The E-2 plan I filed for myself.
I filed an E-2 for a US publishing company I own and run. Below is that plan, section by section: what each part said, which requirement it was answering, and where I would write it differently today. Identifiers and figures are removed; the structure and the reasoning are exactly as filed.
Business consultancy, not a law firm. Your attorney owns the case.
Why show this
Most plan vendors will tell you what an officer wants. Few will show you.
Everyone selling immigration business plans claims to know how they are read. The document below is the whole logic of one, written for a company that exists and that you can go and look at: Forward Thinking Press, the publishing arm of my own consultancy. It was written for a real filing, not for a landing page.
One caveat before the detail: this is a single approved case. Posts differ, officers differ, and businesses differ. What holds across all of them is the structure, which is what this page is actually about.
The teardown
Seven parts, and what each one was doing.
01
The opening claim.
This E-2 visa petition supports the continuation and expansion of a real, operating business with strong early traction, demonstrated investment, and a clear roadmap to hiring.
What it was doing
Naming the three things the officer has to find, on page one, in their own vocabulary. The summary is not a warm-up; it is the place where the case is either legible or it is not.
The test
Real and operating.
02
Ownership, in one line.
Fully owned and managed by the founder, who retains full control over all strategic and operational decisions. There are no additional shareholders, partners, or external investors.
What it was doing
Closing the develop-and-direct question before it is asked. No cap table to interpret, no ambiguity about who runs the company.
The test
Develop and direct.
03
Formation as fact, not intention.
The plan gave the state of registration, the exact formation date, the date the tax identification number was issued, and the tax form the company files under.
What it was doing
Every claim tied to a document that already exists. That is the difference between a company and a plan for one, and it is the cheapest credibility in the whole file.
The test
Real and operating.
04
Money already spent, itemized.
The investment section listed categories rather than a lump sum: advertising by platform and date range, the ISBN purchase, named software licences, professional services, each with its own amount and period.
What it was doing
Showing capital irrevocably at risk, spent rather than pledged. A single figure for total investment proves nothing; a list of what each part of it became is much harder to argue with.
The test
Substantial investment.
05
A physical place.
The company had already secured office space in New York, a co-working arrangement with desks and client meeting rooms, chosen for its proximity to universities and professional networks.
What it was doing
Answering the reflex that a remote business is not a business, and explaining why the location fits the customers rather than the applicant.
The test
Real and operating.
06
Staffing as a five-year grid.
A role-by-year table: founder, a marketing specialist, a part-time administrative assistant, freelance editors and designers, then an in-house editor, a designer, further marketing roles and a sales manager, each with a salary range sourced to public salary data.
What it was doing
Marginality is beaten with named roles, timing and cited market salaries, not with the sentence that the business will create jobs. The table also makes the payroll line in the projections traceable.
The test
Not marginal.
07
Projections that tie back.
A five-year profit and loss where revenue is built from an average project price multiplied by a client count, with cost of goods, marketing, and a payroll line taken straight from the staffing table. Year one closes at a net loss.
What it was doing
The loss is the point. Numbers that connect to the staffing table and a stated average deal size can be traced by the reader; a smooth upward curve can only be believed or disbelieved.
The test
Not marginal, and credibility throughout.
In hindsight
What I would change today.
The plan was approved, which is not the same as the plan being flawless. Three things I now check line by line in every plan I write:
Consistency across sections. The advertising total appeared in two places with two different figures, because the two sections used different cut-off dates. It was defensible and it still looked careless.
Proofreading the final. A stray typo survived into the version that was filed. Nobody asked about it, and I would not repeat it.
The founder background. It was the thinnest section in the document, and it is one of the places where an officer forms a view of whether this person can actually run the thing.
What this does not prove
One case, one company, one officer. Nobody honest guarantees an approval, and this page is not a promise that a similar plan produces a similar outcome. Your attorney owns the case and decides what the file needs. The business side, whether the enterprise described actually exists and holds up, is the part I work on.
The four tests, applied to your business, in three minutes.
The plan itself: /e2-business-plan · Auf Deutsch: /e2-businessplan