Read the general pathway comparison overview
Head office moved staff between entities last year: same desks, same duties, a new employer of record. For a transfer, the question is not whether the work changed but which legal entity employed the person, and whether a qualifying relationship exists with the U.S. company. Time already worked does not automatically reset, and it does not automatically carry across either.
Draw the entities and dates, then place the person
Set out the corporate structure before and after the reorganization: which entities existed, who owned them and on what effective dates, supported by resolutions, share registers and registry filings. Then place the individual on that timeline — employer of record, payroll, contract, job title and actual duties for each period. L-1 looks for one continuous year of qualifying employment with a qualifying organization within the relevant three-year period, subject to the individual's own timing. Whether that year survives the reorganization is a question of fact about the entities, answered with documents rather than with the observation that nothing changed day to day.
Do not let unchanged duties answer a different question
Hypothetical example: an employee whose work never changed is moved from an operating subsidiary to a newly created services company that sits outside the ownership chain with the proposed U.S. entity. The duties are irrelevant to that gap. Conversely, a rename or an internal merger may leave the qualifying relationship intact, but the evidence has to show it rather than assert continuity. Ask the finance and legal teams for the documents recording each step, and flag any period where the payroll records and the employment contract point to different employers, so the discrepancy is resolved by its owner.
Compare the E-2 reading of the same structure
If the transfer route is uncertain, examine what the reorganization did to treaty nationality: for E-2, the nationality of the investor and the nationality of the qualifying enterprise both matter, and moving ownership into a new holding company can change that chain. E-2 also asks about a substantial, at-risk investment in a real, operating and non-marginal enterprise, and about the applicant's ability to develop and direct it. Those are different questions from employment history, so answer each with its own evidence. Keep household plans on a separate list: qualifying E and L spouses are employment-authorized incident to their status, with proper I-94 evidence, while children are a separate question.
What else is on your mind?
Does being a business owner or director qualify me for L-1A?What employment history should an L-1 transfer review cover?What makes a new-office L-1A case different?How should an owner compare L-1 and E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.