Our client and his family invested in the American dream — committing $500,000 to a regional-center EB-5 project that built and opened a charter school. They did everything the program asked. So when USCIS reviewed his petition to remove the conditions on his green card, the family had no reason to expect what followed. The agency concluded that the project's records had been falsified and that the path of his funds could not be trusted, denied his Form I-829, and — after a follow-up motion was dismissed — placed the entire family in removal proceedings. It was one of the most serious findings an investor can face, and on paper the record appeared to support it. We disagreed. Taking the case to immigration court, we rebuilt the financial record from the ground up and proved the agency's conclusion wrong — establishing that the investment had met every requirement of the EB-5 program. The Immigration Judge removed the conditions on the client's and his family members' green cards.
In 2012, our client invested $500,000 in a pooled EB-5 offering — the Florida Public Charter School EB-5 Project, LP (the "NCE"), a USCIS-designated regional-center project. The pooled capital, $12 million from 24 investors, was loaned to Charter DC Homestead, LLC to build a charter school in Homestead, Florida. He and his family were admitted to conditional permanent residence, the school was constructed, and it opened its doors for the 2014–2015 academic year. By every measure that mattered, the investment had done exactly what it promised.
Then a problem surfaced. A naming discrepancy had found its way into the project’s records, one that appeared across the documentation tied to the investment.
Reviewing his Form I-829, USCIS read that discrepancy as a sign of tampering: the agency concluded that documents had been altered and that the path of his funds had been falsified, and found he had not proven his investment was sustained or that the required jobs were created. On that basis, USCIS denied the petition in 2022. When an I-290B motion to reopen and reconsider was filed, the agency dismissed it in 2024, ruling that the explanation offered did not change the result. The family's conditional status was terminated, and they were placed in removal proceedings.
On paper, an I-829 denial is a procedural setback. For this family, it threatened everything they had built over more than a decade. The denial did not simply close a file — it stripped their status and forced them to defend against deportation, after they had invested half a million dollars, waited years, and watched the project they funded actually get built and open.
There was a deadline, a formal finding of falsified records standing against them, and a documentary trail that — on its face — looked exactly like what the agency had accused them of. Many applicants, and many attorneys, would have seen the word "falsified" and a dismissed appeal and concluded the case was over. We did not.
When USCIS denies an I-829, the story does not end at the agency. Under INA § 216A and 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d), the case proceeds to immigration court, where an Immigration Judge reviews the petition independently — and where the burden shifts to the government to prove the investor is ineligible. That change of forum was the opening. But an opening is not a victory; the record still had to be rebuilt.
So we built the case the agency's process never produced — not a routine filing, but a complete, independently verifiable record assembled to answer the falsification finding head-on. Rather than relitigate the documents USCIS distrusted, we established the truth of the investment through sources outside that dispute, demonstrated that the issue at the heart of the denial was a documentation problem rather than evidence of wrongdoing, and showed that the investment had in every real sense done what the EB-5 program requires: the capital was invested and sustained, the project was actually built and operated, and the jobs were created.
The Immigration Judge granted the I-829, found the family not removable, and removed the conditions on the client's and his family members' permanent residence. The decision is final — both sides waived appeal.
The approval did more than close a case. It restored the permanent residence the family had crossed an ocean and invested a decade to secure, lifted the threat of removal from an entire household at once, and opened the path to U.S. citizenship. That is what a properly built record delivers — not merely an approval, but a family's future returned to solid ground.
If there is a single lesson in this case, it is this: an I-829 denial — even one that invokes "falsified" or "altered" records, and even after an appeal has been dismissed — is not the end. With independent, de novo review in immigration court, a burden that rests on the government, and experienced counsel willing to do the work a complex record demands, a denial that looks fatal can still be overcome.
A denial generally terminates your conditional residence and refers the case to immigration court, where an Immigration Judge reviews the petition independently. A denial is not automatically the end of your status — but the next steps are time-sensitive.
No. As this case shows, a serious-sounding finding can rest on a clerical or recordkeeping issue rather than any real problem with the investment. With the right approach, that kind of denial can be answered — and overcome.
Often, yes. Even after an agency motion is dismissed, removal proceedings provide an independent, de novo review before an Immigration Judge — and the burden shifts to the government to prove ineligibility.
The government. In these proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security must establish that conditional residence was properly terminated, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Yes. When many investors rely on the same project records, a single documentation issue can sink multiple petitions the same way. Your case is still evaluated on your own facts and evidence.
At the Law Offices of Sabrina Li, we represent EB-5 investors nationwide in I-829 petitions, USCIS denials, and removal proceedings tied to investment-based green cards. Immigration is federal law, so from our offices in Los Angeles and Dallas we handle cases for investors in every state.
This was a pooled offering of 24 investors, and the records at the center of this denial were shared across the project. If you invested in this project and your own I-829 was denied or questioned, the same kind of documentation issue may be involved — and, as this case shows, it can be addressed. Every petition turns on its own facts and evidence, and outcomes vary; we would welcome the chance to review your situation.
If you have received an I-829 denial, a Notice of Intent to Deny, a dismissed motion, or a notice placing you in removal proceedings, contact us before your deadline passes — wherever you are in the country. Call the Law Offices of Sabrina Li at (213) 375-8096 or email info@sabrinali.law today to explore your legal options.
This case study is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and evidence of each matter; no result is guaranteed, and prior results do not predict future outcomes. Client-identifying details have been omitted to protect confidentiality.
Phone: (213) 375-8096
Email: info@sabrinali.law
Hours: Mon-Fri, 9:00AM - 5:00PM PT (Except Public Holidays)
