Immigration-driven recovery litigation.

A. I-829 denials and removal

If USCIS denies a Form I-829 — because the jobs fell short, the capital was not sustained, or the project failed outright — it typically issues a Notice to Appear. The investor's case is then transferred to an immigration judge, who reviews the petition de novo. That second look is no mere formality. In the right case, it can credit job creation or sustainment that the agency rejected and provide the investor with an independent adjudicator.¹⁶

B. Regional-center termination and the good-faith investor

When a regional center is terminated — for fraud, failure to pay the Integrity Fund fee, or other noncompliance — its investors' status can be jeopardized overnight. The 2022 Act's good-faith-investor protections may preserve an investor's priority date and allow him to associate with a new regional center or move into another enterprise, but only within strict statutory deadlines that punish delay. These protections guard status, not capital. An investor can keep his place in line and still lose every dollar — which is exactly why the immigration and financial tracks have to run on one plan, not two.

C. Challenging the agency

A growing docket challenges USCIS. Investors and regional centers file Administrative Procedure Act actions challenging policy changes made without proper rulemaking, and mandamus actions to compel adjudication of petitions delayed for years. These suits do not recover a dollar, but they protect the immigration benefit — which is, after all, half of what the investor stands to lose.

D. Running both clocks

Three practical lessons apply to any recovery strategy. First, preserving or completing the underlying project can be worth more than a cash distribution because a finished, job-creating project may rescue the petition — Path America was built around exactly this priority. Second, the statutory lifelines for investors in failed or terminated projects are unforgiving about timing and must be invoked promptly. Third, a distribution structured without regard for the at-risk and sustainment rules can solve the money problem and deepen the immigration one. The investor needs securities-recovery counsel and immigration counsel to work from a single plan.

Returning the money and preserving the visa are different objectives — and the wrong recovery structure can achieve one at the expense of the other.