No. The government’s eligibility, admissibility and availability assessment remains separate.
Read the private promise accurately
A provider can describe its own service terms without controlling the case outcome. Do not treat a refund clause as evidence that the applicant meets EB-1/EB-2 requirements.
Treat the provider’s refund clause as a private contract term, never as proof of government eligibility or approval. Under the current sequence, the applicant first completes the online application and pays the US$15,000 nonrefundable DHS processing fee. USCIS then prompts submission of Form I-140G, “Immigrant Petition for the Gold Card Program.” The US$1 million gift to the United States is requested only after vetting. Because the program operates through EB-1 or EB-2 classification, the applicant must still establish the relevant immigrant basis, admissibility and visa availability. It is not EB-5, and the gift is not investment capital. Recheck official instructions immediately before sending money.
Hypothetical example: a medical physicist in the Canton of Hatley is offered a consultant package promising repayment if Gold Card residence is refused. She first inventories publications, clinical work and proposed US activity to see whether the stated EB-1 or EB-2 theory is supportable. Next she marks which part of the contract covers only consulting charges and which official payment remains nonrefundable. She will use the government portal, await the I-140G prompt and withhold the gift until vetting produces the proper request. The consultant’s promise cannot cure a deficient classification case.