No. Chargeability concerns numerical visa allocation; the applicable investment threshold depends on the EB-5 rules and qualifying investment, not a cheaper country rate.
Separate allocation planning from the capital budget
Current general amounts are US$1.05 million or US$800,000 for a qualifying reduced-threshold investment, subject to statutory filing-date adjustments. Budget official application fees, project charges and household costs separately rather than treating a possible queue advantage as a capital discount. The question worth asking is what a shorter queue would actually save, because that is what an exception is worth.
It saves waiting, and in some cases it saves a child passing the applicable age limits. It does not reduce the capital the enterprise must receive, the evidence required to show that capital was lawfully sourced and placed at risk, or the jobs the project must create. Nothing in the numerical allocation rules touches those elements.
Build the budget on the applicable investment threshold and the actual charges, then treat any queue advantage as a change to the schedule rather than a line in the budget. Where an offering presents a shorter wait as part of its value, keep that claim separate from the terms of the investment itself and read the investment on its own merits. The two are frequently presented together, and they are not the same kind of claim.