Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: a buyer from Roxton Pond acquires a small United States millwork business and intends to contribute a significant part of the investment as machinery shipped from Canada rather than as cash. In-kind contributions can form part of a qualifying investment, but they raise two questions cash does not: what the equipment is genuinely worth, and whether it has actually passed out of the investor’s personal control into the enterprise.
Value it independently, then prove it changed hands
An owner’s estimate of the value of equipment he has used for a decade is not evidence. An independent appraisal, purchase invoices with depreciation, or comparable market pricing all are. Value the items individually rather than as a lot, and keep the appraisal with its date. Then show the transfer: a bill of sale into the enterprise, entries in the company’s asset register, insurance in the company’s name, and import documentation showing the goods entering the United States and clearing customs. Equipment that sits in a warehouse still owned personally by the investor, available to be taken back, has not been committed to anything.
Substantial in proportion, and more than marginal
Whatever form the capital takes, the amount is judged against the total cost of purchasing the established business or creating a new one. There is no fixed figure, which cuts both ways: a smaller sum can be substantial for a low-cost service enterprise, and a larger sum can fall short for a capital-intensive one. Alongside that, the enterprise must be real and operating and must generate more than a marginal living for the investor and family, which in practice means a staffing and revenue plan somebody can test. In-kind capital does not change either test; it simply makes the evidence of amount depend on valuation rather than on a bank statement.
Develop and direct, and the limits of the route
The investor has to be positioned to develop and direct the enterprise, ordinarily through at least half of the ownership or through clear operational control, and treaty-national ownership of at least fifty per cent has to hold at the same time. Where equipment was contributed in exchange for shares, check that the resulting cap table still satisfies both. It is also worth stating the limit of the category plainly at this point: it grants no direct path to permanent residence, and renewals depend on the enterprise continuing to qualify. A family whose long-term intention is settlement should treat that as a separate project with its own advice.
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.