That fact alone does not decide EB-5 eligibility. EB-5 is evaluated under its own investor requirements, not the TN profession list.
Build the investment case rather than renaming the occupation
Establish the enterprise, qualifying capital, lawful source and path, job requirements and participation. Do not assume EB-5 is approved merely because another category is unsuitable or the applicant has investment funds. Each immigration category asks a different question, so ruling one out answers nothing about another: TN asks whether a listed profession and credential match a prearranged position, while EB-5 asks whether qualifying capital, its lawful source, required jobs and management participation can all be documented.
An applicant who lacks a qualifying profession or a sponsoring employer may still lack qualifying capital, an eligible enterprise or a clear lawful-source trail, so treat each requirement as its own separate hurdle rather than assuming the harder professional test was the only obstacle. Unlike categories built around a specific job offer, EB-5 does not require an employer sponsor or a labor-market test, but that independence shifts the entire evidentiary burden onto the investor's own capital and its documented history. Compare the realistic timeline and cost of assembling source-of-funds evidence, engaging a regional center or structuring a standalone enterprise against the applicant's actual financial position before treating EB-5 as a simple fallback option.
Have counsel map every available category side by side against the applicant's actual facts, since the category that fits is not always the one that first comes to mind after another path proves unworkable.