's company
Manages the family foundation capital as manager and coordinates the entities inside the system. This is a management line, kept separate from the cash path.
Management / coordination (dashed)
- One coordinating team can make communication and decisions faster, but it does not merge the assets and liabilities of three entities. One entity's debt does not become another's, and one entity's assets do not automatically become available to another.
- Oversight between affiliates is not independent oversight by default. Look for independent fund administration or account monitoring, an independent review procedure, and a conflict-of-interest process.
- Real governance rights live in the contracts: who can move money, who can consent to changes, who can replace a manager, who can inspect the books. “Broadly acting in concert” is a description; this page asserts no signed acting-in-concert agreement, no 100% ownership and no specific control rights.
Part three
How $113m splits into four layers, and who gets paid first
The capital stack answers “where the money came from and in what proportion”. Payment priority answers “in what order it is paid back if there is not enough”. Keep them apart. All amounts below are in millions of U.S. dollars.
| Layer | Amount ($m) | Share | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank senior loan (assumed first lien) | 50 | 44.25% | External commercial lender, lending directly to the JCE. |
| EB-5 capital (assumed NCE subordinated loan to the JCE) | 50 | 44.25% | Investors hold NCE interests; the NCE holds the project-level loan. |
| Preferred equity (family foundations managed by the sponsor's company) | 10 | 8.85% | Project-level equity; only a capital-return priority ahead of common equity is assumed here. |
| Sponsor common equity | 3 | 2.65% | The sponsor's personal contribution: first loss, residual return. |
| Total | 113 | 100.00% |
Why the government concessions are not in this table
The premises mention California state and county land or policy concessions. Without an executed grant, land contract or valuation, this page assigns them no amount and keeps them out of the $113m, so nothing is double counted with the four layers above.
Different forms of concession have very different effects. At a minimum, separate the categories below and read their conditions and clawback terms.
Land granted at no cost
Who grants it, whether there is consideration, title and use restrictions, and whether legislative or board approval is needed.
Discounted sale
How the price is set, whether there is an appraisal, and whether the discount is a taxable benefit.
Long-term lease
Term, rent, renewal conditions, who owns the asset at the end, and whether the leasehold can be mortgaged for financing.
Tax abatement or rebate
Which taxes and for how long, whether it is tied to investment or headcount, and whether it is repayable if conditions are missed.
Conditions and clawback
Job counts, investment milestones, years of operation; and whether the benefit is revoked or repayable if they are not met.
Move the slider to see what each layer receives at different levels of net distributable proceeds. The order follows this page's assumptions: bank 50, NCE loan 50, preferred 10, and common equity takes the residual.
| Layer | Principal ($m) | Received in this scenario | Unpaid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank senior loan | 50 | 50 | 0 |
| NCE loan (EB-5 layer) | 50 | 30 | 20 |
| Preferred equity | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Common equity (residual, uncapped) | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Sum of the four layers | 80 |
- “Net distributable proceeds” means the amount available after realization costs. This figure ignores interest, taxes and other priority claims, and it is not a bankruptcy calculator.
- Preferred equity is assumed here only to have a capital-return priority ahead of common equity; no preferred yield or dividend is assumed.
- Common equity takes the residual: once the three layers above are paid their principal, whatever is left belongs to it. So it can exceed $3m, or receive nothing.
- Recovery at the NCE level is not automatically a distribution to an individual investor. What an individual receives, and when, depends on the NCE agreement and on actual cash.
Payment priority and lien priority are two different things
Payment priority is the contractual order of payment. Lien priority is the order of recovery against specific collateral. This page places the bank in first lien as a teaching assumption for this case, not as a conclusion about market practice. The NCE's subordinated loan is later in payment order; that does not mean it holds a second lien.
In this model the $13m of project-level equity ($10m preferred plus $3m common) sits behind two $50m debt layers, so it is a buffer for the lenders — provided that equity is actually funded, stays in the project, and no contrary withdrawal or priority right applies.
The two debt layers total $100m, or 88.50% of $113m. That is arithmetic within this model, not a bank-approved loan-to-value ratio and not a market valuation.
The sponsor's personal first-loss exposure is $3m. The $10m of preferred equity is contributed by family foundations managed by the sponsor's company; it cannot be added to the sponsor's personal investment or described as $13m of “his own capital”.
The generic three-layer $100m illustration lives in the basics lesson →
Part four
From construction to operations: where job evidence comes from, and how the timing works
This case counts jobs across the full lifecycle: construction and installation, then commissioning and ramp-up, then ongoing operations, and only then the contractual repayment or exit. Each stage has its own evidence, and one cannot stand in for another.
Four stages (no month counts)
1. Construction and equipment installation
Sitework, warehouse structure, racking and automation, charging and electrical infrastructure. The premises expect under two years; no month count is stated here.
2. Commissioning and ramp-up
System integration, trial operation, first customers onboarded. Staffing shifts from installation crews to the operating team; revenue begins but need not be stable.
3. Ongoing operations
Warehouse, dispatch, maintenance and transport roles supported by real business volume and payroll records. This is the source of operating job evidence.
4. Contractual repayment or exit
Handled under the loan and distribution agreements, depending on operating cash flow, asset disposition or refinancing. The timing follows the contracts and the actual cash.
Keep three timelines separate: when jobs are created and counted, what sustainment requires, and the contractual schedule for loan maturity and NCE distributions. Each rests on its own basis, and they do not all end because construction is finished.
Three buckets of job evidence
Construction and installation
Based on qualified expenditure and the duration of construction. Budgets, contracts, payment records and the actual build period have to be checkable, and which spend qualifies has to be explained.
Actual operating positions
Warehouse work, dispatch, equipment maintenance, transport and similar roles, supported by real business volume plus payroll and tax records. Headcount has to line up with revenue and throughput.
Eligible modelled indirect and induced impacts
Modelled under the applicable categories and methodology, with an economic report and checkable inputs (spend, revenue, wage bases).
- The same spend cannot be counted both as construction jobs and as operating jobs. A tenant's or customer's own employees cannot automatically be counted as this project's jobs either: attributing them requires a causal nexus, the applicable methodology, supporting evidence and no double counting. There is no generic entitlement to tenant jobs.
- If the developing entity and the operating entity are not the same company, the documents have to show the funding link and how it matches the business plan. This page invents no subsidiaries and no verified affiliates.
- Automation may reduce some roles while creating maintenance, dispatch and technical roles. Those roles need a real business basis; a plan cannot promise near-unstaffed operations and a large operating payroll at the same time.
Automation and staffing: both halves have to add up
If a plan relies on heavy automation to cut labour cost, it has to explain where the operating jobs come from. If it relies on a large operating headcount, it has to explain how that labour cost is covered by revenue. This tension belongs to EB-5 generally, not to one way of participating.
The check is straightforward: read the staffing table, the payroll budget, the volume assumptions and the revenue assumptions together, and see whether they can all hold at once.
Current rules that matter for jobs
- In regional-center modelling, jobs legally classified as indirect may satisfy up to 90% of the required jobs. That is about jobs legally classified as indirect, not about every job produced by a model.
- Where construction lasts less than two years, the indirect jobs created by that construction may satisfy no more than 75% of the required job creation. The cap applies to those indirect construction jobs, not to all construction jobs. The premises expect under two years, so the rule is relevant here (8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(5)(E)(iv), (v)).
- Qualifying direct construction jobs are prorated by the duration of construction against 24 months.
- A short construction period does not make a project ineligible by itself, and does not make the capital contribution ineffective. What it changes is which category of job evidence applies and the proportional limits.
- This page asserts no universal requirement of a “25% actual payroll” roster.
Sustainment: not the same as a completion date
For post-RIA petitions, under USCIS's 2023 interpretation: the relevant period runs from when all of the required qualifying capital has been made available to the job-creating entity as appropriate and is at risk. Pre-RIA cases follow the rules applicable to them.
Spending the capital on construction and finishing the build does not automatically end the investment requirement. Conversely, the fact that a loan remains outstanding is not blanket proof that every requirement has been met. The actual flow of funds, actual use and job compliance all matter.
This page gives no fixed clock running from groundbreaking that applies identically to every investor, and asserts no arrangement guaranteeing a refund after two years.
The arithmetic of $50m and $800,000
$50m ÷ $800,000 = 62.5. That is an arithmetic result, not 62.5 people. To read it, look at two whole-subscription illustrations. They are alternative arithmetic only: the case still uses a $113m total with $50m of EB-5 capital.
| Subscriptions | Capital ($m) | Arithmetic at 10 jobs each |
|---|---|---|
| 62 | 49.6 | 620 |
| 63 | 50.4 | 630 |
- These two rows are arithmetic. They do not represent a chosen subscription count, a chosen ticket size, or how any difference from the $50m target would be funded. All of that remains to be determined.
- Neither 620 nor 630 is a number of on-site employees, and neither means any job has been recognized. Whether jobs qualify depends on actual evidence and the applicable rules.
- This page cites no economic-study conclusion and states no job-buffer percentage.
The $800,000 figure is the current statutory minimum for a targeted employment area (TEA) and related categories as of this page's verification date. The amount is adjusted periodically by law; for the timing and size of the next adjustment, rely on official publications and see the basics page. This page does not guess the adjusted amount.
Part five
Two stages of cash: what the business receives, and what an investor might receive
This part is about operating cash flow, which is not the recovery waterfall in part three. The waterfall is about the order of distribution on a realization; cash flow is about the order in which day-to-day receipts are used. Below is one clearly assumed single period, all figures in millions of U.S. dollars.
Stage one: how the business (JCE) uses what it receives
- Actual cash received from customers30
Cash actually received, not invoiced revenue.
- Less: cash operating costs (labour, energy, leases, maintenance)18
Leaves 12.
- Less: taxes, working capital and equipment reserves3
Leaves 9.
- Less: contractual bank debt service6
Leaves 3.
- Less: assumed current interest payment to the NCE2
Leaves 1.
- = Cash available to project-level equity (subject to terms)1
Whether and to whom it is distributed follows the project-level equity terms.
Stage two: how the NCE uses what it receives
- Received by the NCE this period (from the JCE)2
This is the 2 paid to the NCE in stage one.
- Less: illustrative NCE expenses0.4
- Less: NCE reserves0.3
- = Pool potentially available for investor distributions1.3
A pool, not any individual investor's return.
Project-level equity upside goes to the sponsor and the preferred equity under their terms. It does not automatically flow to EB-5 investors, who hold NCE interests and participate through a loan. That is consistent with the priority in part three.
- Invoiced revenue is not cash received, and operating profit is not distributable cash. Every line above is on a cash basis.
- This is a standalone single-period illustration. It assumes no loan amortization and does not change the capital stack in part three.
- No interest rate, yield or personal annualized return is stated. 1.3 is a pool, not what any investor receives, and nothing here is a guaranteed return.
- These are clearly assumed teaching figures. They are not a forecast and not any project's actual numbers.
Administrative and management fees are separate from qualifying investment principal. The 0.4 above is an illustrative NCE expense used to show the structure, not any actual fee schedule. Investor-level administrative and subscription fees are unknown in this case; such fees are counted separately from qualifying principal and are never folded into it.
Part six
Three scenarios: delay, funding gap, default
You learn about a project from what happens when things go wrong and who gets to decide. All three scenarios below are hypothetical analytical frames, not descriptions of anything that has happened in this case.
Permissions, utility connection or installation run late, or customer ramp-up is slow
What happens
- No permit or construction-progress documents were provided for this case, so what follows is the assumption that permissions and connections have not yet been documented — not a delay that has occurred.
- Common triggers: approvals and permits, utility connection, equipment installation scheduling, and how fast the first customers come online.
Who has to decide
- The borrower (JCE) and its management: whether to seek a schedule change and whether to add cost.
- The NCE manager: whether to consent to loan changes and how to disclose them to investors.
- The bank: whether to extend or amend, and whether to require more security.
- Investors: only where the documents actually grant a consent right. Do not assume every party holds a veto.
What to read first
- The construction contract, schedule provisions and responsibility for cost overruns.
- Extension conditions, events of default and consent provisions in the loan agreement.
- Amendment, extension and disclosure provisions in the NCE's operating or limited partnership agreement.
Effects, looked at separately
- Job evidence: a change in construction timing affects how construction jobs are counted and their proportion, and when operating roles begin.
- Cash burn: delay usually adds interest and fixed costs, squeezing the cash margins shown in part five.
- Periods: extending a loan does not automatically extend the sustainment requirement, and does not automatically change an investor's minimum period. Each is judged on its own basis.
A layer is not fully funded, or costs overrun
The lender is not paid on time
- One coordinating team may respond faster in all three scenarios, but that does not change one fact: the money of three entities is not in one wallet, and their assets and liabilities do not merge.
- In these premises, the foundation capital managed by the sponsor's company and the interests of EB-5 investors are different interests. A management relationship is not aligned interests.
- All of the above is a checklist of questions. It implies no wrongdoing by anyone and represents no independently verified conclusion about risk levels.
Part seven
A six-step document reading route
Read in this order once you have the materials, and answer one question per step. Write down what you cannot find; that is the part you still do not know.
Step 1
Who are these entities, and who owns whom?
- The organizational chart and who holds which interests
- The regional center designation (if involved)
- The NCE's governing documents for its actual form: an LLC operating agreement, a limited partnership agreement, or a corporate charter, bylaws and shareholders' agreement as applicable
- The issuer and class of interests named in the subscription documents
- The JCE's registrations and control arrangements
Actual control and any acting-in-concert relationship between affiliates usually has to be confirmed contract by contract; it cannot be inferred from “one team”.
Step 2
Where does the money come from, how is it used, and who ranks ahead?
- The sources-and-uses table and each party's funding commitments
- The subscription agreement and private placement memorandum (PPM)
- The bank loan agreement and the NCE-to-JCE loan agreement
- Security documents and the intercreditor agreement
Whether each layer is actually funded and whether draw conditions are met comes from the money records, not from the plan.
Step 3
Where do the jobs come from, and how are they proved?
- A business plan that meets the credibility requirements of Matter of Ho
- The economic report and its inputs
- Spend and payroll bases
- How jobs are allocated between entities and stages
- TEA evidence
The TEA category and its proof, and how jobs are split between construction and operations, are not documented in this case.
Step 4
What repays the money, or what is the exit?
- Cash-flow assumptions and their basis
- Customer contracts or letters of intent
- Construction and operating budgets
- Exit or refinancing conditions, loan maturities and distribution arrangements
Whether money is actually there at maturity depends on the business and financing conditions at that time; it cannot be inferred from a stated term.
Step 5
Who has which rights if things go wrong?
- Default and extension provisions
- Any guaranty: guarantor, caps and release conditions
- Consent rights, manager removal and conflict-of-interest procedures
Whether those rights are actually in the documents, rather than in a conversation, has to be checked clause by clause.
Step 6
Who is paid what, and what interests are involved?
- All management, placement and related-party fees
- The management mandate over the family foundation capital
- Conflict-of-interest disclosures
- Independent fund administration or account monitoring, or the applicable audit arrangement
Whether fees are separated from qualifying investment principal, and whether any related-party fee is undisclosed, has to be confirmed item by item in the documents.
Where documents conflict, the controlling and priority provisions of the documents themselves govern, and a qualified attorney should read the specific set. This page invents no general rule such as “the PPM always overrides the agreement”.
Part eight
Six self-check questions
Answer each one yourself first, then open it. Nothing is collected here, and no project is scored.
Who holds what?
EB-5 investors hold interests in the NCE; on this page's assumption the NCE holds a loan to the JCE; the JCE holds the logistics operations and assets. Investors do not thereby hold shares in the JCE.
Is the sponsor's $3m the same as the $10m he manages?
No. The $3m is the sponsor's personal common equity, taking first loss. The $10m of preferred equity is contributed by family foundations managed by his company. Managing money is not providing it, and the two cannot be added into $13m of “his own capital”.
Where does the EB-5 layer rank?
Under this page's teaching assumptions the bank senior loan is paid first, then the NCE's subordinated loan, then preferred equity, and common equity takes the residual. Payment priority and lien priority are different things, and actual documents control.
Does the investment requirement end when construction is finished?
No. Completion is a construction event. Sustainment has its own basis, and loan maturity and NCE distributions are contractual arrangements. They do not all end together because the build is done.
If the business receives $30m, do investors get paid?
That does not follow. The two stages in part five show receipts going first to operations, reserves and bank debt service, and only then to the NCE; the NCE then deducts its own expenses and reserves before any pool is available for distribution. Project-level equity upside goes to the sponsor and preferred equity under their terms.
Who can consent to an extension?
Read the documents. It usually involves the borrower, the lender and the NCE manager; whether investors hold a consent right depends on whether the agreement grants one. Do not assume everyone has a veto.
The answers here are teaching answers. Qualifying investment amount, job methodology, regional-center designation and project filings all come down to the actual project documents and legal advice.
Primary sources cited on this page
Primary sources cited on this page
The documents below are primary official sources, verified on the date shown at the top. Every amount and arrangement in the case is a teaching assumption and comes from none of them, nor from any external dataset.
- 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(5): current EB-5 statutory framework (definitions, excluded capital, TEA, infrastructure, job limits, documents)
- 8 CFR 204.6 (see (e), (g)(2), (j)(4)): definitions and allocation of qualifying employment
Older investment amounts and pooling provisions in this section have been superseded by later legislation; do not rely on the old amounts.
- 8 CFR 216.6: removal of conditions (I-829) procedure
- USCIS notice on the sustainment period, 2023-10-11
- DHS notice of proposed rulemaking, 2026-07-02, 91 FR 40676, document 2026-13392: see IV.D.6 (sustainment) and IV.D.7 (bridge financing)
This is a proposal, not an effective rule. The comment deadline stated in that document was 2026-08-31, so it was no longer open for comment on this page's verification date.
- Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206 (1998), esp. 213: credibility requirements for a business plan
- Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (1998): investor–NCE redemption and debt arrangements, and making the required capital available
- SEC and USCIS investor alert: a regional center designation is not a government review of investment quality
- OCC Commercial Real Estate Lending handbook: general commercial-finance concepts of collateral, guarantors and lien priority
- California DMV: autonomous vehicles (a general official entry point; scope and conditions for heavy commercial vehicles must be checked against the rules in force)
EB-5 teaching case
After this case
Use the concepts, the case and the comparison together before you look at any specific project materials.