Read the general pathway comparison overview
Founder is a business title, not a category. When one cofounder has been employed abroad by the company and the other holds shares and supplied the capital, the two routes read those facts differently. Set out employment, ownership and nationality in separate columns before asking which analysis applies to which person. Hypothetical example: a seaweed-fibre weaving company has one founder who directs foreign staff under payroll and another who supplied capital through a shareholder loan. The concrete decision is whether either person’s own evidence supports the route being discussed, rather than treating the company’s combined story as both people’s eligibility. A first review should produce two individual fact sheets before comparing categories.
Separate the employment record from the share register
For each individual, record the dates of actual employment with the foreign entity, the duties performed, the payroll evidence, and the capacity involved: employee, contractor or shareholder only. Hypothetical example: one cofounder has been on the foreign company’s payroll for two years while the other funded the business and sits on its board with no employment relationship. L-1 involves a qualifying corporate relationship and one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad in the relevant three-year period; holding shares does not supply that year. For the L-1 question, identify the qualifying organizations and prove that the individual worked continuously for one qualifying year during the three years before the relevant request. Payroll, tax records, contracts, and duty descriptions may settle different parts of that issue. Also calculate prior L use, because L-1A stay is generally limited to seven years and L-1B stay is generally limited to five years.
Ask what E-2 requires of nationality and control
E-2 turns on the investor’s treaty nationality and the qualifying nationality of the enterprise, together with a substantial, at-risk, committed investment in a real operating, non-marginal enterprise the investor will develop and direct. Ownership and control are assessed on the facts, so a percentage alone does not settle them. Record each shareholder’s nationality, the share register, any voting agreements, and who actually makes the operating decisions. For E-2, trace the investor’s treaty nationality, the enterprise’s qualifying nationality, and the authority showing who develops and directs it. The capital must be both irrevocably committed and exposed to loss in a real business that is not marginal; a proposed transfer or a bare promise does not settle those points. Decide whether ownership documents and payment terms describe the same arrangement.
Do not let a title choose the route
Describe each person’s daily work honestly. If a TN route is also under discussion, note that the self-employment concern arises where the applicant has sole or controlling ownership of the U.S. entity receiving the services — control that can exist below a majority stake — and that placing supervisors above the person does not cure it. Ask which facts are missing for each analysis, and flag anything that depends on a financing round or restructuring that has not closed. Keep job-description evidence separate from ownership evidence. A title such as founder does not prove foreign employment, investment risk, or control, and a future financing step does not prove a present ownership structure. Decide whether to submit the case on current facts or wait until a recorded transaction makes the claimed arrangement true.
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.