Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: a Harrison Hot Springs couple selling their bed-and-breakfast to buy a U.S. lakeside inn have a lawful source of funds but not yet an investment. E-2 counts money that is irrevocably committed and at risk in the enterprise, so the proceeds must move from their account into escrow or into the inn before the application is made. This guide follows the money through that transition and shows how the substantiality and marginality tests are met for a property of that size.
Where proceeds stop being savings and start being investment
Funds in the couple's Canadian account are theirs to spend on anything; the consular guidance does not treat them as invested until they are committed to the enterprise such that they are subject to loss. Three arrangements achieve that. Payment of the purchase price into an escrow that releases to the seller on E-2 approval and returns to the buyers only if the application is refused is accepted as sufficiently committed. Non-refundable deposits, signed equipment contracts with payments made, and funds transferred into the inn company's operating account are committed outright. A refundable deposit, a letter of intent or a bank balance earmarked for the purchase is not. Sequence the closing so the qualifying commitment exists before the interview.
Substantial for an inn of this size
Substantiality is a proportion, not a threshold: the at-risk amount is compared with the total cost of buying and operating the inn, and a lower-cost business is expected to be funded by the investor to a higher proportion. For an eight-room inn with a restaurant, a purchase price, working capital and initial renovation funded almost entirely from the bed-and-breakfast proceeds presents strongly. Any loan should be on the couple's personal liability, secured by their own assets, because a loan secured on the inn's own property shifts the risk to the lender and is excluded from the calculation. Present the figures openly: total cost, at-risk contribution, excluded financing, resulting percentage, with each item's documentation behind it.
More than a living, and directed by the couple
A marginal enterprise lacks the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to support the investor and family. The inn answers that through employees beyond the household—the manager, housekeeping and restaurant staff—and through a five-year projection built from the seller's actual books rather than from hope; a business whose only margin is the owners' wages is marginal however hard they work. The couple must also develop and direct the inn, ordinarily through fifty percent ownership or operational control, and keeping the existing manager is fine only where the operating agreement and his contract show he reports to them. Both must be Canadian citizens for their ownership to count; the E-2 spouse is employment-authorized incident to status; and E-2 offers no direct path to permanent residence.
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.