No. The work plan provides context, while current official terms govern the gift-based framework.
Use the right source for each question
Identify the applicable individual or corporate proposal and unresolved obligations. A project document does not establish the program’s process or family terms. Hypothetical example: a Canadian custom-map publisher receives an online payment request labelled ‘Gold Card reservation’ from a consultant who says government review will follow later.
Stop and identify the official process before sending money or personal documents. The first document review should assemble passports, civil-status records for any proposed family members, the current official program instructions, the precise individual or corporate payment terms, evidence of the applicant’s lawful ability to pay, and materials relevant to the required EB-1 or EB-2 path. Record the source URL, publication date, screen capture or dated copy, and any official receipt or communication.
A consultant’s invoice, marketing deck, or unsigned employment letter cannot establish gift payment requirements, classification eligibility, admissibility, or visa availability. Keep the payment recipient, amount, purpose, and refund status in a separate ledger. The applicable official terms should state who pays and to whom; do not substitute a private escrow, employer reimbursement, or project investment for a payment by the applicant to the U.S.
government. If the proposal is corporate, preserve authority records and identify the individual applicant without assuming the company’s commercial assets resolve personal eligibility. Sequence the work: authenticate the program source, determine eligibility facts, compile identity and family evidence, then follow only verified payment instructions.
A common failure is collecting many business documents while never confirming the actual government recipient or the applicant’s individual immigration basis.