Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Camille and Théo run a residential cleaning franchise from Innisfil and are looking at a small American service business whose total acquisition and start-up cost is low. They assume a low price means an easy application. The substantiality requirement is proportional rather than fixed: the investment is weighed against the total cost of purchasing or establishing that particular enterprise, so an inexpensive business is expected to be funded to a correspondingly high degree, leaving very little room for the buyer to hold capital back. Hypothetical example: Laila, a mobile-laundry operator, must decide whether to release the final equipment payment now or preserve a contract condition tied to the immigration result. The practical decision is whether the proposed payment is sufficiently tied to an operating enterprise to accept the loss risk, or whether the transaction terms need revision before money moves. An E-2 investment is tested against the cost of this business, not a fixed public minimum.
Proportion, not a threshold number
There is no published minimum figure for this route. The assessment compares what has been invested against what the enterprise actually costs to buy or establish, and a lower-cost business raises rather than lowers the proportion expected. Camille and Théo cannot therefore treat a modest purchase price as a modest commitment; if the enterprise costs relatively little, an investment covering most of that cost is the normal expectation. Working out the real total cost — purchase price plus equipment, leasehold work, licensing, inventory and the working capital the business needs to trade — is the first step in understanding what proportion means here. Create a transaction ledger identifying the source, destination, date, and purpose of every transfer. Purchase contracts, invoices, escrow terms, and bank records should tell the same story. A cash withdrawal or unexplained transfer can interrupt an otherwise credible chain.
Held-back capital is the common miscalculation
Buyers of small businesses often keep a reserve in a personal account for comfort, intending to inject it if needed. Capital sitting in an account the investor still controls is not committed and not at risk, and a plan built around a reserve can end up showing a much smaller investment than the buyer believes they are making. The workable approach is to decide honestly what the business needs, commit that, and keep the family's separate personal savings genuinely separate rather than describing them as part of the investment. Money cannot be both a safety net and irrevocably committed capital. Decide what proportion of the total cost is actually committed and what remains contingent. The operation must be genuine, non-marginal, and directed by the investor; holding a reserve may be sensible commercially, but it cannot be presented as money already placed at risk.
A cheap business still has to be a real one
The other conditions apply with full force regardless of price. The enterprise must be real, active and operating rather than a shell or a passive holding, and it must not be marginal. The investors must hold the treaty nationality and be in a position to develop and direct the business, ordinarily through at least half the ownership or equivalent operational control, and the funds must be lawfully sourced with a documented path. A low price does not simplify any of that. It usually means the buyer has to be more precise about what the money bought, not less. Stress-test the operating plan against a slower customer ramp. The reader needs to see how revenue, staffing, and the investor’s daily control will make the enterprise more than a vehicle for the investor’s own living.
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.