A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., has ruled against Lorient Roxboro, LLC, and its investor, Vishnu Menon, in a case concerning the denial of an EB-5 visa application. The court's decision affects foreign investors seeking U.S. residency through the EB-5 program, which allows individuals to obtain a green card by investing in American businesses. This ruling highlights the complexities and challenges faced by investors navigating the immigration process.

The court denied Menon’s motion to stay the effective date of the denial of his I-485 application, which is necessary for adjusting his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The decision is significant for those involved in the EB-5 program, as it underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the potential consequences of administrative errors.

Background

The case, Lorient Roxboro, LLC v. Noem, was filed on May 18, 2026, under Civil Action No. 2026-0358. The plaintiffs, Lorient Roxboro, LLC, and Menon, are challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denial of their applications for the EB-5 visa program. This program was created by Congress in 1990 to attract foreign investment to the U.S. economy and create jobs for American workers.

Menon, who invested $800,000 in Lorient Roxboro, hoped to secure his permanent residency through the EB-5 program. However, the company’s application faced hurdles when one of its principals, Al Kurdieh, failed to attend a required biometrics appointment, which USCIS claimed led to the denial of Lorient’s application for project approval. This denial subsequently resulted in the rejection of Menon’s I-526E immigrant petition and I-485 adjustment application.

Despite attempts to rectify the situation, including motions to reopen the denied applications, USCIS maintained its stance. The court filing indicates that Lorient’s initial I-956F application was denied for “abandonment” due to Kurdieh’s absence at the biometrics appointment, which the plaintiffs attributed to a mailing error by USCIS. The procedural history reflects the complications that can arise when multiple parties are involved in the EB-5 investment process.

The Ruling

Judge Carl J. Nichols presided over the case and ultimately ruled against Menon’s request for a stay of his I-485 application denial. The court stated, “Menon has not shown that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of preliminary relief.” The ruling emphasized that Menon failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his challenge, as the court found that the relevant statutes stripped it of jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions made by USCIS.

The court also noted that even if there were issues with the I-956F application, it would not necessarily render Menon’s I-485 denial reviewable. The decision pointed out that the denials were based on multiple deficiencies in the application process, including issues beyond the biometrics appointment. The court concluded that Menon’s claims were likely “foreclosed by a straightforward application” of existing law.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for investors in the EB-5 program and highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. The decision demonstrates that even minor administrative errors can lead to substantial consequences for foreign investors seeking permanent residency in the United States. It also reinforces the notion that courts have limited authority to intervene in immigration matters, particularly when the law grants broad discretion to immigration officials.

Going forward, this case serves as a cautionary tale for potential EB-5 investors and regional centers about the critical nature of compliance with all USCIS requirements. It underscores the need for thorough communication and documentation throughout the application process, as failures in these areas can jeopardize the immigration status of investors and their families.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this ruling can be appealed. However, given the complexities of immigration law and the potential for related cases, it is possible that Menon may seek further legal recourse or that similar cases could arise in the future as other investors navigate the EB-5 program.