USCIS tweaks I‑140G rules
USCIS updated the I‑140G 'Trump Gold Card' paperwork to formalize a commemorative plaque for petitioners and to accept loans as a source of funding for extraordinary‑ability petitions. (x.com) Immigration practitioners have already flagged loopholes and questioned whether loan‑backed funding will be exploited, sparking public critique from immigration counsel. (x.com)
USCIS revised the official I-140G instructions to add a checkbox that lets approved petitioners request a commemorative plaque recognizing Gold Card approval and to explicitly allow loans to be counted as part of the money used to make the required gift to the U.S. government. (iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com) Treating borrowed money as an eligible funding source means applicants can rely on credit arrangements instead of solely on existing liquid wealth, and the updated instructions require disclosure of donors and lenders when a gift or loan is involved. (iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com) Under the form’s mechanics, a petitioner must make a non‑refundable monetary gift to the U.S. Department of Commerce and file the I‑140G online after pre‑registering on TrumpCard.gov; USCIS lists a $15,000 filing fee per person and channels approvals into the existing employment‑based classifications for extraordinary ability or the national‑interest waiver. (iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com) (aila.org) The instructions spell out source‑of‑funds and path‑of‑funds documentation: if the source includes a gift or a loan, the petitioner must identify the donor or lender, explain the relationship, and indicate whether a donation letter or a signed loan agreement is being submitted; the form also reiterates that all funds used for the gift must be lawfully obtained and transferred in compliance with U.S. law. (iptp-production.s3.amazonaws.com) Immigration counsel and firm analyses immediately flagged legal and practical gaps: commentators called attention to the program’s requirement that large, non‑refundable gifts be submitted before adjudication and noted ambiguities in derivative handling and refund safeguards, and several law firms described the draft instructions as legally uncertain and financially risky. (cohentuckerlaw.com) (fragomen.com) Practitioners drawing comparisons to investor‑visa precedent warn that loans introduce familiar source‑of‑funds compliance problems — loan proceeds can be lawful but still require a transparent money trail and enforceable loan documentation — and therefore expect heavy evidentiary scrutiny similar to that applied in EB‑5 cases where lenders, collateral, and repayment rules are routinely examined. (eb5visainvestments.com) (puyanglaw.com)
