On October 8, 2025, new EB-5 data published by USCIS, in response to FOIA pressure and industry advocacy, delivered a sharper window into the performance of the post-RIA I-526E petitions. Notably, the data underscored just how much more favorable their approval profile is compared to the legacy (pre-RIA) I-526 regime.
What emerges is striking as I-526E filings succeed at a dramatically higher rate than legacy I-526s, and the reasons lie in the reforms, greater regulatory clarity, and a more rigorous filtering of projects and investor submissions under the RIA (Reform and Integrity Act of 2022).
What the new data shows
The October 8 data release includes quarterly (Q3 FY2025, i.e. April–June 2025) results with disaggregated I-526E detail. One of the headlines is that over 1,000 I-526E petitions were approved in that quarter alone, nearly four times the approvals in the prior quarter. That surge confirms that the volume of post-RIA petitions approved is now large enough that the ETAs (rural / HUA set-aside categories) are likely to see retrogression pressures, depending on how fast DOS schedules interviews and issues visas.
Earlier in FY2025, USCIS data reported that during the first half of FY2025 the approval rate for I-526E was about 94 percent, while for legacy I-526s still being adjudicated, the approval rate was around 72percent. That gap, more than 20 points, is consistent with trends seen since the RIA took effect. For example, in FY2024, the I-526E approval rate was reported at ~98 percent vs legacy approval in the low 70s. In contrast, legacy I-526 denial rates historically ran around 25–30 percent.
In the legacy period, approval rates often hovered well under 80 percent and in many quarters were in the 60s range. For instance, in Q1 FY2024, of 1,082 legacy I-526s adjudicated, only 694 were approved approximately 64 percent). The newer data thus confirms that the post-RIA filings are structurally tilted toward far higher substantive rates of success for properly prepared I-526E petitions.
Why I-526E filings are so much more successful
The difference in approval rates between I-526E and legacy I-526 petitions is not accidental. Several interlocking factors explain the superior success of I-526E:
1. Clearer, more uniform regulatory standards
The RIA and its implementing regulations have codified many adjudicative standards that formerly were more discretionary or ambiguous. Under the new regime, USCIS and the EB-5 stakeholders (projects, regional centers, attorneys) have more clearly defined expectations for project eligibility, investor documentation, risk mitigation, job creation models, capital attribution, and compliance oversight. That clarity reduces ambiguity, lowers the frequency of surprises at adjudication, and enables applicants to “get it right the first time.” In effect, the regulatory reset works like a filter that ensures only well-prepared cases advance.
2. Pre-filing screening and vetting of projects via Form I-956F
Under RIA, regional centers must file I-956F (and associated supporting materials) to qualify as EB-5 project sponsors. These reviews (and potential site visits, due diligence, oversight) weed out weak or borderline projects early. The I-956F serves as a gatekeeper: only projects meeting regulatory thresholds proceed to accept investor capital under the new regime. That reduces the likelihood that investor petitions will be tied to a flawed project or one vulnerable to regulatory objection. Thus, when an investor submits an I-526E petition, the underlying project has already survived preliminary scrutiny, making USCIS more likely to approve the downstream petitions.
3. Stronger “front-loaded” diligence by regional centers and sponsors
Because the RIA places more compliance burden and oversight on Regional Centers, many of the issues that historically caused denials (insufficient documentation, weak business plans, flawed projections, project viability concerns) get caught and corrected before investor-level filing. In other words, the heavy lifting has shifted upstream in the chain, so investor petitions come in better refined, reducing downstream risk.
4. More exacting source-of-fund / path-of-fund tracing and fewer legacy “soft spots”
Legacy I-526 cases often involved older funds, informal transfers, complex or opaque source-fund histories, or periods of business operations long ago. USCIS in that legacy era frequently issued Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) focused on funds source, path tracing, currency conversions, decades-old tax records, and viability of documentation. Many of those gaps led to denials. Under the RIA regime, the expectation for documentation is more contemporaneous and standardized. Because the investment and transfer history is shorter and more modern, it’s easier to present a clean audit trail from source through transfers to escrow and ultimately project. As a result, fewer investor-level cases stumble on evidentiary flaws.
Moreover, because the I-956F/RC vetting is upstream, USCIS can more confidently focus on the investor-level compliance rather than re-examining every structural project issue anew in each petition, enabling more streamlined adjudication.
5. Prioritization of rural / set-aside category adjudication
USCIS has signaled (and practice suggests) prioritization for rural TEA / set-aside category petitions, which often yield faster processing and positive adjudication outcomes. Some regional centers specializing in rural projects report that a significant share of I-526E approvals occur in under 12 months, with certain rural cases approved in as few as 4 to 8 months. The practical effect is that, especially for rural-case investors, the combination of priority processing and strong petition quality yields higher “success velocity,” which also reduces attrition or error risk over time.
