A federal court has dismissed a case involving two Chinese nationals, Li and Lulu Liu, who sought to challenge the denial of their immigrant-investor visa petitions. The court ruled that Lulu Liu did not exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit, which is a requirement under the EB-5 visa program. This decision impacts their ability to pursue residency in the United States through the program, which allows foreign investors to gain permanent residence by investing in U.S. businesses.
The case, Liu v. Noem, was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 2025-3758) and was presided over by Judge Reggie B. Walton. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of following the proper administrative processes before seeking judicial review in immigration matters.
The plaintiffs, Li and Lulu Liu, invested $500,000 each in 2016 as part of the EB-5 immigrant-investor program, which aims to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation. Their visa petitions were denied in 2024, leading them to file a lawsuit in October 2025, seeking a declaration that the denials were unlawful and an order to reopen their petitions.
The EB-5 program requires that foreign nationals invest in new commercial enterprises that create jobs in the U.S. The program is administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which assesses whether petitioners meet the necessary qualifications. The Liu family's case stems from their investments in a project intended to develop the New York Wheel in Staten Island.
After their petitions were denied, Li Liu filed an appeal, while Lulu Liu filed a motion to reopen her application. However, the court found that Lulu Liu did not follow the required steps for appealing the denial of her petition, which ultimately led to the dismissal of her claims.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies, as required by the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). This act states that no court can review EB-5 determinations until the alien investor has exhausted all administrative appeals. The court noted, "The plain text of the jurisdictional bar resolves this dispute in [the] defendant’s favor." This ruling highlights the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in immigration cases.
In its decision, the court explained that the RIA's exhaustion requirement applies to all EB-5 determinations and that the plaintiffs must follow the appropriate administrative processes before seeking judicial intervention. This means that Lulu Liu's failure to appeal her case to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) barred her from pursuing her claims in court.
The ruling has significant implications for the Liu family and others in similar situations. It underscores the importance of understanding and following the administrative procedures associated with immigration applications. The court's decision serves as a reminder that failure to adhere to these processes can result in the loss of the right to challenge denials in court.
Looking ahead, the Liu family has limited options. They may consider appealing the decision, but they must first exhaust all administrative remedies as required by the RIA. This case also raises questions about the future of the EB-5 program and the challenges faced by immigrant investors seeking to navigate the complex U.S. immigration system.
As immigration policies continue to evolve, individuals and families seeking to invest in the U.S. economy should remain informed about the legal requirements and potential challenges they may face. The Liu case serves as a critical example of the importance of compliance with immigration laws and the consequences of failing to do so.