Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Châteauguay owner may compare buying a U.S. company with transferring through an existing corporate group. The ownership transaction and the worker’s history both matter; an acquisition announcement does not supply every L or E-2 condition. Make the comparison from two separate evidence lists. An L-1 review begins with the worker’s foreign employment, the qualifying corporate relationship and the proposed U.S. capacity; an E-2 review begins with treaty nationality, enterprise ownership and the funds committed to the venture. The practical decision is whether the transaction preserves a real intracompany route or creates an investor case that must stand on its own.
Map the actual company relationship
For L, assess the qualifying relationship, continuing U.S. and foreign business and the worker’s qualifying continuous foreign year within the relevant three years. Do not assume a newly acquired business cures missing qualifying employment or makes every proposed job managerial or specialized. Where the transferee owns or is a major stockholder of the company, the additional evidence of temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment also requires assessment. Use corporate registers, share-transfer documents and organization charts to establish the relationship on the relevant dates, not merely after closing. Then test the individual’s employment records against the required qualifying year abroad. An L-1A stay ordinarily cannot exceed seven years, while the comparable L-1B maximum is five; a long commercial plan should therefore include a decision about who will lead the business after the available period.
Assess the investor route on its own evidence
E-2 needs treaty nationality and qualifying ownership, a substantial lawful investment at risk, a real nonmarginal enterprise and development and direction by the principal. A share purchase does not automatically prove that all of these requirements are met. For E-2, identify the investor, the treaty nationality of the enterprise and the exact point at which the money became committed to commercial risk. The funds must be irrevocably committed, exposed to loss and placed in an enterprise that is not marginal. A bank balance, unsigned proposal or projected ownership percentage may explain intent, but none alone settles the qualifying investment.
Explain control and duties after the deal
Show who will own and control the businesses and what the applicant will actually do. If the deal changes during negotiation, revisit the assessment. Neither the buyer’s preferred title nor the seller’s immigration opinion replaces the final facts. Hypothetical example: A marina waste-pumpout service is being acquired from an unrelated owner while a Canadian manager has worked for a related foreign supplier. The buyer must decide whether the final ownership and service agreements leave a qualifying L relationship or instead require an E-2 analysis of the newly acquired enterprise. Calling the manager a director does not answer either 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.