No. The investor’s work is limited to the approved qualifying activity, and a second operation may raise structure or substantive-change questions. Common ownership alone does not establish that the new activity is covered.
Review the proposed expansion
Identify the entity, owners, business activities and investor role at each operation. USCIS requires approval of substantive changes affecting E-2 status, including certain acquisitions or mergers. Routine growth and a fundamental change are not interchangeable, so obtain a fact-specific assessment before working in the new venture or assuming the question can wait until renewal.
Ask which document establishes that the new activity belongs to the approved enterprise, because that is the point genuinely in dispute. Corporate registration extracts, the share register, any purchase or amalgamation instrument and the operating agreements between the entities are the records that answer it; a common logo, a shared website or a group email domain are not. Hypothetical example: a commercial printing investor adds a bindery under a second corporation owned by a family trust, so the trust deed and the register become the documents that decide whether the investor’s approved activity reaches it.
Where the records show a different owner or a genuinely separate enterprise, that is a finding to take to counsel rather than a labelling problem to solve inside the business plan. A registry extract dated after the change carries more weight than a chart drawn for the file.