Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Sylvie owns a fencing and gate installation business near Callander and is buying an American fence and guardrail contractor. Her lawyer has drafted an escrow that releases the purchase price only when a visa is issued, and returns everything if it is not. That structure is a recognized one rather than a disqualifying one: a binding purchase conditioned solely on issuance of the E-2 visa can still be irrevocably committed where the assets are held in escrow for release once that condition is met. What decides it is the drafting, because a commitment the buyer can unwind at will, or one that is still only an intention to invest, is neither committed nor at risk.
Irrevocably committed, and at risk, are the words that matter
The investment must be a real commitment of funds to a real operating enterprise, placed at risk in the commercial sense, meaning it can be lost if the business fails. Money that remains under the investor's control, or that returns to her on any condition she can trigger, has not been committed. An escrow is not itself the problem: official guidance treats placing the funds in escrow pending visa issuance as a legal mechanism for irrevocable commitment, so a binding purchase conditioned solely on issuance of the E-2 visa can qualify where the assets are held for release once that condition is met. What fails is an arrangement that remains an intention to invest. The drafting answer is therefore to make the purchase binding, leave visa issuance as the only outstanding condition, and ensure that whatever has been spent has genuinely gone.
What spending before approval looks like when it is done well
Sylvie can make her position stronger by committing to the business in ways that are visible and irreversible. A lease signed and rent paid, equipment purchased, vehicles acquired and liveried, licences obtained, insurance bound, staff hired or contracted, software and inventory bought: each is money that has left and cannot be recovered by cancelling an application. Every item needs a document and an entry in the money trail. What does not help is a large sum sitting in a business account described as working capital, since that is savings in a different location. The distinction an adjudicator draws is between funds deployed and funds parked.
Substantial is a ratio, and marginal is a separate question
Two tests are frequently merged. Substantiality compares what has been committed with the total cost of buying or establishing this particular enterprise, so a service company with modest capital requirements needs proportionally less than a manufacturing plant. Non-marginality asks whether the enterprise has the present or future capacity to generate more than a minimal living for Sylvie and her family, which is usually answered by the seller's filed historical figures where a business is bought, and by a defensible staffing and revenue plan where one is built. Buying an operating company with employees and contracts already in place is the easier of the two positions to evidence, provided the records exist.
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.