In a late-night ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nationwide injunction blocking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from implementing its planned fee increase for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. USCIS had sought to raise the filing fee for Form I-526E (Immigrant Petition by Regional Center Investor) from US $11,160 to US $47,160—an unprecedented 322 percent jump—arguing that higher fees were needed to cover fraud-detection and oversight costs.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan found that the agency failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures and did not adequately justify why EB-5 applicants should shoulder such a disproportionate share of USCIS’s overall budget. The injunction restores the previous fee schedule pending final adjudication of the case, allowing investors to file at the lower rate. That window could last months, given typical appellate timelines.
![Federal Court Halts EB-5 Investor-Visa Fee Hike, Restoring Lower Costs for Green-Card Seekers]()
The decision is a major win for regional centers and foreign investors—particularly from China, India and South Korea—who feared the hike would price out smaller-scale projects and slow capital flows into U.S. real-estate and infrastructure developments. Several regional-center operators have already reopened subscription windows that had been paused ahead of the fee change, and immigration lawyers report a surge of client calls seeking to file before any revised fee rule emerges.
For companies that rely on EB-5 funds to finance construction or expansion projects, the injunction preserves an important alternative to traditional bank financing at a time of higher interest rates. However, mobility teams should remain alert: USCIS is expected to re-propose a narrower fee increase in early 2026, and Congress could intervene with its own legislation. Global mobility planners should therefore treat the current fee structure as temporary and counsel investor employees to accelerate filings where feasible.
The case also underscores broader legal vulnerability in the agency’s 2025 fee rule, suggesting that other employment-based categories (such as H-1B and L-1 petitions) could see challenges if USCIS does not shore up its cost-analysis methodology. Multinational employers should monitor litigation closely and build contingencies into 2026 budgets for potential swings in petition costs.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan found that the agency failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures and did not adequately justify why EB-5 applicants should shoulder such a disproportionate share of USCIS’s overall budget. The injunction restores the previous fee schedule pending final adjudication of the case, allowing investors to file at the lower rate. That window could last months, given typical appellate timelines.
The decision is a major win for regional centers and foreign investors—particularly from China, India and South Korea—who feared the hike would price out smaller-scale projects and slow capital flows into U.S. real-estate and infrastructure developments. Several regional-center operators have already reopened subscription windows that had been paused ahead of the fee change, and immigration lawyers report a surge of client calls seeking to file before any revised fee rule emerges.
For companies that rely on EB-5 funds to finance construction or expansion projects, the injunction preserves an important alternative to traditional bank financing at a time of higher interest rates. However, mobility teams should remain alert: USCIS is expected to re-propose a narrower fee increase in early 2026, and Congress could intervene with its own legislation. Global mobility planners should therefore treat the current fee structure as temporary and counsel investor employees to accelerate filings where feasible.
The case also underscores broader legal vulnerability in the agency’s 2025 fee rule, suggesting that other employment-based categories (such as H-1B and L-1 petitions) could see challenges if USCIS does not shore up its cost-analysis methodology. Multinational employers should monitor litigation closely and build contingencies into 2026 budgets for potential swings in petition costs.
