No. The reviewed framework describes a government gift associated with an immigration process, not the sale of citizenship or a passport.
Evaluate the proposal’s labels
Separate government charges from professional assistance and ask for current terms. Reject financial comparisons that assume a contribution guarantees a citizenship asset with a resale or investment value. An applicant should understand the proposed permanent-residence process and its uncertainties before using the payment amount in a long-term financial plan.
Money in this programme falls into categories that behave differently, and merging them produces the wrong comparison. The gift is paid by the individual applicant or a corporate sponsor, as applicable, to the Department of Commerce, deposited in a separate Treasury fund; the processing fee is nonrefundable; professional assistance is charged separately by whoever provides it; and none of these is an investment with a return, a resale value or a recoverable balance. Hypothetical example: a medical-device distribution executive is shown a table placing the contribution beside an EB-5 capital amount as though the two were alternative uses of the same money, when only one of them is an at-risk investment in an enterprise at all.
Ask for current figures from the official source at the point of payment, and treat any talk of recovering or leveraging the contribution as a claim needing its own explanation.