Project selection
An EB-5 project should be read beyond the presentation.
The question is not which project looks best. It is what the documents establish, where the evidence agrees, and what remains open for the investor’s immigration strategy.
Proper scope
Immigration review is not a financial recommendation.
HarrisLaw examines how the project’s structure and documents support an EB-5 petition. The review addresses jobs, at-risk capital, project identity, timing, controls, conflicts, and consistency across the record.
It does not determine profitability, market value, credit quality, commercial viability, or whether the investment is suitable for a client’s portfolio. Those matters may require independent investment, securities, tax, accounting, and business advice.
Core questions
What deserves close attention.
IDENTITY
Who is responsible?
Identify the regional center, new commercial enterprise, job-creating entity, developer, manager, lender, fund administrator, and other parties—and confirm that the same entities appear throughout the record.
CAPITAL STACK
What funds the project?
Compare EB-5 capital, developer equity, senior debt, bridge financing, public incentives, and other sources. Ask which funds are committed, contingent, advanced, or still expected.
JOBS
How are ten jobs supported?
Review construction duration, qualifying expenditures, operating assumptions, economic methodology, job cushion, timing, exclusions, and whether the evidence supports the business plan.
CONTROLS
How does money move?
Understand escrow, release conditions, separate accounts, fund-administrator or audit arrangements, draw procedures, reserves, use-of-proceeds controls, and reporting to investors.
CONFLICTS
Who benefits and how?
Identify related parties, management and administrative fees, promoter compensation, subagents, transactions with affiliates, discretion, and the mechanisms used to disclose or manage conflicts.
EXIT AND SUSTAINMENT
What happens over time?
Examine loan maturity, extensions, repayment sources, investor distributions, sustainment requirements, possible redeployment, liquidation provisions, and how delays may affect immigration and capital.
Consistency test
The documents should tell the same story.
A business plan, economic impact analysis, private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, operating agreement, loan documents, escrow terms, construction records, TEA evidence, and USCIS filings should not describe materially different projects.
- Names, addresses, ownership, and control should align.
- Project scope, budget, schedule, and capacity should reconcile.
- Offering terms and use of proceeds should match governing agreements.
- Job assumptions should connect to qualifying evidence.
- Conflicts, fees, and promoter compensation should be disclosed consistently.
- Material changes should be identified, explained, and addressed.
Questions for investors
What remains open?
Good review does not pretend every uncertainty can be eliminated. It identifies the unanswered questions, who should answer them, and whether the immigration record supports the investor’s intended filing strategy.
- Has Form I-956F been filed, and what document version accompanied it?
- Has project construction begun, and what evidence supports expenditures?
- What assumptions drive the job cushion?
- Which parties are related, and how are conflicts addressed?
- Who controls or verifies the movement of investor funds?
- How will investors learn about changes, audits, site visits, or delays?
Project review should sharpen the questions—not hide them.
HarrisLaw can evaluate how a project’s documentation relates to your EB-5 immigration strategy.