You can get the funds gifted to you. The person making the gift will need to provide information on the source of funds. You can also borrow the funds on a secured basis. In this second alternative, you need to show the source of funds on the original collateral purchase. Recently, in the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, attorneys challenged the position of USCIS that investors had to collateralize the EB-5 capital.

On behalf of H. Zhang and M. Hagiwara, their attorney Ira Kurzban argued that unsecured loans should be permissible to fund the EB-5 capital. Until this ruling, we have always recommended our clients that, while they could borrow money from different sources by pledging their assets such as real estate or marketable securities, unsecured loans were not permissible.

Kurzban successfully argued that USCIS advances several conflicting policy arguments. He said that according to the agency, if the proceeds of unsecured loans qualified as capital, then wealthy third parties could buy visas for foreigners unlikely to create jobs, and foreign investors could qualify to obtain visas by investing domestic funds. The plaintiffs respond that the statute sets forth requirements for the enterprise (not the investor) to create jobs and that it does not prohibit investments (secured or otherwise) involving the U.S. funds of foreign investors. We need not engage these arguments, for we cannot disregard the plain meaning of a regulation based on policy considerations, Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Azar, 891 F.3d 1062, 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Likewise, given the clarity of the governing regulation, we cannot defer to the agencyís contrary interpretation, Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019). Text, structure, and regulatory context show that the term cash as used in 8 C.F.R. ß 204.6(e), unambiguously includes the proceeds of third-party loans. Because USCISís contrary construction is impermissible, we affirm the district courtís decision to set aside the denial of the plaintiffsí petitions.