Jobs held by the investor, the investor’s spouse or the investor’s children do not count as qualifying EB-5 employment. This exclusion is separate from whether the person has permission to work. Do not use a family staffing plan to fill a gap in the required job evidence.
Check the project’s qualifying-worker assumptions
For direct employment evidence, review the applicable worker and full-time requirements rather than counting every paid person. Regional-centre methodologies have their own rules and evidentiary framework. A derivative spouse’s immigration eligibility also needs separate review; the project’s hiring decision does not grant status.
Plan derivative eligibility and the investment case on two related but separate tracks. Prepare relationship documents, ages, passport information, current locations and expected immigration steps for every proposed family member. The investment records establish the principal’s petition; civil records establish the derivatives’ connection; neither cures the other. What goes wrong is delaying age analysis until a project notice arrives. Hypothetical example: An investor in a mycelium-packaging factory has a nineteen-year-old child studying abroad and assumes the family can decide later whether the child will immigrate. The family should map applicable age-protection timing and collect the child’s records early, because the investment project’s hiring plan does not preserve derivative eligibility.
Use a written checkpoint for derivative timing, relationship records and individual plans. Name the original record, the person responsible for obtaining it, and the date by which any contradiction must be resolved. This lets the applicant make a practical decision from verified facts instead of relying on a convenient assumption. If the answer changes the structure or schedule, revise the plan before the next immigration step.