No. Compare the actual use of funds, entities and job evidence with the filed arrangement. A common name does not establish unchanged qualifying facts.
Assess the substance of the revision
The change should not automatically be labeled harmless or disqualifying. Obtain a fact-specific assessment of the actual proposal and immigration stage before relying on the earlier case as covering it.
The common mistake is stopping at the number ten without checking who, what, and how the figure counts. A later phase frequently operates through its own newly formed entity even while marketed under a familiar project name, so confirm which legal entity actually receives the capital and which entity employs the qualifying workers before assuming continuity. Trace the money: a contribution routed to the earlier phase's entity does not become qualifying capital in a later phase merely because both share a brand and a developer. Ask whether the job-creation methodology approved for the earlier phase was tied to that phase's specific construction and operational activity, since a new phase generally needs its own job study rather than borrowing the earlier calculation. If material facts change after a petition is filed but before it is decided, counsel should assess whether an amendment or supplemental filing is required rather than waiting for an inquiry to raise the issue. Read the offering documents for the specific phase being marketed, not an overview describing the development as a whole, because the overview can blend facts that belong to different legal entities and different filings.