No. Showing where the money came from is one part of the picture. The applicant must still be eligible for lawful permanent residence, admissible, and reach an EB-1 or EB-2 determination subject to visa availability. Successful vetting precedes the gift. Strong financial documentation supports a case; it does not substitute for those separate requirements.
Test the case on both tracks
Run two parallel reviews before spending. One examines the funds: origin, path, and current availability. The other examines the person: immigration history, any admissibility concern, and the classification a qualified attorney thinks the record supports.
Paying the processing fee does not purchase citizenship or waive an inadmissibility ground. If the personal side carries an unresolved problem, that is worth surfacing before an asset is liquidated on the assumption the rest is straightforward. Two points belong at the top of that second review.
The payment runs from the applicant to the U.S. government and buys neither a classification nor relief from any ground of inadmissibility, so the personal track is not a formality that money can shorten. And a determination must still be made under EB-1 or EB-2, subject to visa availability, which makes the question of what the applicant's own record could support the substantive one rather than a procedural detail at the end.
Confirm current terms and figures against official sources rather than a summary. Hypothetical example: a former shipping executive assumes their business record obviously supports one of the categories, and asks instead for a written view identifying which evidence would establish it and how much of that evidence exists today, which is a more useful page than any cost projection.