IN THIS GUIDE · Confirm which legal entity and individual the sponsorship proposal concerns
Start with the GOLD CARD eligibility and application overview
Resolve identities before relying on the budget
Compare the intended principal’s identity and the company information in the actual official process with the employer’s commitment. A payroll company, parent and operating affiliate may be different entities. Do not invent a rule that every name change is a transfer or assume any related company can automatically replace the sponsor; obtain instructions for the genuine case.
Use the published payment structure
The official terms specify US$15,000 nonrefundable processing per person. After successful vetting and official instructions, the principal gift is US$1 million individually or US$2 million per corporate-sponsored employee. Each eligible included spouse or unmarried child under 21 adds US$1 million and US$15,000, including corporate cases; initial family inclusion is recommended. Corporate terms include 1% annual maintenance and 5% transfer with a new background check, without automatic approval of the replacement employee.
Keep corporate administration separate from immigration decisions
Gold Card uses EB-1 or EB-2 as appropriately determined, subject to eligibility, admissibility and visa availability. A government gift is not EB-5 commercial equity or a guaranteed return. An employer confirmation or payment does not grant current U.S. work permission, residence or citizenship. Follow the real official notices instead of treating an internal employee-benefits approval as the immigration outcome.
Re-verify the official terms immediately before any money moves
Successful applicants proceed through existing employment-based classifications, and the published material refers to the first and second employment-based preference categories. Because successful applicants proceed through EB-1 or EB-2, the substantive requirements of those classifications remain in place, and they are demanding in ways that have nothing to do with payment. A first review should create a payment-control checklist: the applicant identity, the government instruction, the stated amount, the recipient account, the condition that triggered the request, and the retained receipt. Comparing that notice with bank confirmations prevents a private invoice or intermediary receipt from being mistaken for proof of an official payment. Prior immigration history, criminal records and health grounds are examined in the vetting the program describes. Because the program is recent, its official terms and procedures should be re-verified on the government source immediately before any money moves, and a licensed United States immigration attorney should confirm the position for the specific household. Save the answers as dated files, keep every receipt, and confirm payment instructions by a second channel before sending money anywhere. The decision is whether the applicant can satisfy the announced framework and the underlying immigration conditions, not whether a third party describes the payment as a shortcut.
Follow the official payment sequence and individual amounts
Start with the official program site and relevant government announcements, then record the page date and the exact instruction being relied on. The current official FAQ requires eligibility for lawful permanent resident status, admissibility and visa availability, while Executive Order 14351 directs the gift to serve as evidence under specified EB-1 and EB-2 grounds. The required gift is a payment by the applicant to the U.S. government after successful vetting; it is never a conventional visa or an investment producing ownership. Set the amounts out as a schedule with dates and payees, distinguishing the nonrefundable processing fee from the later payment made when instructed after vetting. Under the published framework, payment is made by the individual applicant directly to the U.S. government after the stated vetting sequence; a business, relative or adviser cannot become the applicant merely by supplying funds. Anyone comparing this framework with an investment route should hold that difference in view throughout, because the language of investment is often used loosely in discussion of the programme and it obscures what actually happens to the money.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.