Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: Solange runs a marine survey and naval architecture consultancy in Richmond County and has agreed to buy a small American marine services company. Her lawyer has drafted a purchase agreement that is conditional on the visa being granted, with the price held in escrow and returnable to her if it is refused. That structure protects her commercially and, drafted the wrong way, defeats the application entirely, because the category asks whether the capital is irrevocably committed.
What irrevocable commitment means in a conditional purchase
The investor must have placed capital at risk in the sense that it is subject to partial or total loss if the enterprise fails, and must have irrevocably committed it to that enterprise. Funds Solange can simply reclaim are neither. The workable structure is an escrow whose release is conditioned on approval and whose terms, once approval occurs, direct the money into the business without any further discretion on her part. What defeats it is an arrangement under which she retains a general right to walk away, or under which the seller holds the money as a deposit she could recover on demand. The drafting difference is small and the consequence is total.
The expenditure that has already happened is the best evidence
Escrow proves intention; spending proves risk. Where Solange has already paid for a survey of the company's vessels, taken an assignment of its office lease, bought software licences, paid a deposit on equipment or met a payroll, that money is gone whatever happens next, and it demonstrates exposure in a way no contract can. She should keep invoices and cleared payments rather than merely contracts, since an unpaid commitment is an obligation rather than an investment. Substantiality is judged proportionally, against the cost of buying an established business of this type or creating one, so on a modest consultancy purchase a relatively small absolute figure may be entirely sufficient.
Where the money came from matters as much as where it is going
The capital must be Solange's own and lawfully obtained, and the enterprise must be real and operating rather than a passive holding. That makes the source chain part of the application, not an afterthought: retained earnings from her consultancy with matching financial statements and tax filings, any borrowing with the instrument that created it, and each transfer through to the escrow account. What secures a loan is the detail that decides whether it counts, since borrowing against her own assets keeps the risk with her while borrowing against the American company's assets moves it away. And because the category confers no direct path to permanent residence, the family should decide whether renewable temporary status matches what they actually want.
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.