No. The funds make the process possible, not the outcome. An applicant must still be eligible for lawful permanent residence, be admissible, and receive a determination under EB-1 or EB-2 that is subject to visa availability. The program is not a purchase of citizenship and does not waive an inadmissibility ground.
Test the weakest fact first
Identify the single fact most likely to end the case — an old refusal, a criminal matter, a period of unlawful presence, or an unresolved question about identity — and examine it before paying anything. A qualified review can say whether the issue is fatal, arguable, or minor. The US$15,000 processing fee is not returned if vetting goes badly, so the sequencing decision is simply whether to buy that answer privately first.
Keep the direction of the money unmistakable when explaining this to anyone else: the payment runs from the applicant to the U.S. government, and nothing flows in the other direction. It is not a visa category in the ordinary sense and confers no classification by itself, since the determination must still be made under EB-1 or EB-2 and remains subject to visa availability.
Hypothetical example: a retired veterinary pharmaceutical executive assumes the payment substitutes for an employment-based ground, and the most useful output of the first review is the correction that it does not, together with a list of what would actually establish an EB-1 or EB-2 basis.