Hong Kong
Taiwan
VietnamShort answer: Direct EB-5 usually depends on direct full-time jobs in the new commercial enterprise. Regional center projects may include indirect/induced jobs from economic models, with day-to-day operations typically run by the issuer. Most cross-border investors choose regional centers for time and management span, but direct remains viable when you can truly run hiring. Choose based on whether you can operate, how jobs are counted, and how risk is allocated—not slogans about which path is easier to approve.
Comparison frame
| Dimension | Direct | Regional center |
|---|---|---|
| Jobs | Mostly direct employees | Often model-based indirect jobs |
| Management | Heavy on investor/enterprise | Usually operator-run |
| Productization | Case-by-case business | More standardized offering docs |
| Fit | Those who can run a U.S. business | Those prioritizing immigration outcome over daily ops |
Diligence focus differs
Direct cases need a workable plan, hiring capacity and payroll-style evidence for I-829. Regional-center cases need compliance record, developer track record, use of funds, escrow, exit and redeployment terms. Source of funds and at-risk standards apply to both; set-asides only change the number pool.
See US EB-5.
Global Immigrate’s recommendation
- Answer honestly whether you can manage U.S. HR.
- Do not open a no-market company only to force direct EB-5.
- After a regional-center pitch, read the PPM and job-report assumptions.
- Prepare source-of-funds to the same standard for either path.
Data current as of November 2026. General information only; not legal or investment advice.