Hypothetical example: Kwabena Mensah distributes conveyor components and marine deck equipment from a Thunder Bay warehouse and wants to open an American branch serving terminals on the other side of the lake. He has budgeted a sum he considers substantial and has it sitting in a business account, ready to move once a visa is issued. That sequence feels prudent and is the most common reason an otherwise strong treaty investor application is refused, because the money has not been placed at risk.
What being at risk actually excludes
Capital is at risk when it is subject to partial or total loss if the business does not succeed, and it is qualifying only once it has been irrevocably committed to the enterprise. Funds still in the applicant's own account fail both parts, however clearly they are earmarked. So does an undrawn credit facility, a term deposit pledged as future support, and a promise to contribute more once trading begins. What does satisfy the requirement is money already spent or bound: signed leases, equipment purchased, inventory acquired, staff engaged, deposits that cannot be recovered. An escrow releasing funds on visa issuance can work where the only outstanding condition is the immigration decision, because the commitment is otherwise irrevocable.
Borrowed money, and the security that destroys it
Borrowing is not disqualifying in itself, but the security decides whether the borrowed money counts. Where a loan is secured by the assets of the enterprise itself, the capital is the lender's exposure rather than the investor's, and it does not count toward the investment. Where the investor is personally liable and has pledged personal assets, the money is genuinely his own capital at risk and generally does count. Kwabena should therefore look at the security schedule rather than the loan amount when he assesses what his file will be worth. The same logic applies to vendor financing on a purchase: a note secured only against the business being bought puts the seller at risk, not the buyer.
Substantial is a ratio, and the denominator is the business
There is no threshold amount. The investment is measured against the total cost of buying an established enterprise or of creating a new one, and the proportion has to be high enough to show a genuine commitment and to make successful operation likely. A warehouse-and-distribution operation with modest start-up costs can be capitalized substantially for a figure that would be trivial for a shipyard. The practical consequence is that Kwabena should first cost the American branch honestly - premises, stock, vehicles, systems, staff, working capital for the first year - and then show that what he has committed covers a large share of it. Understating the total cost to flatter the ratio simply produces a plan that cannot be delivered.
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.