Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: Tanya runs an agricultural-equipment dealership near Chisholm, selling and servicing tractors, seeders and haying equipment. She is weighing two options: buying an American dealership outright and investing in it, or having her own company open a U.S. entity and transferring herself into it. Which route is realistic depends less on her preference than on answers only the seller can give her, and she should get them before an adviser is asked to choose.
Ask what exactly is for sale, and who currently owns it
Is the seller offering shares in the dealership company or the assets of the business? A share purchase brings the existing entity with its history and its franchise arrangements; an asset purchase into a newly formed company creates a business less than a year old, which matters if the L route is later considered, because a new entity falls under the new-office rules. Ask who holds the shares now, whether personally or through a holding company, and whether any manufacturer's agreement requires consent to a change of control. That consent can delay or defeat a transaction entirely.
Ask for the numbers that both routes will be judged against
Three years of financial statements, tax returns, payroll registers and an employee list. Under E-2 those establish that the enterprise is real and operating and answer marginality, and the purchase price sets the figure against which the substantiality of Tanya's capital is measured proportionally. Under L-1 the same records show the U.S. entity is doing business, which the category requires of both companies. Ask what the seller will warrant about them. A seller who offers projections and declines to produce statements is telling her something useful about both routes at once.
Ask what the seller wants after closing, then match the route to the answer
If he insists on retaining a majority, E-2 is closed, because the enterprise must be at least half owned by treaty nationals and Tanya must develop and direct it. If he will sell outright, E-2 becomes straightforward on the ownership side and turns on her capital being lawfully sourced, substantial and at risk. If he will not sell at all but would take investment from her Canadian company, the L route deserves examination instead, which requires a qualifying corporate relationship and one continuous year of her own qualifying employment abroad within the preceding three years. Her spouse would be employment-authorized under either category.
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.