Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Saint-Charles-de-Bourget applicant should examine the complete business arrangement when choosing between a transfer and treaty-investor route. The first review should place the same facts in two columns: corporate relationship and qualifying foreign employment on one side; nationality, ownership, committed funds and operational control on the other. The applicant must decide which set of facts can be proved now, rather than choosing a category because its label sounds more convenient for a growing business.
For L, explain the role inside qualifying organizations
L requires the qualifying organizational relationship, continuous qualifying foreign year and actual US capacity. L-1A assesses primarily managerial or executive work; L-1B assesses relevant special or advanced company knowledge. Headquarters approval limits or participation in a system migration need a substantive explanation, not inflated claims of unlimited power or sole authorship. For a transfer, collect ownership charts, foreign payroll records, role descriptions and US operating materials. For a treaty-investor case, collect the passport evidence, share records, contracts, funds trail and operating plan. The critical comparison is not simply whether money is available: it is whether the applicant is being moved by qualifying organizations or will direct an enterprise supported by capital exposed to loss.
For E-2, read the ownership agreement and investment together
Treaty nationality, at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, development and direction, substantial lawful at-risk capital and a real nonmarginal business are required. A co-owner’s veto provisions may be relevant to the actual authority claimed. Assess the operative agreement rather than assume a payment amount or majority label answers every condition. Hypothetical example: A fire-sprinkler design software publisher has a Canadian operations lead and a US co-owner who can veto expenditures. The lead must decide whether the foreign employment and corporate relationship support a transfer, or whether the treaty-investor record can establish the needed nationality, ownership and practical direction. An unsigned plan to revise the veto later cannot prove today’s authority; the operative agreement controls the immediate assessment. Make that choice before paying for documents that prove only the other route. The record should explain the selected structure as it exists, not the structure the parties might create after entry.
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.