Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Saint-Mathieu group may have a chart showing a foreign company, a U.S. entity and the proposed applicant. Verify the underlying relationships and rights rather than treating the drawing as complete L or E-2 evidence. A first comparison should produce two separate evidence maps, one for the intercompany transfer and one for the investment enterprise. L-1 depends on a qualifying relationship, qualifying foreign employment and a qualifying U.S. role; L-1A has a seven-year maximum total stay and L-1B a five-year maximum. E-2 depends on treaty nationality, qualifying ownership or control, capital exposed to loss and a real enterprise that is not marginal. Hypothetical example: an operator of a mobile textile-dye testing unit may either transfer through a related foreign company or invest personally. The decision is which factual record genuinely supports the selected route before funds move or duties are assigned.
Support the L relationship with actual records
L needs a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship, required international business and the employee’s qualifying continuous foreign year and U.S. role. In a general case, the foreign year may be managerial, executive or specialized knowledge within the relevant three-year window. A line on a chart does not itself establish ownership, control or the actual employment. Use corporate records, payroll and duty evidence to test the L route in its own sequence. The decision is whether the foreign employer, U.S. entity and employee history meet the transfer conditions before describing the person as a manager, executive or specialized-knowledge employee.
Support the E-2 investor’s own authority
E-2 requires relevant treaty nationality and qualifying enterprise ownership and control, plus lawful substantial capital committed at risk in a real nonmarginal business. Identify the actual rights to develop and direct rather than borrowing authority from the applicant’s placement on the chart. The ownership documents and transaction must describe the real proposal. Trace the investor’s nationality, the entity’s ownership rights, the money’s source and path, and the commercial commitments separately. The decision is whether the applicant can develop and direct the enterprise with a qualifying investment, not whether the organization chart makes the applicant look senior.
Keep added owner and new-office conditions visible
New-office L-1A specifically needs the foreign managerial or executive year and premises and first-year role evidence. Owners or major stockholders also need temporary U.S. services and a subsequent foreign assignment. Use the chart as an index to the supporting records, with missing evidence marked clearly instead of filled by assumptions. If the U.S. operation is new, calendar its first-year evidence needs before choosing the route. A new office may require premises and a credible role plan, while an E-2 enterprise must show real operations and a nonmarginal outlook; neither condition is supplied by a shared ownership chart.
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.