There is no statutory percentage. The investment must be substantial in proportion to the cost of establishing this business, and a smaller business demands a larger share. Personally secured borrowing counts; loans secured on the business do not.
Proportion, not a threshold, decides substantiality
Hypothetical example: a Mission contractor's franchise disclosure document estimates the total investment for his territory at a mid six-figure amount, and he intends to fund a third of it personally with the rest borrowed against the franchise's vans and receivables. The borrowed portion secured on enterprise assets is not his capital at risk, so the officer sees a third of the cost committed, which for a business of that size may be judged insufficient. Funding the balance from a mortgage on his Mission home or from savings changes the picture, because he bears that loss personally.
Government charges follow the visa application fee set by the State Department and are minor beside the investment. The useful budgeting question is not how little can be invested but what proportion will convince an officer that this business is capitalized to operate, not merely to apply. Hypothetical example: A Canadian specialty-laundry buyer can pay the seller's equipment price but wants the business itself to borrow the remaining working capital.
The first review separates capital already exposed to loss from debt secured by the enterprise's own assets, which generally is excluded from the investor's qualifying contribution. Signed loan documents and security registrations settle the issue. Compare the investor's committed share with the total purchase and start-up cost, then test the plan for a nonmarginal operation.
A lower purchase price does not excuse a token investment or a forecast that only supports the investor's household.