No. The relevant job-creation or permitted preservation rules must be satisfied by the actual investment. A seller’s headcount does not establish the investor’s qualifying jobs. Review the enterprise, positions, workers and applicable evidence rather than assuming ownership transfer alone is sufficient.
Identify what the case will rely on
Ask whether the plan creates qualifying positions or invokes a preservation framework and what facts support it. Do not assume every purchase qualifies for an exception. Direct and regional-centre evidence also differ, so use the rules for the actual structure.
Begin with the actual investment structure and then test capital, enterprise, jobs, source, and participation against the applicable EB-5 rules. A first review should produce a written job basis stating whether the plan relies on direct creation, regional-centre methodology, or a permitted preservation framework. Capital must be placed at commercial risk, and the investor must participate in management or policy formulation as the rules allow. A purchase of an operating business does not automatically create qualifying positions. The record that settles the issue is a reconciled transaction and staffing model, not the seller's marketing statement.
Hypothetical example: a grain-elevator purchaser plans to retain 12 workers after closing. The review must examine whether the transaction creates qualifying jobs or satisfies a specific preservation basis, rather than counting the existing payroll automatically.