Potentially the entire qualifying capital amount difference and processing costs, since an improperly designated investment may not satisfy EB-5 requirements at either amount if the underlying claim was inaccurate.
An unverified claim risks the investment itself, not just a fee
The financial risk of relying on an unsupported targeted employment area claim is not a modest processing fee; it is the possibility that the investment amount committed does not actually satisfy EB-5 requirements at all, if the reduced amount was invested based on a designation that does not hold up. Government filing fees themselves follow the standard EB-5 petition and adjustment or consular processing structure under the current USCIS fee schedule, and those fees are the same regardless of which capital amount applies. The real cost exposure sits in the underlying investment: if an investor commits the reduced amount believing the project has targeted employment area status, and that status is later found unsupported, the shortfall against the standard amount could jeopardize the entire petition, which is why verifying the designation before committing funds matters far more than any government fee comparison.