Read the general pathway comparison overview
A La Prairie group may discuss moving a senior employee while a different person supplies investment funds. Separate those roles. A proposal that mixes the employee’s experience and the shareholder’s nationality can hide which applicant actually meets which category. Name the applicant on the first page of the analysis and keep them there. Two people with different nationalities, different employment histories and different ownership interests cannot be merged into a single candidate, however closely they work together.
Map the transfer case to the employee
L requires a qualifying company relationship, qualifying continuous foreign employment within the relevant period and the appropriate proposed U.S. role. For an established office, the qualifying foreign work may be managerial, executive or specialized knowledge; the U.S. L-1A role must be managerial or executive. The new-office L-1A foreign-year requirement is specifically managerial or executive. Write the employee's foreign employment as dates rather than as a description. The qualifying year must be continuous and must fall within the relevant period preceding the request, so a secondment, a leave, or a stretch on another group company's payroll each need checking rather than assuming. Where the employee has moved between entities, confirm which of them holds the qualifying relationship with the U.S. employer.
Map the investment case to the correct person
For an E-2 principal investor, establish treaty nationality, qualifying ownership, lawful substantial capital at risk and a real nonmarginal enterprise the person will develop and direct. An E-2 employee case follows its own nationality and role rules. Do not simply lend the shareholder’s credentials to an unrelated employee application. Hypothetical example: a design history file coordinator is proposed for transfer while a shareholder who has never worked in the business supplies the capital; the shareholder's nationality does nothing for the employee's case, and the employee's experience does nothing for an investor case. If both routes remain of interest, they are two files with two sets of evidence, and the group should decide which one it is funding.
Make an applicant-by-evidence table
List each person, proposed duties, relevant nationality, foreign employment and ownership interest. Mark which facts remain unsupported. The table helps identify the questions for assessment; it does not choose a visa by counting the number of completed boxes. If the L applicant is an owner or major stockholder, also assess the required evidence of temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment. Add a column for who holds each document and a column for the date it was last verified, then review the table with counsel rather than scoring it. The blank rows are the questions; the rows filled in from memory are the risks. Where the L applicant is an owner or major stockholder, the additional evidence of temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment belongs in the table as its own rows. Where the same person appears in both columns, split the analysis anyway, since one individual can hold facts relevant to two categories without both routes being available at once.
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.