Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Nkechi runs a produce repacking business connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury and is comparing two U.S. cold-storage operations for purchase — a small one she could buy outright, and a larger one she could only acquire with substantial debt. She assumes the bigger purchase looks more serious. The E-2 substantiality test is proportional rather than absolute, and the comparison it makes is between the amount invested and the cost of the business, which can favour the smaller deal. Hypothetical example: A maker of compostable shipping inserts chooses between an inexpensive established shop and a costly startup. The decision is whether the committed amount is proportionate to the real transaction, not whether it is the largest number.
Substantiality is a proportion, not a threshold
There is no fixed minimum investment for E-2. The test is whether the investment is substantial in relation to the total cost of purchasing an established enterprise or establishing a new one, and the proportion expected is generally higher for a less expensive business than for a very costly one. A person acquiring a modest operation outright may therefore present a stronger proportional case than someone contributing a small slice of a much larger purchase price. Nkechi's instinct that a bigger number is more persuasive inverts the actual analysis. The first task is to establish the genuine cost of each business, since the denominator in the comparison is as important as the amount she puts in. Obtain valuations and signed commercial terms before characterizing any figure as substantial, since the actual cost is the comparison point.
Asset purchase and share purchase produce different records
How the deal is structured affects what can be evidenced. An asset purchase typically produces a clear schedule of what was bought and at what price, which maps neatly onto an investment claim. A share purchase transfers an existing company with its history, obligations and any prior ownership, and the analysis then has to address whether the enterprise's ownership carries treaty nationality after closing. Either structure can work, but the choice is usually made by accountants and tax advisers for reasons unrelated to immigration, and the immigration consequences are easier to accommodate when raised during negotiation rather than after signing. Funds must be irrevocably committed and genuinely at risk, not merely available. The buyer must decide whether an asset or share deal preserves treaty ownership and supports a commitment that cannot simply be withdrawn.
Marginality and control are separate questions from size
Whichever business Nkechi buys, two further conditions apply. The enterprise must be real and actively operating, and must not be marginal — it has to do more than provide a minimal living for her and her family, whether through present capacity or a realistic projection supported by the business's own numbers. She must also develop and direct the enterprise, ordinarily through at least fifty percent ownership or through operational control, which is a question about the deal's governance rather than about her intentions. E-2 status carries no direct path to permanent residence, and a spouse accompanying her would be employment-authorized incident to status under current policy. A projection should identify operational control, revenue, and staffing so the investor can test marginality before money is irreversibly exposed.
What else is on your mind?
Is there one minimum investment that guarantees E-2 eligibility?Is holding money or owning an asset enough for E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.