Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Rothesay engineering consultancy owned equally by three partners wants one of them to establish a U.S. practice. E-2 ordinarily requires the applicant to develop and direct the enterprise, usually through at least fifty percent ownership or operational control; a one-third owner may not meet that. L-1A treats the partner as an employee transferred by the Canadian firm to its U.S. subsidiary, which depends on the corporate relationship and her year of qualifying employment, not on her personal stake.
Look at ownership from each category's point of view
Hypothetical example: three engineers hold equal shares in a Rothesay consultancy, and one, a Canadian citizen, will open the U.S. practice. For E-2, the U.S. enterprise would be owned by the Canadian firm, which is wholly Canadian-owned, so the treaty-nationality test is met; but she personally owns one third of the parent, and the develop-and-direct requirement looks for majority ownership or operational control. The partners could give her operational control of the U.S. entity by agreement, which may satisfy the test, but the consular officer will examine whether that control is real. For L-1A, none of this matters: the Canadian firm is the parent, the U.S. entity is its subsidiary, and she is an employee being transferred. Her one-third stake should be disclosed but does not disqualify her.
Compare what she must prove under each
L-1A requires that she has worked for the Canadian firm for one continuous year within the last three in a managerial or executive capacity, that both entities are actively doing business and that the U.S. role is primarily managerial or executive. For a new U.S. office, the petition must show secured premises and that the operation will support the managerial role within a year; the initial approval lasts one year. E-2 requires funds irrevocably committed and at risk, substantial relative to the cost of establishing the practice, a real and non-marginal enterprise and her development and direction of it. A consultancy where she is initially the only engineer may look marginal under E-2 and may look like professional rather than managerial work under L-1A; the hiring plan is central to both.
Choose on structure, control and the long view
If the partners are unwilling to give her operational control, E-2 is weak and L-1A is the natural route. If they are willing and she wants to run the U.S. practice as her own venture for the long term, E-2 with real control could work and has no fixed time cap, though it provides no direct path to permanent residence. L-1A is capped at seven years and may support a later employment-based immigrant petition in some circumstances. Under both routes her spouse is employment-authorized incident to status. The partners should agree the U.S. entity's ownership and control in writing before either file is prepared, because switching routes after filing means starting the evidence over.
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.