No. Your case requires its own applicable evidence and eligibility assessment. Shared project facts do not establish your lawful source, actual contribution or personal immigration requirements.
Identify the relevance without promising the result
Ask what the earlier decision actually covers. Do not treat a favorable outcome as a guarantee or assume every part of another investor’s file can simply be reused as proof about you. Separate what a filing actually decided about the project from what it decided about a particular investor, because only one of those two layers has any possible relevance to a later, different investor.
Project-level elements, such as the enterprise's structure, the job-creation methodology or a targeted-employment-area designation, may be common across investors in the same offering, while source-of-funds evidence, lawful path and personal admissibility remain entirely individual and cannot be borrowed at all. Even a favorable determination on shared project facts does not bind a later adjudication of the same facts, since each filing receives its own independent review regardless of an earlier result involving the same enterprise. Ask specifically which exhibits an earlier approval relied on, and confirm whether those same facts remain accurate and current rather than assuming nothing has changed since that filing was decided.
A regional center's marketing description of prior approvals says little about your own file's strength, because promotional material summarizes outcomes without disclosing the underlying evidence that actually supported them. Treat every prior result as context to understand, not as a substitute for building your own complete record.