Read the general eligibility basics overview
When a US plan depends on third-party financing, permanent residence or citizenship status tells you nothing about whether the underlying investment is actually at risk or qualifying. Both E-2 and EB-5 routes look closely at where the money comes from, and a financing contingency that is not yet secured changes what can honestly be represented in a filing.
Trace the funds, not just the commitment
A signed term sheet or conditional loan approval is not the same as capital that is actually at risk in the business. For E-2, the funds must be committed and irrevocable for the nonmarginality and control analysis to hold; for EB-5, the standard thresholds of $800,000 for a targeted employment or infrastructure project, or $1.05 million otherwise, along with the ten qualifying full-time jobs, depend on funds that are lawfully sourced and genuinely invested, not merely pledged. Distinguish a commitment from a transfer in every document the plan relies on. A signed term sheet or a conditional approval records an intention; capital at risk is money that has left the applicant's control and entered the enterprise. Ask what conditions remain, who can waive them, and what happens if they are not met, then write those answers into the plan rather than describing the funding as settled. Residence or citizenship in Canada tells nobody anything about either question.
Separate loan-backed capital from personal capital
If financing is secured by the new business's own assets rather than personally guaranteed by the investor, that structure can raise questions about whether the investment is truly at risk in the way the classification requires. Document the financing structure precisely and have it reviewed against current standards before assuming a pending loan satisfies the investment requirement. Hypothetical example: an investor treats a conditional loan approval as committed capital and builds a filing timetable around it. If the condition fails, the plan does not merely slip; the central factual claim in the file becomes wrong. Where financing is secured by the new business's own assets rather than by the applicant personally, that structure raises its own question about whether the applicant's capital is genuinely at risk, and it should be reviewed against current standards before anything is assumed.
Do not file on a contingency that has not closed
Filing based on financing that could still fall through invites avoidable scrutiny and does not guarantee any outcome; approval, visa issuance, and admission are each separately decided regardless of how the investment is financed. Wait for financing to close, or clearly document the contingency's status, before finalizing the filing strategy. This is general information, not investment or legal advice for a specific plan. Wait for the financing to close, or document the contingency's status openly, before the filing strategy is fixed. Filing on a contingency that could still fail invites avoidable scrutiny and guarantees nothing, since approval, any visa issuance, and admission are separately decided regardless of how the investment was funded. Where the household needs to move sooner than the financing allows, the honest options are a smaller enterprise, a different funding source, or a later start rather than a more confident description.
What else is on your mind?
Does Canadian permanent residence give me access to TN?Is a matching job title enough for TN?Can years of experience replace a degree for TN?Can my own U.S. company employ me under TN?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.