Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil company may have prepared an earlier L or E-2 case for someone else. Review the new person and arrangement rather than treating the old result as an approval of every later applicant. A first review should produce two separate evidence lists before anyone chooses a route. For L, confirm the qualifying corporate relationship, required international business, and the transferee’s continuous qualifying foreign year within the relevant three years; L-1A and L-1B stay are generally capped at seven and five years respectively. For E-2, test treaty nationality, ownership and control, lawful funds committed beyond easy withdrawal and exposed to commercial risk, and a real enterprise that is not marginal. Choose the route whose decisive conditions can be supported by the actual person’s records.
Separate shared company facts from individual qualifications
An existing organizational record may be relevant, but L still needs the actual transferee’s qualifying continuous foreign year within the relevant three years and qualifying U.S. role. The foreign work may generally be managerial, executive or specialized knowledge. Verify the current corporate relationship and required international business rather than assuming nothing changed. Hypothetical example: an earthquake-resistant masonry-sensor firm has an owner who can fund a purchase but also wants to transfer a product manager from its foreign affiliate. The decision is whether facts support the owner’s E-2 control and investment or the employee’s L history and role. Ownership, funds-path, payroll, and job records answer different questions.
Assess the investor’s actual rights and funds
E-2 requires relevant treaty nationality, qualifying ownership and control to develop and direct, and lawful substantial investment committed at risk in a real nonmarginal enterprise. Another person’s capital or authority cannot simply be attributed to the new applicant. Identify the actual transaction and current rights. Keep the source document beside the conclusion so a later reader can see why the point was accepted or deferred.
Make the comparison record person-specific
List the earlier document, the fact it supported and whether that fact remains true for this proposal. New-office L-1A needs its specific foreign managerial or executive year, sufficient premises and first-year role evidence, while an owner or major stockholder also needs temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment. Keep a new assessment separate from the earlier result. Do not let a label decide the issue when the contemporaneous facts point elsewhere.
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.