Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Saint-Ambroise business plan may include both transferring an employee and buying US assets. The immigration route must follow the actual legal and operational arrangement. The first review should compare two evidence chains: qualifying employment and corporate control for L-1, against capital source, commitment, treaty ownership and business viability for E-2. Hypothetical example: A cold-storage control-systems company wants its Canadian operations lead to buy into the new US venture. The decision is whether the facts still support an intracompany transfer or instead require an investor analysis.
Test the transfer on the organizations and proposed work
L classification needs the qualifying corporate relationship, continuous qualifying foreign year and actual US capacity. L-1A examines primarily managerial or executive duties; L-1B examines the relevant special or advanced company knowledge. An interim replacement or newly written process explanation may help describe facts but cannot manufacture an employment history or qualifying role. For L-1, begin with ownership records, foreign payroll, job descriptions and the US reporting structure. The applicant generally needs one continuous qualifying foreign year during the three years before the request. L-1A is limited to seven years and L-1B to five years. The reader must decide whether the proposed work is primarily managerial or executive, or whether it depends on the employee’s special or advanced company knowledge.
Test the acquisition on actual ownership and committed investment
E-2 requires treaty nationality, at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, development and direction, substantial lawful at-risk capital and a real nonmarginal enterprise. Equipment acquired before the shares may have a different legal effect from the completed transaction. Assess the rights and commitments in force instead of assuming the future purchase result already supplies every E-2 condition. For E-2, trace lawful funds into a commitment that faces commercial loss, confirm the required treaty-national ownership and show a real enterprise that is not marginal. The investor must be able to direct and develop it. E-2 does not by itself provide a permanent-residence route. The decision is whether the business documents describe present ownership and control, rather than a future arrangement that has not yet become effective.
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.