Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Saint-Constant applicant may hold an interest in the U.S. venture while the foreign employer has a different ownership structure. Establish the actual L relationship and E-2 authority separately rather than assuming one shareholding proves both.
Map the qualifying L organization
L needs a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship through the actual corporate facts and required international business. General L also needs the applicant’s qualifying continuous foreign year within the relevant three years in managerial, executive or specialized-knowledge work and an independently qualifying U.S. role. A personal interest in one company does not alone establish the relationship between both.
Map the investor’s E-2 rights
E-2 requires relevant treaty nationality, generally at least 50% relevant treaty-national enterprise ownership and development and direction through qualifying control. Substantial lawful funds must be committed at risk in a real operating nonmarginal enterprise. A minority interest is not automatically sufficient or disqualifying; assess the actual rights rather than treating the percentage as the entire case.
Retain the launch and owner evidence where applicable
Lay out the ownership evidence entity by entity: who holds each interest, who can appoint decision-makers, and which agreement supports the claimed authority. Flag a missing corporate record rather than filling it with the applicant’s estimate. Then assess the additional L requirements where relevant: new-office L-1A needs the foreign managerial or executive year, sufficient premises and first-year support for the U.S. role; an owner or major stockholder also needs temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment. The comparison should distinguish rights actually documented from a restructuring merely proposed. Set out, entity by entity, which instrument you actually hold and which you have only been told exists. That second list is the work plan. A restructuring agreed but not documented should appear on it as proposed, and never in the entity table as though it had already taken effect.
Read the agreement that allocates control, not the percentage
A shareholding percentage is a summary, and summaries lose the terms that decide these questions. The agreement allocating control states who appoints directors, which decisions need more than a simple majority, whether any holder has a veto, and what happens on a deadlock. Two people holding identical percentages in two companies can have entirely different authority, and the difference lives in those clauses. Obtain the executed agreement with its schedules, and where the parties amended it by side letter, obtain the side letter too, because a side letter nobody filed still binds the people who signed it. A weak version of this record is a director's confirmation that the applicant runs the business; it describes practice rather than entitlement, and practice can change without any document being altered. For the transfer route, the corporate relationship between the two entities is proved by ownership instruments rather than by the applicant's personal holding in either one. Hypothetical example: the owner of a precision-instrument repair company holds a minority interest and, under the shareholders' agreement, the sole right to appoint the managing director.
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.