Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Petit-Saguenay applicant should distinguish the qualifying employment case from the legal and financial terms of an E-2 contribution. The first review should compare the applicant’s employment history and related-company evidence with the investment’s ownership, source, risk, and operating role. Hypothetical example: An industrial-refrigeration supplier can either transfer its operations director or fund a new U.S. venture. The decision turns on which existing record is stronger, not on a preference for the faster-looking process. If L-1 is selected, the file must stand on the qualifying employment and organizational evidence. If E-2 is selected, it must stand on the investor’s own qualifying ownership, committed funds, risk, and operating role. Mixing the two narratives can obscure the condition that decides the case.
Use the applicant’s own employment record
L-1 needs qualifying organizations and foreign service with the relevant US managerial, executive or specialized-knowledge work. Shared managerial duties need accurate individual explanations; public quality standards do not by themselves settle the employee’s company-knowledge level. Another employee’s record cannot simply stand in for the applicant’s own. For L-1, build a timeline showing an uninterrupted qualifying overseas year for the related organization and identify the U.S. role with real evidence. Measure time already spent in L classification: L-1A has a seven-year ceiling and L-1B a five-year ceiling. A new U.S. office also requires premises and a credible plan, so a corporate chart alone is not enough.
Use the real contribution and enterprise ownership
E-2 requires treaty nationality, at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, development and direction, substantial lawful at-risk capital and a real nonmarginal business. Explain spouse-held resources and any genuine repayment terms without concealing the source or counting the same funds twice. For E-2, decide whether the investor can document treaty nationality, qualifying ownership, lawful source and path, and a real operating role before money is spent. The capital must be committed irrevocably and exposed to loss, and the business may not be marginal. A viable business plan does not convert an employment transfer into an E-2 case without those separate facts.
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.