Read the general investor planning overview
Hypothetical example: a Lake Country dealer in orchard and vineyard equipment wants to open a dealership in Washington from scratch rather than buy one. With no purchase price there is no single closing that commits the funds, so the E-2 question becomes which start-up spending counts as irrevocably invested and in what order to make it. Signed leases, paid deposits on inventory, purchased tooling and a funded operating account can add up to a substantial, at-risk investment; money still in the dealer's own bank account cannot. The sequence of commitments is the case. The key decision is whether to bind the lease and supply commitments now, with carefully limited visa-denial protection, or wait and accept that unspent funds do not demonstrate an investment. Hypothetical example: a Lake Country commercial-kitchen supplier pays a refundable warehouse reservation fee but has not signed the equipment contract. That fee alone is unlikely to show meaningful financial exposure; the investor must decide which lease, inventory, tooling, and operating commitments can be made binding before applying. The completed file must show capital placed beyond the investor's discretionary control, a genuine operating enterprise, and a credible plan that will not be marginal.
Which start-up outlays count as committed
Funds are committed when the investor has parted with control of them for the benefit of the enterprise: a signed premises lease with rent paid, deposits or full payment to manufacturers for demonstration units and parts inventory, purchased service tooling and vehicles, incorporation and licensing costs, and a capitalised business account held by the US entity rather than by the dealer personally. A line of credit that has not been drawn, a supplier's quotation, or funds set aside in a Lake Country savings account are not committed. Where a manufacturer requires a dealer agreement, the signed agreement and its franchise or territory fee are strong evidence, provided they are actually paid.
Sequence the spending so the file shows a business, not a shopping list
The dealer should first form the Washington entity and open its account, then transfer traced personal funds into it, then sign the lease and the manufacturer agreement, then pay for inventory and tooling, and finally hire the first service technician and parts clerk. Each step generates a document with a date, and the application should present them as a timeline. Substantiality is measured against the cost of establishing the dealership, so an inventory-heavy business needs more capital committed before the interview than a consultancy would. The bank records tracing the money from the dealer's Canadian accounts, including the sale of any Canadian assets, must be continuous. The reader must decide which document will prove each step: formation records for the entity, bank statements for the transfer, executed contracts for the commitment, invoices for the outlay, and forecasts for staffing. Keep refundable options distinct from commitments that expose the investor to loss, and reconcile every amount with the application summary.
Prove the dealership will not be marginal and that the dealer directs it
A one-person operation earning only the dealer's living is marginal; a plan to employ technicians, a parts clerk and later a salesperson, with a five-year projection showing wages to US workers, meets the requirement. The dealer, as sole owner, satisfies the develop-and-direct test, and his Lake Country dealership history is evidence of capacity. He remains a Canadian national throughout, so treaty nationality is straightforward. His spouse would be employment-authorised incident to E-2 status and could run the parts counter; children under 21 could study but not work. E-2 has no direct path to permanent residence, so a family planning to settle long term should say so early.
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.