Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Gaspard runs a commercial bakery in Powassan and plans to open a production kitchen in an American city, supplying cafes and grocers rather than selling at retail. He has capital, a signed lease and equipment quotes. What he does not yet have is a plan whose staffing projection can be believed, and that plan is the single document on which the non-marginality question will turn.
What non-marginality asks, and what a projection has to answer
An enterprise that would generate only enough income to support the investor and his family may be found marginal and the application refused. Gaspard's plan therefore has to show a business that will do more than employ him: bakers, packers, a driver, a supervisor, with the dates by which each position is filled and the revenue that supports the payroll. The projection is not a hope expressed in a spreadsheet. It is the assertion the rest of the case rests on, and every number in it should be traceable to something outside the document, whether a quote, a contract, a comparable operation or the applicant's own history.
What makes a projection grounded rather than optimistic
Gaspard has an advantage most start-ups lack: eleven years of actual figures from Powassan. Output per baker, waste rates, wholesale margins, the ratio of production hours to delivery hours, the seasonality of grocery orders — all of it exists in his own records and can anchor the American forecast rather than industry averages. Where the American operation genuinely differs, in wage rates, ingredient costs or delivery distances, the plan should say so and show the substitution. Letters of intent from prospective wholesale customers, the equipment quotes behind the capacity assumption and the lease with its square footage give the reader something to check. A projection nobody can check persuades nobody.
The rest of the file must not contradict the plan
The plan sits alongside the other E-2 requirements and must be consistent with them. Treaty nationality of the investor and of the enterprise's ownership, capital irrevocably committed and at risk, substantiality measured in proportion to the cost of establishing this kind of business rather than against any fixed minimum, and the applicant developing and directing the enterprise. If the plan describes Gaspard baking through the night, the develop-and-direct requirement is undermined by his own document. If it projects six employees while his committed capital covers equipment and three months of a two-person payroll, the funding contradicts the staffing. Read the plan against the financial evidence before anyone else does.
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.