The Trump Gold Card Program - Ins and Outs

 

President Trump formally instituted the Trump Gold Card Program through the Executive Order 14351 in September 2025. This program offers a potentially fast-track route to U.S. permanent residency for foreign nationals.  Marketed as a "merit-based" overhaul, the program seeks to replace traditional, achievement-heavy evidentiary standards for the EB-1A (Extraordinary Ability) and EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) categories with a direct financial contribution to the U.S. Treasury.  

The Cost of Entry: A Story of Two Cards

Under the new Gold Card Program, the path to residency is no longer based on outstanding achievements such as peer-reviewed articles or international awards, but with what the administration calls "unrestricted gifts" to the nation.

The Gold Card: Individual and Corporate Paths

An individual looking to secure a Green Card through the Gold Card program must first pay a non-refundable $15,000 processing and vetting fee just to open the door. Once the initial background check is cleared, the applicant is required to make a one-time, irrevocable gift of $1 million. If you are bringing a family, the math becomes aggressive: each dependent (spouse or child) requires their own $1 million gift and $15,000 fee.

For businesses, the Corporate Gold Card allows an employer to sponsor a key executive for a $2 million gift. A unique feature of the corporate version is "transferability"—if the original employee leaves the company, the corporation can potentially transfer the sponsorship slot to a new hire, though the new individual must still pass a separate $15,000 vetting process.

The Platinum Card: Coming Soon

The administration has also proposed the Platinum Card, designed for the ultra-wealthy who desire access to the U.S. without the full burden of its global tax system. For a $5 million contribution, participants are promised the right to reside in the U.S. for up to 270 days per year. 

The "crown jewel" of the Platinum Card is a proposed exemption from U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income. Traditionally, a Green Card holder is taxed on their worldwide income regardless of where they live. The Platinum Card proposes to allow participants extended stays without triggering the "Substantial Presence Test" that usually intertwines global assets in the U.S. tax net.

Legal and Procedural Issues

Despite the glossy rollout at TrumpCard.gov, the program's legal validity is still murky.  

Seperation of Power: The primary legal concern is whether the Executive Branch has the authority to effectively "sell" merit-based visas. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines EB-1A and EB-2 NIW based on specific criteria like "sustained national or international acclaim" or "national interest."  Can the Executive Branch rewrite the law - a power reserved for Congress - by treating million dollar gifts as a substitute for professional achievement?  The tax benefits proposed by the Platinum Card will also require changes in the Tax Code by Congress.

Litigation Risks: The Gold Card program may also be challenged in court by EB1A and EB-2 NIW applicants who cannot afford to pay the substantial fees.  Other affected parties, such as EB-5 program applicants, may also file lawsuits against the program.  If so, the pending cases could be frozen.  

Financial Risks:  Unlike the EB-5 program, where capital is "at risk" but theoretically returnable, the Gold Card requires an irrevocable gift and fees are likely non-refundable regardless of the outcome of the case.

Participate Now or Wait-and-See?

If you only have a "marginal" profile who might not otherwise win an EB-1A case, and you have $1 million in "disposable" capital that you are willing to lose in exchange for a chance at immediate processing, the Gold Card could be your solution. 

Whether one wants to participate in the Gold Card program now or later is an individual decision. Applicants should understand that the Gold Card does not create new visas; it uses the existing 140,000 annual employment-based quota. If there is a high volume of Gold Card approvals, it could worsen retrogression (backlogs) for traditional merit-based applicants, particularly for those from high-demand countries like India and China.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)  

Citations of Publications not Required for Eb-1 Extraordinary Ability Visa: Kazarian vs. USCIS

In 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a decision on an Eb-1 extraordinary ability alien application filed by a theoretical physicist from Armenia. Although the Ninth Circuit denied his Eb-1 case at the end, the court held that citations are not required for scholarly publications to be considered as evidence in extraordinary ability petitions. This is a significant development in this type of immigration petitions, which are not frequently appealed to the Circuit Court. This decision will have an impact on how the USCIS adjudicate Eb-1 extraordinary ability visa petitions going forward.

The extraordinary ability visa under the Employment-based First Preference category was created for a person who possess a very high level of expertise, indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field. 

Further, their achievements must have sustained national or international acclaim and that their achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. There are two ways under the law that a person can prove extraordinary ability. First, he or she must produce evidence of a one-time achievement, usually, a major, international recognized award such as the Nobel Prize or an Academy Award. If not, the applicant must provide evidence that he or she meets at least three of the ten enumerated criteria in the regulations. These include lesser national or international prizes or awards, membership in associations which require outstanding achievements, published materials in professional or major trade publications, original authorship of scholarly articles, acting as a judge of others’ work, etc.

In this Ninth Circuit Court Eb-1 case, Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mr. Kazarian conceded that he has not won a one-time major, international prize or award. Instead, he produced evidence that he has met at least three of the listed criteria. For example, he argued that he has published six scholarly papers in his field of theoretical physics in a scientific journal, which should be considered as meeting one criterion. 

After his case was denied by the USCIS, Kazarian filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) which affirmed the denial. The AAO held that since he did not produce any evidence of citations by other scientists of his publications, his articles did not meet the regulatory definition of evidence, because "publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim" and "we must consider the research community's reaction to these articles." 

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after a federal district court denied Kazarian’s appeal. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the AAO, holding that the EB1A regulations do not specify that citations of published work are required, and that a government agency may not impose additional requirements during the process of adjudication.

Similarly, Kazarian also produced evidence of his review experience of graduate-level diploma work at his university to support his I-140 petition. The AAO held that reviewing the diploma works for graduate students at one's own university is not persuasive evidence of acclaim beyond that university. Instead, only evidence that an applicant served as a dissertation reviewer externally for a university with which he has no affiliation would meet the regulatory definition of evidence. Again, such an interpretation was held to be erroneous by the Ninth Circuit, noting that such a requirement does not exist in the regulations. Mr. Kazarian was found to have met this criterion too.

Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately denied the I-140 petition because Kazarian only met two of the ten criteria, the case holdings are still significant. It is expected that the USCIS will issue new guidance in regards to Eb-1 extraordinary ability visa petitions. Even though the Ninth Circuit only has jurisdiction over eleven states including California, Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon, etc., but any new policy by USCIS in this regard will likely be applied to all applications filed in the U.S.

(Published initially on 7/2/2010)

---------------

 Updates:

Kazarian has proven to be a curse more than a blessing for EB-1A petitioners.  USCIS did follow the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling and issued additional guidance regarding adjudication of EB-1A petitions. However, the new guidance imposed a second layer of requirement for EB-1A petitions.  Even after a petitioner has met at least 3 of the 10 evidentiary categories, USCIS must conduct a final merits determination to decide if the petitioner has indeed risen to the very top of his/her field and enjoyed international recognition.  Based on this new guidance, approval rates of EB-1A petition have steadily declined in the following decade. 

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule legal consultation.)