Photo Courtesy of: Katie Levine
Byline: Daniel Okafor
An EB-5 denial rarely arrives as a simple rejection notice. For many investors, it lands after years of planning, hundreds of thousands of dollars committed to a project, and major life decisions already made around the expectation of permanent residency in the United States. Children are enrolled in American schools. Businesses are relocated. Property is sold abroad. Then the petition fails, and suddenly the investor is confronting something far more serious than a financial loss: the possibility of removal proceedings.
That is the legal terrain where Hillary Walsh has built a growing reputation. Walsh, founder and CEO of New Frontier Immigration Law, has handled cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and immigration courts across the country. Her appellate work includes the precedential Ninth Circuit case Troncoso-Oviedo v. Garland, a detail that carries particular weight for investors searching for litigation counsel rather than transactional filing support.
When an EB-5 Petition Turns Into Litigation
The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program was created to channel foreign investment into the U.S. economy while promoting domestic job creation. To qualify, investors typically must invest $1.05 million—or $800,000 in targeted employment areas or qualifying infrastructure projects—and provide evidence that their investment will generate at least 10 full-time jobs, requirements that often become central points of scrutiny when petitions are challenged or denied.
On paper, the process appears structured. In practice, denials can emerge from disputed source-of-funds documentation, tracing issues involving cross-border transfers, project compliance failures, inconsistent records, or mistakes made years earlier during filing preparation.
One 2025 analysis of USCIS fiscal year 2024 data found denial rates for older I-526 petitions hovering around 30%, with average adjudication times reaching roughly 57 months. For investors, that delay creates a dangerous legal gap. A family may spend nearly five years building a life in the United States before learning the petition has failed.
USCIS data has shown that adjudication timelines for certain legacy I-526 petitions have extended for several years, creating uncertainty for investors awaiting final decisions. The agency's published processing-time reports illustrate how lengthy review periods can leave families and businesses in limbo while immigration benefits remain unresolved.
The stakes become even higher if the investor receives a Notice to Appear in immigration court. At that point, the matter stops being a business filing and becomes a removal defense case.
Walsh said many investors arrive at her firm after realizing their original legal strategy was too narrow.
“A lot of investors were sold the idea that EB-5 was purely transactional,” Walsh said. “Then the denial arrives, and they suddenly understand they are facing a litigation problem, an immigration court problem, and potentially a family crisis all at once.”
Fighting the Case on Multiple Fronts
Walsh’s work in investor cases focuses heavily on preventing a denial to begin with, but she is prepared for when clients call her after the denial. That often means dissecting USCIS findings, reviewing project documentation, examining filing weaknesses, and determining whether the record can still be repaired.
The legal options vary depending on the facts. Some investors pursue motions to reopen or appeals before the Administrative Appeals Office. Others file Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits in federal court challenging the government’s decision-making process. If removal proceedings have already started, the strategy may involve parallel litigation tracks, defending the investor in immigration court while separately fighting to revive or overturn the denied petition.
That dual-track pressure has become more common amid the broader immigration court backlog. TRAC reported more than 3.3 million active immigration court cases at the end of March 2026, underscoring how difficult and prolonged removal proceedings can become once initiated.
Walsh said investor clients often underestimate how quickly the situation can escalate after a denial.
“These families often believed they were investing with certainty,” Walsh said. “Instead, they find themselves in litigation after years of waiting, with children in school, businesses operating here, and their entire future tied to whether the case can still be salvaged.”
Her litigation background has become central to this work. Investors facing removal are typically no longer searching for someone to process paperwork. They are looking for someone prepared to challenge agency decisions, navigate federal courts, and defend lawful status under pressure.
The New Shape of Investor Immigration Risk
The EB-5 field has become more legally complex since reforms enacted in 2022 introduced additional scrutiny around regional centers and project compliance. While some newer filings tied to approved projects have shown stronger approval patterns, older cases remain vulnerable to evolving standards and document disputes.
That reality has changed the profile of legal work surrounding EB-5 petitions. Attorneys increasingly need litigation capability alongside transactional knowledge. Investors who once viewed immigration counsel primarily as filing coordinators are now confronting a system where courtroom strategy may determine whether they remain in the country.
Her work reflects how much investor immigration has changed in recent years. Investor cases are no longer separated from the tougher, more adversarial side of the immigration system. Once removal proceedings begin, wealth offers limited protection. The case still has to be fought, the record still has to be defended, and the future of the family may depend on whether a legal strategy can survive federal scrutiny.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational and editorial purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific immigration matters. Any opinions expressed by quoted sources are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Banking and Finance Review’s. Past case results do not guarantee similar outcomes in future matters.
