No. A contractual investment term, an immigration sustainment requirement and government processing are separate schedules. None should be used as a guaranteed substitute for the others.
Maintain three timelines
Record the agreement’s maturity and extension provisions, the milestones counsel identifies for the immigration case and actual adjudication or visa events. Update the financial plan when project facts change. If a distribution becomes possible, review it before acting.
A project may remain illiquid after an immigration milestone, and immigration processing may remain pending beyond the commercial schedule originally presented. Three schedules exist and none is a proxy for another. Government adjudication answers to queues and case-specific facts; the sustainment requirement answers to the rules applicable to the filing; the project answers to construction, markets and its own agreement.
Delay in one neither extends nor shortens the others. Hypothetical example: A seed processing project reaches its marketed exit while the investor’s case is still pending. Whether the contract may release capital then depends on whether the sustainment period applicable to that filing has ended; petition pendency alone does not keep post-RIA capital at risk.
Record the events that actually matter for each schedule and revisit them when facts change. Nothing in the category guarantees that adjudication concludes before a commercial term expires, and any expedite option should be verified for the specific form rather than assumed from another route.