IN THIS GUIDE · Testing whether a construction project that calls itself infrastructure actually meets the EB-5 basis for the reduced qualifying amount.
Start with the EB-5 eligibility and application overview
A word in a brochure is not a classification
The reduced qualifying amount of US$800,000 is available where the investment is in a qualifying targeted employment area or an infrastructure project. Building something does not by itself make a project infrastructure for this purpose. The label in the marketing is the promoter's characterisation; the qualifying basis is a question decided on the project's own documentation and the criteria that apply to it.
Ask which basis is actually claimed
There may be more than one route to the lower figure for a given project, or none. Put the question narrowly: is the reduced amount claimed on an infrastructure basis, on a targeted employment area basis, or not claimed at all? An unclear answer leaves the claimed basis unverified; request the actual analysis and supporting records before relying on the amount. Put the question to the person who would have to defend the answer in a filing, not to the person selling the unit. Their replies often differ, and the difference is itself information.
Designation is not approval
If the offering runs through a regional centre, remember that designation of the centre does not itself establish this project’s eligibility or classification, or guarantee its commercial success. Your petition would be an I-526E in that case, and a standalone I-526 for a direct investment. Either way the ten qualifying full-time jobs must be created by permitted methods, which differ between the two routes.
Decide on the file, then re-verify
Work from the offering documents, the escrow terms and any classification evidence, and have counsel read them against current criteria rather than against the brochure. Then re-verify before you commit funds: the qualifying amounts are subject to statutory adjustment beginning January 1, 2027, and a project's own circumstances can change between your first meeting and your signature.
Who states the classification, and who lives with it
A promoter characterises the project; an investor bears the outcome of that characterisation. Should the reduced basis fail, the offering carries on and the investor is the party facing a shortfall in qualifying capital. Naming that asymmetry out loud explains why a comfortable assurance costs the person giving it nothing. Ask which party would have to make up the difference, in writing, if the claimed basis were later rejected, and whether the subscription agreement obliges anyone to return or re-characterise funds in that event. Where no document assigns the risk, it has already been assigned, and the investor is holding it.
Agents and advisers paid by the project, not by you
Migration agents, placement intermediaries and referral partners are frequently compensated by the offering rather than by the investor, an arrangement that is not improper so long as it is disclosed and understood. Ask each adviser who pays them and what they receive on a completed subscription. Then ask for the analysis rather than the conclusion, since a party earning a placement fee has no duty to test the classification you are relying on. Independent counsel you engage, reading the same documents, answers to you alone, which is the entire reason to engage them.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.