Can the President unilaterally end the EB-5 investor visa program?

Can the President unilaterally end the EB-5 investor visa program?

In this video, we break down the legal framework behind immigration law and explain why the EB-5 program cannot simply be terminated by executive action. Learn about the role of Congress, the legislative process, and what this means for current and future EB-5 applicants. Stay informed about your immigration options and legal rights.

Recent reports have suggested that President Trump intends to end the EB-5 program and replace it with a new Golden Visa Program requiring a $5 million investment for visa benefits. This has led to widespread concerns among investors and applicants. Our office has received a flood of calls from concerned investors. The critical question remains: Can a U.S. president unilaterally end the EB-5 program? The clear answer is no.

Why the President Cannot End the EB-5 Program Alone

The U.S. legal system operates under a framework where laws are created and modified by Congress, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The EB-5 program is not a regulation but rather a statutory program established by law. This means that:

A sitting president does not have the authority to eliminate or modify the program without congressional approval.
Any changes to the EB-5 program would require new legislation to be drafted, approved by both houses of Congress, and then signed into law by the president.
Even if such a change were proposed, it is highly unlikely to happen in the near future.

#EB5Visa #InvestorVisa #ImmigrationLaw #EB5Program #GoldenVisa #USImmigration #VisaProcess #ImmigrationAttorney #InvestmentVisa #EB5 #Trump #PresidentTrump #InvestorVisa #EB5GreenCard

This video and the content in the website constitutes attorney advertising. Do not consider anything in this website or video advice and nothing here constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.