Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Quispamsis home-care agency owner who holds sixty percent of her company and wants to open a U.S. operation could be transferred by her company under L-1A or could invest personally under E-2. L-1A depends on the corporate relationship and her year of qualifying employment; E-2 depends on her own treaty nationality, ownership and capital at risk. Her minority partner's nationality and role affect one route and not the other.
Map who owns what and who would own the U.S. entity
Hypothetical example: the owner holds sixty percent, her business partner holds forty percent, and the partner is a Canadian permanent resident who is a citizen of a non-treaty country. Under L-1A the U.S. entity would be a subsidiary of the Canadian company, the qualifying relationship is established by the parent's control, and the partner's nationality is irrelevant. Under E-2 the U.S. enterprise must be at least fifty percent owned by Canadian nationals; if the Canadian company owns it, the company's own ownership is traced through to the individuals, and her sixty percent satisfies the threshold. If the partner's stake later grows above fifty percent, the E-2 basis would be lost while the L-1A basis would not.
Compare what each route requires her to prove
L-1A requires that she has worked for the Canadian company in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within the last three, that both entities are actively doing business, and that the U.S. role is primarily managerial or executive. As a majority owner she may still be an employee for this purpose, but her ownership should be disclosed and the employer-employee relationship explained. E-2 requires that her funds, or the company's, be irrevocably committed and substantial relative to the cost of the U.S. business, that the enterprise be real and not marginal, and that she develop and direct it. A new home-care operation with no clients yet may struggle under E-2 on marginality until staff are hired, while a new-office L-1A carries its own one-year evidentiary burden.
Sequence for the family and the long term
Both routes give her spouse employment authorization incident to status, as an L-2 or E-2 spouse. L-1A is capped at seven years and can support a later employment-based immigrant petition in some circumstances; E-2 has no cap on renewals but provides no direct path to permanent residence. If her intention is to eventually live permanently in the United States, that weighs toward structuring the U.S. entity as a subsidiary and building the L-1A record. If her intention is to run a U.S. business indefinitely while remaining anchored in Quispamsis, E-2 may fit better. The decision should be taken with both files sketched out, not by defaulting to whichever the accountant mentions first.
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.