No. That route concerns a substantial change in net worth or employee numbers, reaching at least 140% of the relevant pre-expansion level.
Use the right measure for the claimed route
Revenue is a different measure. First identify whether the expansion route is the actual enterprise-establishment theory; not every EB-5 case has a universal 40% growth requirement. The investor’s lawful at-risk capital, qualifying jobs and participation remain separate conditions.
The reduced amount is not a discount that can be claimed by describing a location as rural; it depends on the project actually falling within a targeted employment area or qualifying infrastructure category as those are currently defined. Confirm three things independently and in writing: the capital figure applicable to the intended filing, the basis on which any lower threshold is claimed, and whether the petition will be a standalone or a regional center filing, since the job-creation evidence differs between them. Ask counsel to review the change before any pending capital call, further instalment, or escrow release moves, because money already deployed into a revised structure is harder to argue about than money still held.
- USCIS — EB-5 investor program
- USCIS — business and investment visa overview
- USCIS — Child Status Protection Act
- Department of State — Visa Bulletin
- USCIS — fee schedule
- Current EB-5 capital statute — 8 USC 1153(b)(5)
- EB-5 enterprise expansion — 8 CFR 204.6(h)(3); not used for obsolete capital figures
- USCIS — I-829 instructions