Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Ferland-et-Boilleau applicant should identify whether the supporting case is a qualifying employee transfer or a genuine treaty investment. A first review should place two separate checklists beside the facts: one for the qualifying employer relationship and prior employment, and one for treaty nationality, ownership, capital and business operation. It should identify which record settles each condition before a person commits money or resigns from foreign employment. The decision is whether one route is presently supportable, rather than assuming the same US company can satisfy both.
Use the transferee’s own history and responsibilities
L-1 requires qualifying corporate relationships and foreign service, plus the relevant US management, executive or specialized-knowledge capacity. Explain temporary coverage duties and the knowledge underlying a training assignment. Neither replacing a leader nor teaching a course automatically supplies the substantive standard. The L-1 record should establish the corporate link, one continuous qualifying foreign year in the preceding three years and the proposed US capacity. It must also account for the total stay limit: L-1A generally reaches seven years and L-1B five years. Hypothetical example: A commercial rainwater-filtration manufacturer owns a US affiliate and wants to send a product lead who has only eight months of foreign payroll. The company must decide whether the employment record supports L-1 now or whether a different lawful plan is needed.
Use the investor’s own business and resources
E-2 requires treaty nationality and at least 50% relevant national ownership, substantial lawful at-risk capital, development and direction, and a real nonmarginal enterprise. A manufacturer’s machinery cannot simply be counted as the investor’s property. Identify actual contracts and commitments instead of borrowing the supplier’s business facts. The E-2 review must stand on its own: the investor needs treaty nationality, qualifying ownership, lawful capital exposed to commercial risk, development and direction, and a real enterprise that is not marginal. Trace the proposed funds through binding commitments, then compare the business plan with actual customer, supplier and operating records. A corporate relationship may help explain a business, but it cannot substitute for the E-2 investment conditions.
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.