Challenging I-829 Denials
through Federal Litigation

An I-829 denial can disrupt years of planning, capital investment, and commitment to the EB-5 Program. After receiving a denial, investors often seek clarity on both the reasons behind the decision and the options that remain available.  

Some choose to pursue additional administrative filings with USCIS to address the issues raised. For others, federal litigation offers an opportunity to obtain independent judicial review of the legal standards applied, the procedures followed, or the way USCIS interpreted the record. 

At Colombo & Hurd, our Federal Immigration Litigation Practice is led by Sarah Wilson, a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice. Her background overseeing complex immigration matters in federal courts provides investors with an experienced and strategic approach to challenging I-829 denials. 

Understanding Form I-829 and What Approvals Mean 

Form I-829 (Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status) is the final step in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. It is filed by investors who previously received a conditional green card valid for two years. 

The purpose of the I-829 is to show that the investor satisfied all EB-5 program requirements. This includes demonstrating that the required investment was sustained throughout the conditional period and that the project either created the necessary jobs or is on track to meet the job-creation requirement within a reasonable period. 

Approval of the I-829 removes conditions for both the investor and eligible family members, granting permanent residence and long-term stability without further requirements tied to the original EB-5 investment.  

Why USCIS Denies Some I-829 Petitions 

Every EB-5 project varies widely in size, design, timing, and economic activity. Because of these differences, the evidence submitted by one investor may present very different challenges than that of another.  

Some denials stem from questions about how job-creation evidence was presented or interpreted, while others relate to evolving project conditions, complex financial movements, shifts in business structure, or changes within a regional center. In some cases, market conditions or delays in construction influence how the documentation aligns with USCIS requirements at the time of adjudication. 

A denial often reflects the complexity of the EB-5 framework rather than the investor’s efforts. A thorough review of the decision and the record is essential to determine the best path forward. 

When To Consider Federal Court Review After an I-829 Denial 

After an I-829 denial, investors typically evaluate several potential paths. Some pursue administrative motions or appeals within USCIS, while others explore federal litigation to request an independent assessment of the decision.  Federal court review may be appropriate when the decision raises questions about: 

• How the legal standard was applied 
• How the evidence was interpreted 
• Developments within a regional center or project 
• Redeployment or “at-risk” investment issues 
• Procedural or timing concerns 
• A desire for independent judicial review 

Federal litigation does not replace administrative processes. Instead, it offers an alternative path when judicial involvement may be the more effective approach for the issues raised in the denial.