Eligibility depends on the programme’s substantive conditions, not the invoice format.
Assess the application independently of the billing arrangement
EB-1/EB-2 eligibility, admissibility and visa availability remain relevant. Identify the actual applicant and individual or corporate route before assuming that a package description accurately reflects the government programme.
Ignore the adviser’s package name and test the official sequence. The applicant first submits the online application with the US$15,000 nonrefundable DHS processing fee. After payment settles, USCIS prompts completion of Form I-140G, “Immigrant Petition for the Gold Card Program,” with supporting material. The gift to the United States — US$1 million for an individual applicant or included family member, or US$2 million per corporate-sponsored employee — is requested only after vetting; it is not an EB-5 investment. Approval still runs through EB-1 or EB-2 classification, with admissibility and visa availability relevant. Identify whether the invoice concerns the individual, family members, or a corporate sponsor, then reconcile every private service to the government stage. The common mistake is treating payment to an adviser as proof of substantive eligibility. Because this framework may change, re-verify the official instructions immediately before money moves.
Hypothetical example: A Saint-Ambroise forestry researcher receives a bundled invoice labelled “complete Gold Card qualification.” She separates the adviser’s analysis charge from the official processing fee and asks which EB-1 or EB-2 basis the proposed I-140G evidence supports. Her publication and employment records are reviewed on their merits; the invoice description proves nothing. She does not send the gift with the initial application and confirms current government directions before authorizing any transfer.