Recent EB-5 decisions offer investors meaningful grounds to challenge excessive source-of-funds demands. They also show why a strong legal argument cannot replace a documented financial history.
The emerging picture is nuanced: several courts have limited USCIS’s inquiries into a currency exchanger’s independent wealth, while other decisions uphold scrutiny of the investor’s own assets, completed transfers, and intermediaries. Two September 2026 rulings—Voja and Tran—make those distinctions particularly important.
Battineni: Limits on tracing, but different results for two investors
In Battineni v. Mayorkas, 752 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D.D.C. 2024), the court rejected an expansive tracing requirement for one investor, including a demand to establish where a third-party lender obtained its funds. But it upheld the denial of the other investor’s petition because the evidence did not adequately establish the lawful source of part of his investment.
The decision supports challenges to excessive upstream inquiries. It does not establish that identifying an immediate payment source automatically satisfies the investor’s burden.
Zhou and Sun: Focus on the investor’s lawful acquisition
In Zhou v. Noem, No. 19-cv-2650, 2025 WL 416152 (D.D.C. February 6, 2025), the court rejected a denial centered on how a currency exchanger accumulated the dollars supplied in an exchange.
Sun v. USCIS, No. 21-cv-1612, 2025 WL 947463 (D.D.C. March 28, 2025), followed similar reasoning. The relevant question was whether the investor lawfully acquired the assets through the transaction, rather than whether she could reconstruct the intermediary’s independent financial history.
These are valuable decisions for investors using currency swaps. Both, however, resulted in further agency proceedings rather than unconditional judicial approval of the petitions. They do not excuse an undocumented exchange or resolve every question about its legality.
Le: The exchange itself must withstand scrutiny
In Le v. USCIS, No. 21-cv-501 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025), the court upheld a denial involving questions about the exchange’s legality and inconsistent licensing evidence.
The distinction matters: asking how an exchanger earned its money is different from asking whether the investor lawfully acquired dollars through that exchanger. Favorable source-of-funds cases do not eliminate the second inquiry. Licensing, applicable foreign law, and the reliability of supporting documents can remain decisive.
To read the full article by WR Immigration Managing Partner Bernard Wolfsdorf, visit EB5Investors.com, where he shares additional insights on source of funds.
Subscribe to the WR Immigration Newsletters
