IN THIS GUIDE · An equal partnership, and whether an equal partner can develop and direct anything
Nationality is examined twice, and the second time catches people out
The investor has to be a national of a treaty country, which Canada is, and the enterprise itself must have the nationality of that treaty country, determined by the citizenship of the persons who own at least fifty percent of it. Simone's own passport answers the first question. The second is answered by the ownership register of the American company after closing. If her half is held by Canadian nationals and the founder's half is held by a United States citizen, the enterprise is exactly fifty percent owned by treaty nationals, which satisfies the requirement, but only for as long as that split holds unchanged. Half is the floor, not a comfortable midpoint, and structuring at exactly fifty percent leaves no margin for a share issued later to a third person.
Develop and direct is a control test, and side agreements can defeat it
An applicant must be coming to develop and direct the enterprise, ordinarily shown by ownership of at least half of it or by other proof of operational control such as a managerial position with genuine authority. A fifty percent holding satisfies the ownership half of that test, but the surrounding documents can quietly remove the control. A shareholders agreement giving the founder a casting vote on the management committee, a long-term management services contract with the founder's own company, or a veto over hiring and capital spending all point the other way. Where control is contested, an officer reads the agreements rather than the share certificate. The remedy is to negotiate the governance terms before signing, not to explain them afterwards.
Substantial is proportional, and marginality is answered by other people's wages
There is no set dollar figure. The investment is weighed against the total cost of purchasing an established enterprise or of establishing a new one, so a modest amount can be substantial for a workboat operation while a much larger sum might not be for a shipyard. The enterprise must also be real and operating, and it must not be marginal, meaning it cannot exist merely to provide a living for the investor and her family. A harbour-services company with a crew of nine on payroll answers marginality directly, and the historical payroll records answer it better than any projection. Where present income is thin, the alternative is to show a capacity to generate more than a minimal living within about five years, evidenced by a credible plan rather than optimism.
The category renews indefinitely and leads nowhere by itself
E-2 can be extended for as long as the enterprise continues to qualify and the investor continues to develop and direct it, which is why some families remain in the classification for many years. It nonetheless confers no direct path to permanent residence, and time spent in it builds no entitlement to a green card. Any permanent outcome would have to come from a separate immigrant route with its own requirements, its own petition and its own waiting time. Families who assume that a decade of successful trading eventually converts into residence are usually the ones who discover otherwise at an inconvenient moment, often when a child approaches twenty-one and their derivative status ends.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.