Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Léry founder may describe years of ownership while considering a U.S. transfer or treaty investment. Establish the work actually performed and the proposed rights and capital; ownership duration does not prove the individual’s qualifying employment. Set the two routes out as two lists of threshold conditions and answer each with a fact and its document, or with the word unknown. A comparison written that way usually decides itself within a page, and where both remain open it identifies precisely which missing document would settle the choice.
Assess the real L history and U.S. role
Generally, L requires one continuous qualifying foreign year within the relevant preceding three years, a qualifying corporate relationship and continuing international business. The general foreign capacity may be managerial, executive or involve specialized knowledge; the U.S. role must meet its own standard. New-office L-1A specifically requires foreign managerial or executive employment. For the L side, the question is what the founder actually did for the company and when. Employment records, payroll or drawings, the title held, the decisions made and the people directed all speak to it; a share certificate does not. Where the founder worked intermittently, describe the pattern honestly with dates, because a continuous qualifying year is a specific thing and a file that blurs it is testing the element most easily checked. The proposed U.S. role must also satisfy its own standard rather than borrowing from the foreign one.
Assess a genuine E-2 proposal separately
The investor needs relevant treaty nationality and qualifying ownership, substantial lawful capital at risk, a real nonmarginal enterprise and development and direction. A relocation budget or an ownership title does not establish all those conditions. Hypothetical example: the founder of a borehole geophysics business holds a passport from a country with a relevant treaty and has run the company for six years without drawing a salary. On the E-2 side that history helps with credibility but proves none of the elements: nationality, qualifying ownership, substantial lawful capital genuinely committed and at risk, a real and nonmarginal enterprise, and the founder's development and direction each need their own evidence. Ask which of them is weakest and what document would answer it, since that is usually where the choice between the routes is actually made.
Resolve the person’s actual role before selecting a route
Hypothetical example: a founder owned shares for several years but only recently began working for the company. Preserve the genuine chronology. For an L owner or major stockholder, also assess the required temporary-service and subsequent foreign-assignment evidence. Do not rewrite the employment history to make the comparison easier. Where both routes look open, compare what each would require of the business afterwards rather than only what it requires now: the L route depends on the group's continuing operations on both sides, while the E-2 route depends on the enterprise remaining real, operating and more than marginal. Compare the durations, the extension mechanics and what happens to dependants under each. Then write the reasons for the choice down, because a decision made once and recorded is easier to revisit when a fact changes than one reconstructed from memory.
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.