Webinar with Anahita George, Esq.: How to Evaluate EB-5 Projects Without I-956F Approval

In 2026, the status of an EB-5 project’s Form I-956F has become one of the most important criteria for investors evaluating an EB-5 investment. Under the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, regional centers must file Form I-956F for each EB-5 project, and USCIS generally must approve that project-level filing before it can approve the related investor Form I-526E petitions. For EB-5 investors and immigration attorneys, this has made I-956F due diligence a central part of project evaluation.

An approved I-956F gives investors more clarity on the project’s immigration compliance, TEA qualification, job-creation methodology, business plan, and supporting documentation. Still, a project without I-956F approval is not automatically a poor choice. In some cases, the filing may simply be pending because USCIS processing takes time. Investors may still be able to make a sound decision when the regional center sponsor has a strong history of I-956F approvals, no record of denials, and a successful track record with similar projects.

That kind of decision, however, requires careful due diligence. Investors should understand what has been filed with USCIS, whether the project has received any RFEs or NOIDs, whether the capital stack is complete, whether the business plan is well supported, and whether the project team has the experience needed to complete the development and create the required jobs. These questions are even more urgent as the September 30, 2026, grandfathering deadline approaches. Investors who want to file before that deadline cannot afford to choose a project that later creates avoidable immigration delays or exposes their petition to unnecessary risk.

To address these issues, EB5AN held a comprehensive webinar on how to evaluate EB-5 projects without Form I-956F approval. The webinar was hosted by EB5AN Managing Partner Sam Silverman and Anahita George, Esq., founder and managing partner of George & Marzialo, a boutique EB-5 immigration law firm based in Seattle. George & Marzialo has handled more than 1,800 EB-5 applications since 2014, and Anahita brings a background in forensic accounting and tax law, including experience with three of the Big Four accounting firms.

This blog post summarizes the key points covered in the webinar and explains what investors should look for when evaluating EB-5 projects in the current market without Form I-956F approval. For investors preparing to file before the September 30 deadline, understanding Form I-956F can help reduce the risk of costly delays, strengthen the quality of the I-526E filing, and improve the path toward U.S. Green Card approval.

We invite you to watch the full webinar video, highlights, or read our summary below.

Highlights:

Full Webinar:

What Form I-956F Is and Why It Means So Much for EB-5 Investors

Form I-956F is the project-level filing that a regional center must submit to USCIS for an EB-5 investment project. Under the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, this filing became a central part of the EB-5 project review process. Before investors commit capital to a regional center project, they should understand what has been filed with USCIS and what the filing shows about the project’s immigration structure, financial assumptions, TEA qualification, and job-creation plan.

A strong Form I-956F filing gives investors a clearer view of the project they are joining. It may include the project business plan, partnership agreements, operating agreements, loan agreements, TEA designation letters, project location details, fund structure, organizational charts, expected EB-5 capital, the number of entities involved, and the economic report used to support job creation. These documents help show whether the project has been structured properly and whether the investment is likely to satisfy EB-5 program requirements.

The job-creation study deserves careful attention. Every EB-5 investor must be credited with enough qualifying jobs to support the immigration process. A project with a large job cushion gives investors more room for delays, cost changes, or other adjustments that may arise during development. A thin job cushion creates more immigration risk because the project has less margin for error if assumptions change.

Investors should also look at how the project qualifies as a targeted employment area. If the project is claiming rural TEA status, high-unemployment TEA status, or another qualifying designation, the filing should include documentation that supports that claim. This is especially relevant for investors seeking reserved visa advantages or faster processing tied to rural projects. A weak or unsupported TEA position can create serious problems if USCIS later disagrees with the project’s qualification.

Form I-956F also helps investors evaluate financial risk. Immigration attorneys can review the filing for immigration-related concerns, but financial risk requires separate attention. Investors should understand the capital stack, loan structure, developer equity, business assumptions, repayment terms, and project viability. A project may look attractive from an immigration standpoint and still raise financial concerns. The I-956F package gives investors and their advisors a starting point for reviewing both sides of the decision.

USCIS takes these filings seriously. Investors should not assume that every Form I-956F will be approved simply because it was submitted. Some project-level filings have been denied, and those denials show why the underlying documentation must be complete, consistent, and credible. This is especially important as the September 30, 2026, grandfathering deadline approaches. A project-level problem discovered too late can create serious consequences for investors trying to file on time and protect their family’s immigration plans.

Why Investors Should Review the Full Form I-956F Filing Before Investing

Investors should request and review the full Form I-956F filing before making an EB-5 investment decision, especially when the project has not yet received approval. A partial document package is not enough to evaluate the project as a whole. If a regional center shares only selected documents or pushes back against providing the filing, investors should treat that as a serious concern.

The full filing allows the investor and the investor’s attorney to assess immigration risk in a more complete way. The attorney can review whether the project documents are consistent, whether the TEA designation appears properly supported, whether the job-creation methodology is sound, and whether the project structure aligns with EB-5 requirements. Without the full filing, the attorney may be forced to evaluate the project with missing information.

The same problem applies to financial review. Investors need to know whether the project is fully financed, whether the developer has enough committed capital, and whether the project can proceed even if EB-5 fundraising is slower than expected. A project that depends too heavily on future EB-5 capital may face added risk if it cannot raise enough funds on time. If the capital stack is incomplete and the project cannot move forward, USCIS may view the project as less viable.

This issue becomes more serious because of the September 30 deadline. If a project’s Form I-956F is denied after that date, the investor may have little practical ability to switch into another EB-5 investment under the same rules. Timing matters. Investors who are filing close to the deadline need to avoid projects where the I-956F filing raises avoidable questions about financing, viability, or documentation.

A careful review of Form I-956F is now one of the most practical steps investors can take before choosing an EB-5 project. The filing gives investors a direct view into the project’s structure, documentation, job-creation support, financing, and risk profile. In the current market, investors should insist on transparency before committing funds.

How Form I-956F Affects the Investor’s Form I-526E Petition

Investors are allowed to file Form I-526E once the regional center has submitted Form I-956F for the project and received a receipt notice. In practice, investors may also be able to file if 10 days have passed after submission and the regional center can show that USCIS cashed the filing check. This allows investors to move forward before the project-level filing has been approved.

That filing strategy can be useful, especially for investors trying to meet the September 30, 2026, grandfathering deadline. But it also creates risk. A pending Form I-956F does not guarantee that USCIS will later approve the project. Until the project-level filing is approved, the investor’s Form I-526E remains tied to an unresolved USCIS review of the project itself.

After Form I-956F is filed, USCIS may approve it, issue a Request for Evidence, issue a Notice of Intent to Deny, or deny the filing. Each result has a different effect on investors. An approval gives investors much more certainty that the project’s structure, documentation, TEA qualification, and job-creation methodology have passed USCIS review. An RFE or NOID means USCIS has identified questions or concerns that must be addressed before the project can be approved. A denial creates a much more serious problem because the investor petition depends on the project-level filing.

RFEs can focus on practical project issues. USCIS may ask whether permits have been obtained, whether the capital stack is complete, whether the project remains viable, or whether assumptions in the business plan are still accurate. These are not minor technical questions. They go to whether the project is credible, properly documented, and capable of creating the required jobs.

NOIDs are usually more serious. USCIS may issue a NOID if there are major concerns involving the project principals, pending litigation, criminal history discovered through public records, or severe problems in the project documentation. A NOID does not automatically mean the project will be denied, but it signals a higher level of concern from USCIS.

If Form I-956F is denied, the investor’s Form I-526E is placed at serious risk. USCIS cannot approve an investor petition if the underlying project filing has been denied. This is why the timing of the September 30 deadline matters so much. If an investor files in a project with a pending Form I-956F and that filing is denied after the deadline, the investor may not have a practical opportunity to move into a different EB-5 project under the same program rules.

Investors should plan for this possibility before filing. The safest immigration path is usually to choose a project that already has Form I-956F approval. If the project has not yet been approved, the investor should focus on whether the regional center has a strong record of similar I-956F approvals and whether the pending project closely follows structures that USCIS has already approved.

Investors should also ask the regional center, in writing, whether the project has received any pending RFEs or NOIDs. Regional centers may not always volunteer that information unless asked directly. A written response gives the investor and the investor’s attorney a clearer record of what was disclosed before the investment decision was made.

How to Evaluate an EB-5 Project Without Form I-956F Approval

A project without Form I-956F approval is not automatically a poor option. USCIS processing takes time, and some projects may simply be waiting in the queue. The key is to separate projects that are pending because of normal processing from projects that are pending because the filing has real weaknesses.

The first step is to evaluate the regional center’s track record. Investors should ask for a list of I-956F approvals since the Reform and Integrity Act, copies of approval notices, and a clear answer on whether the regional center has had any I-956F denials since 2022. A regional center with many approvals and no denials gives investors a stronger basis for confidence, especially if the current project is similar to previously approved projects.

If the regional center has had prior I-956F denials, investors should ask why those filings were denied. The issue may have been specific to one project, or it may reveal a broader pattern in how the regional center structures or documents its offerings. Investors should understand whether the same issue could appear in the current project and whether the regional center has corrected it.

The next step is to review the project documents for inconsistencies. USCIS is looking closely at discrepancies across the filing package. Investors should expect the business plan, economic report, offering documents, loan agreements, organizational charts, and financial projections to align with one another. Contradictions between documents can lead to RFEs, NOIDs, or denial.

AI tools can help investors and advisors review dense project materials more efficiently. They can be used to compare documents, identify conflicting figures, flag missing assumptions, and locate internal inconsistencies. This does not replace attorney review or financial due diligence, but it can help investors spot issues that might otherwise be buried in hundreds of pages of documentation.

Project capitalization also requires close attention. A viable EB-5 project should not depend entirely on future EB-5 fundraising to get built. Ideally, EB-5 capital should function as replacement capital within a broader financing structure, not as the only path to completing the project. Investors should look for evidence of bank commitments, signed term sheets, private credit commitments, developer equity, or other committed funding sources.

This point has become more serious in the current market. Interest rates and credit conditions can change quickly. Banks may pull back from lending. Projects that looked workable months earlier can become unstable if financing disappears or if construction costs increase. USCIS may deny a Form I-956F if the project does not appear financially viable.

The business plan should also be reviewed carefully. A credible EB-5 business plan should be detailed, supported, and consistent with the Matter of Ho framework. It should explain the project’s market methodology, financial projections, construction costs, revenue assumptions, and job-creation basis. General claims are not enough. USCIS wants to see where the numbers came from and why they are reasonable.

Supporting evidence is equally important. Investors should look for documents showing property acquisition, permits, government approvals, feasibility studies, loan documents, third-party contracts, construction contracts, materials agreements, and pre-development work. If the land has not yet been acquired, the filing should show a clear timeline, an executed purchase agreement, and evidence that the project can move forward on schedule.

Land ownership can often be verified through county records once the property has been acquired. Public filings, press articles, and closing documents may also help confirm ownership. If the project only has a purchase and sale agreement, investors should follow up to confirm whether closing occurred on time. Minor construction or closing delays may be normal. Longer delays can become a material issue if they affect the project timeline or the assumptions in the I-956F filing.

Investors should also review construction costs and operating revenue assumptions. If the business plan assumes a certain sales price, rental rate, occupancy level, or revenue figure, the filing should explain the basis for that number. Local market data, comparable projects, growth assumptions, and third-party reports can help support these projections. Investors should ask for the exhibits to the business plan, not just the main document, because the exhibits often contain the data needed to verify the project’s claims.

The project team should be evaluated from two angles: the regional center or fund manager, and the developer. On the regional center side, investors should look at I-956F approvals, I-526E approvals, I-829 approvals, and any I-956F denials. On the developer side, investors should look at whether the developer has completed similar projects, whether the developer has worked with the regional center before, and whether the developer has a strong record in the same asset class.

A project without I-956F approval can still be a reasonable choice when the documentation is strong, the financing is credible, the business plan is well supported, and the regional center has a proven record with similar filings. But investors should not rely on assumptions. They should ask direct questions, review the full project package, and confirm that the pending I-956F reflects a timing issue rather than a project weakness.

TEA Qualification: Rural and High-Unemployment Areas

Targeted employment area qualification is one of the most important issues to review when evaluating an EB-5 project, especially if the project’s Form I-956F has not yet been approved. Under the Reform and Integrity Act, the two main TEA categories are rural TEAs and high-unemployment TEAs. In most cases, the analysis is straightforward: the project either qualifies or it does not.

If Form I-956F has already been approved, USCIS has effectively accepted the project’s TEA position as part of its project-level review. If the filing is still pending, investors should verify the TEA designation independently before investing. A mistake in the TEA analysis can create serious immigration risk because the project’s claimed eligibility may later be rejected by USCIS.

Investors do not need to rely only on the regional center’s statement that a project qualifies. Free online tools can help investors confirm whether a project address falls within a rural area or a high-unemployment area. This review can often be completed quickly, and the results should be consistent across reputable tools. An experienced regional center should already have performed this analysis before marketing the project, but investors should still confirm it for themselves.

TEA status can affect visa set-aside eligibility, processing strategy, and the overall immigration profile of the investment. Investors who are considering a project without I-956F approval should confirm that the TEA designation is current, properly documented, and supported by the project address and applicable data.

Why I-956F Processing Times and Regional Center Track Record Matter

Form I-956F processing times can vary widely. Some project-level filings have been approved in about one and a half months, while others have taken more than 12 months. More recently, a three-to-five-month range has often been a more realistic expectation for many filings, though timing can still depend on the project, the documentation, and USCIS review patterns.

Because processing times vary, investors should not assume that a pending Form I-956F means the project has a problem. A project filed only one month earlier may simply be waiting for USCIS review. The key question is whether the lack of approval reflects normal timing or whether it suggests a deeper issue with the project’s structure, documentation, financing, TEA position, or business plan.

This is where regional center track record becomes especially useful. A regional center with many I-956F approvals and no denials gives investors a stronger basis for confidence when reviewing a pending project. That confidence is stronger when the current project closely resembles prior approved projects from the same issuer, same developer, and same basic structure.

Similar prior approvals do not guarantee that a new filing will be approved. They do, however, provide useful evidence that USCIS has already reviewed and accepted comparable project structures. If a regional center has obtained approvals for similar projects, investors can evaluate the pending filing against that history and decide whether the current project appears to follow a proven model.

Investors should ask for the regional center’s I-956F approval record, including how many approvals it has received, whether any filings have been denied, and whether the pending project resembles prior approved projects. They should also ask whether the project has received any RFEs or NOIDs. These questions are especially important when investors are filing close to the September 30, 2026, deadline and cannot afford avoidable project-level risk.

A strong track record does not replace careful review of the current project. Investors still need to examine the business plan, financing, TEA support, job-creation analysis, and project team. But when those elements are sound and the regional center has a clear history of similar approvals, a pending Form I-956F may be a timing issue rather than a warning sign.

Why Attorney Independence Matters When Reviewing Form I-956F

Investors should also think carefully about who is reviewing the project documents on their behalf. An immigration attorney’s role is to help identify immigration risk, including risks tied to the project’s Form I-956F, TEA qualification, job-creation methodology, and overall EB-5 compliance. That review is most valuable when the attorney is independent from the regional center and the project sponsor.

Conflicts can arise when an attorney or law firm represents both investors and regional centers. The same concern applies if the attorney helped prepare the Form I-956F filing that the investor now needs reviewed. In that situation, the attorney may be less willing or less able to point out weaknesses in the filing. Investors need advice that is focused on their own petition, not on protecting the regional center’s position.

Before hiring counsel, investors should ask direct questions about the attorney’s relationship with the regional center and the project. These questions should include whether the attorney represents regional centers, whether the attorney drafted the project’s Form I-956F, and whether the attorney has any relationship with the sponsor that could affect the review. Clear answers can help investors understand whether their attorney is able to evaluate the project independently.

This issue is especially important as the September 30 deadline approaches. Investors need attorneys who can move quickly, but speed should not come at the expense of quality. A rushed or skeletal filing can create serious risk. The I-526E petition still needs to be complete, well documented, and consistent with the project materials submitted to USCIS.

Investors should also understand how their attorney handles RFEs and NOIDs. If a filing is weak or incomplete, USCIS may issue a request or notice that requires a detailed response. Investors should know in advance whether the attorney charges separately for these responses and how the firm approaches the initial filing. The goal should be to prepare the petition carefully from the beginning, rather than rely on later corrections.

In the current EB-5 environment, a strong attorney review can make a meaningful difference. Investors need counsel who can evaluate the project-level filing, identify possible problems, help prepare a complete I-526E petition, and act quickly without overlooking critical details. When Form I-956F approval is still pending, that independent review becomes even more important.

Choosing the Right EB-5 Project Before the September 30 Deadline

Choosing the right EB-5 project has always required careful review, but the stakes are especially high in the current market. A weak or poorly documented project can lead to months of avoidable delays, difficult USCIS questions, or even denial if the project’s Form I-956F does not hold up under review. With the September 30, 2026, grandfathering deadline approaching, investors have less room for error. The project should be transparent, well financed, properly documented, and backed by a regional center with a strong record of USCIS approvals.

Investors who want to file before the deadline should begin their due diligence as early as possible. Reviewing Form I-956F, confirming TEA qualification, checking the project’s financing, and working with qualified immigration counsel can help protect both the immigration case and the investor’s capital. If you are considering an EB-5 investment and want help evaluating trustworthy projects before the September 30 deadline, schedule a free consultation with EB5AN.