Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: a Kent couple buying a U.S. retail nursery must show two things that are easy to confuse. Substantiality compares their at-risk contribution with the total cost of buying and running this business; marginality asks whether the nursery can produce more than a minimal living for them, now or within five years. A modest business fully funded by the investors can pass both tests; an expensive business funded mostly by a loan secured on its own assets may pass neither.
Substantiality is a proportion, not a threshold
There is no statutory minimum investment for E-2. The consular guidance applies a proportionality test: the amount the investor has placed at risk is compared with the total cost of purchasing an established business or establishing a new one, and the lower the cost, the higher the proportion expected from the investor. For a nursery with a purchase price and working-capital requirement that a Kent couple can fund mostly from a home-equity line and savings, the proportion is high and the point is straightforward. If the bank finances most of the price against the nursery's own greenhouses and stock, that portion is excluded from the at-risk figure, and the couple's proportion drops to a level that invites refusal. Present the calculation openly: total cost, at-risk contribution, excluded financing, and the resulting percentage.
Marginality is about capacity, shown through people and projections
A marginal enterprise is one that lacks the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to support the investor and family. Two kinds of evidence answer it. The first is employment: a nursery that already pays seasonal and year-round staff beyond the household demonstrates economic activity that exceeds a living for the owners. The second is a projection, credible and tied to the business's actual records, showing that within five years the enterprise will exceed that minimal level. The seller's tax returns for the past several years, current payroll records and a business plan that explains growth from those numbers rather than from optimism are the exhibits. Avoid a plan that reads as a household budget with a greenhouse attached.
Ownership, control and what the seller keeps
The couple must develop and direct the enterprise. Ordinarily that means at least fifty percent ownership or operational control through a managerial position or other corporate device. If the seller wants to retain a minority stake and stay on as manager for a transition season, the operating agreement must make clear that the couple hold the decision-making authority and that the seller's role is employment, not control. Both spouses must be Canadian citizens for their ownership to count as treaty ownership; a permanent-resident spouse's share does not. An E-2 spouse admitted as a dependant is employment-authorized incident to status, so both may work in the nursery, but the developing-and-directing role should be assigned clearly to the principal applicant in the documents.
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.