Is There a Minimum E-2 Investment? Why the $100,000 Figure You Keep Seeing Is Not a Rule

Reviewed by: Beth Persky

There is no minimum E-2 investment amount set by statute or regulation. The requirement is that the investment be substantial, and substantiality is measured in proportion to the total cost of the particular business you are buying or building. The $100,000 figure repeated across so many websites is not invented, but it does not mean what it is usually taken to mean. It appears in the governing guidance describing something else entirely.

That means the honest answer to how much do I need is another question: how much does this business cost to establish?

Where the $100,000 figure comes from

The figure appears in 9 FAM 402.9-6(D), in the same passage that states no set dollar figure constitutes a minimum amount of investment to be considered substantial for E-2 purposes. The Manual explains that where an applicant has made an investment that equals or exceeds the value of the business, that investment is substantial, even for small businesses of $100,000 or less. . 

Read in context, the figure describes the business, not the investment. It illustrates how modest an enterprise can be while still supporting a qualifying investment, because what matters is the proportion committed rather than the sum. Somewhere in the retelling the two were inverted, and an example of a small business’s value became a perceived floor for the investor’s capital.

That inversion misleads in both directions. An investor who assumes they are ineligible below that number may be wrong. An investor who assumes they are safe above it may also be wrong, because a larger investment that represents only a small share of the business’s total cost, or that funds an enterprise that cannot meet the marginality requirement, does not satisfy the legal test.

The actual test: Proportionality

The governing standard sits at 8 CFR 214.2(e)(14(iii) and 9 FAM 402.9-6(D). It weighs the amount of qualifying funds invested against the total cost of purchasing or establishing the enterprise. Generally, the lower the cost of the enterprise, the higher, proportionately, the investment must be to be considered substantial.

The Manual describes this as an inverted sliding scale. A highly expensive business may require a lower percentage. Where the investment equals the full value of the business, the investor has committed 100 percent of the needed funds, and that is substantial. The adjudicator weighs the nature of the business against the amount invested.

The practical consequence is that two applicants investing identical amounts can reach different outcomes, because the businesses they are funding cost different amounts to establish. Committing the entire start-up cost of a modest service business satisfies proportionality in a way that committing a larger sum representing a small fraction of a costly enterprise may not. The Foreign Affairs Manual itself notes that the cost of the business, on its own, is not independently determinative of E-2 qualification.

What counts as invested capital

Not every dollar associated with a business counts toward the investment. Funds generally need to be irrevocably committed to the enterprise and genuinely at risk, meaning subject to partial or total loss if the venture fails.

Expenditures that can form part of the picture include the purchase price where an existing business is being acquired, leasehold improvements, equipment, inventory, and other costs actually incurred in setting the business up. The Foreign Affairs Manual also recognizes that the value of goods or equipment transferred to the United States for use in the enterprise, and in some cases rights to intellectual property whose value can reasonably be determined, may be considered part of the investment. Each claimed item needs to be supported with appropriate evidence, which may include invoices, receipts, contracts, appraisals, and bank records, rather than asserted.

The investor must also possess and control the funds, and their source must be lawful and traceable.

What does not count

Several things that feel like investment can fail to qualify.

• Money sitting in a business account. In the start-up context, funds held in an account without being committed to the enterprise generally do not satisfy the test on their own. The distinction that catches applicants out is between money that exists and money that has been put at risk.
• Indebtedness secured by the assets of the enterprise. Funds from loans secured by the assets of the enterprise cannot count toward the qualifying investment, because the investor is not personally at risk for them. Under the Foreign Affairs Manual, if the same loan is secured by both the enterprise’s assets and the investor’s personal assets, the funds still do not count as at risk. Unsecured loans, or loans secured solely against the investor’s personal assets, may count because the investor remains personally liable.
• Passive holdings. A property purchased and held for appreciation is not an active, operating commercial enterprise. The regulation and the Foreign Affairs Manual both require a real, active, and operating commercial undertaking that produces goods or services for profit.
• Uncommitted or contingent funds. How escrowed funds are treated depends on the structure of the escrow and the conditions attached to release. This is fact-specific and is worth confirming before relying on it.

Marginality: The other half of the question

There is a second requirement operating alongside substantiality, and an application can satisfy one while failing the other.

The enterprise must be more than marginal. Under 8 CFR 214.2(e)(15), a marginal enterprise is one that does not have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living for the treaty investor and their family. The rule also recognizes an alternative basis: an enterprise that does not yet have that income capacity may still be nonmarginal if it has the present or future capacity to make a significant economic contribution, for example through job creation. The Foreign Affairs Manual applies the same two-part framework at 9 FAM 402.9-6(E).

On timing, the two agencies phrase the future-capacity window differently. USCIS states that a new enterprise’s capacity should be realizable within five years from the date the investor’s E-2 classification begins. The Foreign Affairs Manual states that projected future capacity should generally be realizable within five years from the date the applicant commences the enterprise’s normal business activity. Which formulation applies depends on whether the case is filed with USCIS or at a consular post.

A sufficient investment does not answer marginality. An enterprise that lacks both the income capacity and a significant economic contribution fails this requirement no matter how much was invested. Depending on which basis for nonmarginality is claimed, the business plan, the financial projections, and the hiring plans may be the evidence that establishes it, which is why the dollar amount alone does not decide the application.

The other requirements the dollar figure does not answer 

The investment amount is one element among several:

1. Treaty country nationality. The investor must be a national of a country with which the United States maintains a qualifying treaty of commerce and navigation, a qualifying international agreement, or that qualifies under legislation, and nationals of that country must own at least 50 percent of the enterprise. The Department of State publishes the current list of qualifying countries.
2. Develop and direct. The investor must be coming to the United States solely to develop and direct the enterprise, generally shown through ownership of at least 50 percent or operational control.
3. Real and active enterprise. The business must be a bona fide, operating commercial undertaking, not an idea, a shelf company, or a passive asset.
4. Intent to depart. E-2 is a nonimmigrant classification. The applicant does not need to maintain a foreign residence or intend to stay only for a specific period, but must express an unequivocal intent to depart the United States when E-2 status ends. E-2 does not by itself lead to a green card; permanent residence requires a separate petition under a separate category with its own eligibility requirements.

A well-proportioned investment cannot rescue an application that fails one of these, and a large investment does not substitute for them.

The myth and the rule, side by side

Why a smaller investment is harder, not barred

None of this means a lower figure cannot work. The Foreign Affairs Manual itself acknowledges that an investment of a relatively small amount of money can meet the requirement, depending on the nature of the business. It means the documentation has to do more.

With a smaller amount, the proportionality showing generally needs to be tighter, in some cases approaching the full start-up cost of the business, and the evidence needs to establish the enterprise’s income capacity or significant economic contribution clearly on its face. The legal requirements are identical; the record simply has to show more to demonstrate them.

That is an observation about how these applications tend to be prepared, not a threshold. There is no figure below which an application cannot be made.

FAQ

• Q: Is there a legal minimum for an E-2 investment?

  A: No. Neither the regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(e) nor the Foreign Affairs Manual sets a minimum dollar amount. The requirement is that the investment be substantial in proportion to the total cost of the enterprise.

• Q: Why do so many websites say $100,000?

  A: The figure appears in 9 FAM 402.9-6(D), but describing something different. That passage states that no set dollar figure constitutes a minimum, and explains that an investment equaling or exceeding the value of the business is substantial even for small businesses of $100,000 or less. The figure describes the value of a modest business, not a required investment, and the two have been inverted in the retelling.

• Q: Can a smaller investment be approved?

  A: There is no rule preventing it. The Foreign Affairs Manual acknowledges that a relatively small amount can meet the requirement depending on the nature of the business. A smaller amount generally requires a tighter proportionality showing, often approaching the full start-up cost of the business, and a clearer case that the enterprise is more than marginal.

• Q: Does the money have to be spent before I apply?

  A: Funds generally need to be irrevocably committed and at risk rather than simply available. In the start-up context, money held in an account without being committed to the enterprise generally does not satisfy the test on its own.

• Q: Can I use borrowed money for an E-2 investment?

  A: Borrowed funds are not automatically excluded. How the loan is secured determines the analysis. Funds from loans secured by the assets of the enterprise cannot count, and under the Foreign Affairs Manual this remains true even if personal assets also secure the same loan. Unsecured loans, or loans secured solely against the investor’s personal assets, may count because the investor remains personally liable.

• Q: Do equipment, inventory, and leasehold improvements count?

  A: Expenditures genuinely committed to the operating enterprise can form part of the investment, and the value of equipment transferred to the United States for use in the business may also be considered. What matters is that the capital is committed and at risk, and that each item can be supported with appropriate evidence, which may include invoices, receipts, contracts, and bank records.

• Q: How is a substantial investment measured for a franchise?

  A: The same proportionality analysis applies, measured against the total cost of establishing that franchise unit. The franchise fee and build-out costs form part of that total.

• Q: What is the marginality requirement?

  A: The enterprise must have the present or future capacity to generate more than enough income to provide a minimal living for the investor and family, or, alternatively, the present or future capacity to make a significant economic contribution. On timing, USCIS refers to capacity realizable within five years from the date the investor’s E-2 classification begins, while the Foreign Affairs Manual refers to five years from the date the applicant commences the enterprise’s normal business activity. Marginality is a separate requirement from substantiality, and an application can meet one while failing the other.

• Q: Does investing more improve my chances?

  A: Not by itself. A larger sum that represents a small share of a costly enterprise’s total cost, or that funds a marginal enterprise, does not answer either requirement. The analysis turns on the proportion invested and the documented commitment, not the headline figure alone.

• Q: Do I need to be from a treaty country regardless of how much I invest?

  A: Yes. No investment amount substitutes for nationality of a qualifying country, whether the qualification rests on a treaty, an international agreement, or legislation. Nationals of that country must own at least 50 percent of the enterprise. The Department of State maintains the current list of qualifying countries.

• Q: Does an E-2 visa lead to a green card if my investment is large enough?

  A: No. E-2 is a nonimmigrant classification with no built-in path to permanent residence. A green card requires a separate petition under a separate immigrant category (for example EB-5, which has its own, much higher statutory investment thresholds and different requirements).