No. The actual investment, nationality, control and enterprise requirements need assessment.
Define the proposal precisely
Distinguish a personal acquisition from a company transfer. Facts supporting one arrangement should not be silently imported into another.
Build a dated review file around passport evidence, ownership records, purchase documents, source-and-route evidence, business plan, and control rights. Create an eligibility table covering treaty nationality of investor and enterprise, ownership or control, lawful funding, irrevocable commitment, operations, and nonmarginality. Its practical purpose is to decide whether the investor and enterprise meet the treaty-nationality, control, commitment, and operating-business conditions, rather than to collect papers with no stated issue. Hypothetical example: a custom orthotic laboratory has two owners, but one investor cannot show voting rights or a role directing the enterprise. Compare the voting agreement and directing role with the share records; ownership paperwork alone may not show operational control over the laboratory. Confirm treaty nationality and enterprise ownership first, trace committed funds next, and then test control, substantiality, real operations, and capacity beyond marginal support. A recurring problem is treating a share certificate alone as proof of control, direction, and qualifying nationality. The investor's capital must be committed beyond easy withdrawal and exposed to commercial loss. The enterprise must be real and not marginal, while the investor must develop and direct it; E-2 itself does not provide a permanent-residence outcome. Redo the E-2 requirements review if nationality, equity, voting rights, funding conditions, business activity, or the investor’s directing role changes.