The window for removing conditions does not move to accommodate a delayed build. The petition to remove conditions is filed in the ninety days before the second anniversary of conditional residence, and it has to show the investment was sustained and that the required jobs were created or will be within a reasonable period.
The removal window does not move
Construction and hiring schedules slip; the statutory calendar does not. That asymmetry is the main reason to build slack into the job model at the planning stage rather than relying on the business catching up. Track two dates from the day conditional residence begins: the anniversary that opens the filing window, and the point at which the project must be far enough along for the evidence to exist. Where a project is behind, the response is documentary — evidence of what has been built, what has been hired, and what remains, with a credible account of when — and it is much stronger when the tracking has been continuous rather than reconstructed in a hurry.
Hypothetical example: an investor from Roxton Pond funds a trim plant and distribution centre whose construction loses six months to a permitting delay, so hiring begins roughly nine months later than modelled. Conditions still have to be addressed on schedule. The file needs payroll records for whoever has been hired, contemporaneous evidence of the delay and its cause, and a revised schedule that a reader can believe. Waiting until the ninetieth day before the anniversary to begin assembling that material is how a recoverable delay turns into an unrecoverable one.