How Much Investment Is “Enough” for an E-2 Visa? Case Examples

visaadmin

2 weeks ago

The question of “how much is enough” for an E-2 visa is one of the most common and anxiety-inducing issues investors face — and the answer is rarely a single dollar figure.

What the law actually requires: no fixed dollar minimum

Neither the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) nor the U.S. Department of State (Travel.State.Gov) specifies a fixed minimum investment amount for an E-2 visa. Instead, the regulations require that the investor make a substantial investment in a bona fide enterprise located in the United States and that the investment be at risk and sufficient to ensure the successful operation of the enterprise.

That means "enough" depends on the nature and total cost of the business, not a universal dollar cutoff. How immigration adjudicators measure “substantial” centers on two core concepts: proportionality and ability to develop and direct the enterprise.

Two key tests used by adjudicators

When evaluating whether an investment is substantial, adjudicators typically use two practical tests:

Proportionality test: The investment amount should be substantial in relationship to the total cost of either purchasing an established business or creating the type of enterprise under consideration. For low-cost businesses, this often means the investor must invest a larger percentage of the total costs; for capital-intensive ventures, a smaller percentage can still be substantial if the dollar amount is large enough to support operations.
Marginality / economic impact test: The business must not be marginal. A marginal enterprise is defined as one that does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living for the investor and his or her family. Practical evidence that an enterprise is not marginal often includes a reasonable business plan, projected job creation, and realistic revenue forecasts.

Representative real-world examples (typical scenarios)

To make the standards concrete, here are representative cases that mirror the kinds of facts immigration attorneys see regularly. These are realistic, anonymized examples that show how different business types affect what "enough" looks like.

Example A — Low-cost service business (typical investment: $30,000–$60,000)

A consultant from a treaty country wants to open a small office providing specialized professional services. Start-up costs are modest: office lease, basic furniture, a laptop, licensing and insurance. The total project investment is about $55,000.

Why this can work: Because the investor puts the full amount needed into the business, the investment is proportional to the total cost. The application is strengthened by a detailed client pipeline, contracts or letters of intent, hiring of support staff, and projections showing more-than-minimal income within two to three years. An adjudicator looks for evidence that the investor is actively developing and directing the business — not simply deriving passive income.

Example B — Mom-and-pop retail store (typical investment: $80,000–$150,000)

An entrepreneur plans to buy and renovate a small retail storefront. Total costs include inventory, leasehold improvements, equipment and initial payroll, totaling $150,000. The investor invests $115,000 and provides a loan for the balance from personal funds.

Why this can work: The investment represents a large share of the required capital, and the business plan forecasts a staff of several employees within a year, demonstrating that the enterprise is not marginal. Detailed pro forma financials and local market research support the projections.

Example C — Tech startup with scalable growth (typical initial investment: $150,000–$500,000)

A founder with a technology product forms a U.S. company and invests $200,000 to fund product development, initial salaries, and marketing. The total capital needed to fully scale might be higher, but the investor’s initial infusion is earmarked to achieve key milestones (prototype, early customers, intellectual property protection).

Why this can work: For capital-intensive or scalable ventures, adjudicators will accept a smaller proportional share of total future costs if the dollar amount invested is significant and it is clear the funds are committed and at risk. Evidence of a roadmap to growth, hiring plans, and fundraising strategy helps show the enterprise is more than marginal.

Example D — Manufacturing operation (typical investment: $600,000–$2,000,000+)

A manufacturer plans to purchase machinery, secure a production facility, and hire a production team. Total start-up outlays approach $1.2 million. The investor places $600,000 into the company from personal, documented funds, and secures bank financing for the remaining amount.

Why this can work: Manufacturing is capital-intensive. A large dollar investment that clearly funds the essential assets and operations will usually be seen as substantial under both the proportionality and economic impact tests. Job creation projections and secured supplier/customer contracts further bolster the case.

Common myths and practical thresholds

Myth: There is a hard floor — such as $100,000 — that guarantees approval. Fact: No set number guarantees approval; however, legal practitioners observe functional thresholds based on business type and costs.

Under ~$75,000: Often more challenging for businesses that rely primarily on generating income for the investor, unless the business is genuinely low-cost and the investor funds nearly 100% of start-up costs with strong supporting documentation.
$75,000–$200,000: Common range for service businesses, retail, and many startups; success depends heavily on documentation showing active management, realistic projections, and, where appropriate, hiring plans.
$200,000+: Frequently sufficient for many startups and small manufacturing ventures; when combined with a strong business plan and evidence of economic impact, such amounts often clear the “substantial” hurdle.

What documentation convinces an adjudicator?

Money alone is not the whole story. Evidence must show the investment is real, irrevocably committed, and at risk. Useful supporting materials include:

Bank statements, wire transfers, or escrow agreements showing funds transferred to the U.S. business.
Receipts and contracts for equipment purchases, lease agreements, or vendor invoices.
Detailed business plan with market research, sales forecasts, expense projections, and a hiring schedule.
Evidence of active operations: leases, employee payroll, supplier/customer contracts, and marketing plans.
Documentation tracing the lawful source of funds (sales of assets, earnings, loans, investment proceeds) — important because funds must be lawful in origin.
Evidence that the investor will develop and direct the enterprise (organizational charts, board documents, job title and duties).

Red flags that hurt an E-2 investment case

Some recurring issues often lead to denials:

Cash deposits with no clear source or gaps in the source-of-funds paper trail.
Funds parked in accounts without being used for the business — showing lack of commitment or not "at risk".
Inflated or implausible pro forma financials that lack supporting market evidence.
Businesses that appear primarily to provide minimal subsistence to the investor (marginal businesses with no job creation outlook).
Passive investments, such as buying stock in a company where the investor has no managerial control, are usually not qualifying.

Practical planning tips for prospective investors

To improve chances of approval, an investor should:

Match investment to business model: Design the capital deployment so the funds actually enable the startup activities described in the plan (inventory, equipment, employees, marketing).
Document source of funds early: Keep clear records for any asset sale, loan documentation, or other sources.
Create a realistic business plan: Include conservative revenue estimates, clear job creation timelines, and milestones tied to funding tranches.
Avoid last-minute transfers: Transfers timed suspiciously close to filing without supporting contracts can raise questions; staged investments tied to milestones are acceptable when documented.
Engage counsel early: An experienced E-2 attorney can structure investments, advise on evidentiary needs, and anticipate questions from consular officers or USCIS adjudicators.

Consular processing vs. change of status — does investment amount matter?

Whether the investor seeks the E-2 at a U.S. consulate abroad or files for change of status inside the U.S., the substantive standards are the same: the investment must be substantial, at risk, and in a bona fide enterprise. However, consular officers and USCIS adjudicators may ask different questions and request different evidence, so preparing a comprehensive package is essential either way.

When a smaller investment can still win

Smaller investments succeed when they meet the proportionality test and the business is clearly structured to be more than marginal. Examples include businesses where high margins and low capital needs are typical (consulting firms, certain online businesses), and where the investor’s funds essentially cover the total startup cost. In these situations, strong supporting evidence — letters of intent from clients, contracts, and realistic financial projections — can tip the balance in favor of approval.

Questions an investor should ask before committing capital

Before transferring funds, an investor should consider questions such as:

Does the proposed investment align with the typical capital profile for this industry?
Can the investment be clearly documented and shown to be at risk?
Will the business plan show that the enterprise is likely to create more-than-minimal income or jobs?
Is there a clear timeline and budget showing how funds will be spent to achieve milestones?

These questions help ensure the investor’s resources are deployed in a way that meets E-2 standards.

Where to find official guidance and further reading

Authoritative, publicly available resources include:

Reading these pages gives the regulatory framework, but practical outcomes depend on the case facts.

Deciding how much investment is "enough" requires looking beyond a headline dollar figure and focusing on the business, the market, and how the funds will be used. Thoughtful planning, transparent documentation, and realistic business projections are often the deciding factors.

Would it help to review a specific business plan or investment scenario? A focused assessment can show whether the proposed capital and documentation line up with what adjudicators will expect, and point out practical changes that increase the chance of success.

Please Note: This blog is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be regarded as legal advice. As always, it is advisable to consult with an experienced immigration attorney for personalized guidance based on your specific circumstances.