Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: Stefanos owns a restaurant-equipment sales and service company in Powassan, installing and maintaining ovens, refrigeration and dish systems for kitchens across the district. He wants an American presence and cannot tell whether to open a subsidiary and transfer himself, or to invest personally in a company he controls. Most of the deciding facts are not immigration facts at all; they sit in his accountant's files.
Ask the accountant what makes L-1A possible
L-1A needs a qualifying corporate relationship and one continuous year of Stefanos's own employment with the Canadian company in a managerial or executive capacity within the three years before filing. Put four questions: is the Powassan business a corporation able to own an American subsidiary, or a sole proprietorship that cannot? Has he been on payroll as an employee with T4 records for at least a year, or drawn only dividends? Does the organizational chart show him directing a service manager and technicians with hiring authority, rather than working as lead technician who also runs the office? Can the company fund a subsidiary and keep trading here at the same time? A negative answer either closes the route or sets work that must precede a petition.
Ask a different set of questions about E-2
E-2 ignores corporate history and payroll. It asks whether Stefanos, as a Canadian national, will own at least half of an American enterprise and develop and direct it, whether the capital is his own and lawfully sourced, whether it is substantial in proportion to the cost of the venture, and whether the enterprise will be more than marginal. So ask: how much personal capital can he commit without borrowing against the American business itself? Can that capital be traced from savings, from dividends already distributed, or from a documented asset sale? If the Canadian company invests instead of him personally, is that company itself at least half owned by Canadian nationals? What does establishing a service operation of this size actually cost, so substantiality has a real denominator?
Reading the two sets of answers together
An incorporated company with Stefanos on payroll as its manager and the means to fund a subsidiary points to L-1A, with the Canadian operation remaining the parent and the new-office rules applying in the first year. A history of dividends rather than salary, or an unincorporated business, but substantial personal capital with a clean trail, points to E-2. Spouses are employment-authorized incident to status under both. The routes differ afterwards: L-1A is capped at seven years and a manager may later be a candidate for an employment-based permanent route, while E-2 renews while the enterprise qualifies and leads nowhere on its own. Neither permits him to work in the United States as a technician.
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.