The later petition asks whether the investment was made and sustained as required and whether the required employment was created. It is a performance test based on what actually happened, not a repeat of the eligibility assessment done at the start.
Plan the second petition while filing the first
Investors who think about removal of conditions only when it arrives often find that the evidence they need was never systematically kept: payroll records held by a project they have limited contact with, bank records for transfers made years earlier, documents from advisers who have since moved on. The better approach is to ask at the outset who will hold what evidence, how it will be provided, and what happens if the project falls behind its plan. Where an investment is in the investor's own business, that responsibility falls on the family directly and argues for good record-keeping from the first day of trading.
Because the specific requirements depend on the structure and on current policy, a licensed U.S. immigration attorney should advise on the particular case. Hypothetical example: Lian is considering a project involving acoustical-ceiling panels and wants to use proceeds from several earlier investments.
Start with a funds-source chronology, project documents, job model and family timetable. Tax records, sale agreements and bank transfers settle the lawful source path; the offering or business plan settles how capital is used and jobs are projected. Sequence the source review before capital is wired, because missing historical records become harder to obtain later.
The mistake is assuming a large balance answers every question. EB-5 capital must remain exposed to loss, the applicable employment requirement must be met, and residence begins conditionally rather than permanently without further review.