Read the general pathway comparison overview
An owner-manager often qualifies for neither route on the terms she assumes. L-1 asks about a corporate relationship and a year of qualifying work, and does not care what percentage she holds. E-2 asks about treaty nationality and requires at least half the enterprise in treaty-national hands, so her percentage is decisive. The comparison is best made by asking each route its own questions rather than by comparing outcomes.
What the L side wants to know
Hypothetical example: Ghislaine holds forty-five per cent of an agricultural drone-imagery and precision-application service near Saint-Joachim-de-Shefford and manages its field operations. For L purposes her stake is close to irrelevant. The questions are whether a U.S. entity will stand in a qualifying relationship to the Canadian one, whether both will be doing business, whether she completed a continuous qualifying year abroad in the last three, and whether her American duties will be primarily managerial or executive rather than flying the aircraft herself. A minority holder can be transferred as easily as an employee. What she cannot do is transfer into a company that does not yet have the required relationship with her own.
What the E side wants to know
Here the forty-five per cent becomes the central fact, though not necessarily a fatal one. At least half of the enterprise must be owned by treaty nationals, and that is a test about the enterprise rather than about Ghislaine personally: if her Canadian partners also hold treaty nationality, the enterprise clears the threshold comfortably. Her own position then turns on develop and direct, which ordinarily means at least half the ownership or demonstrable operational control. A general manager with hiring authority, signing authority and responsibility for the business plan can evidence control on facts. What she must also accept is that E-2 offers no direct path to permanent residence.
Questions to put to the accountant before the lawyer
Both routes are shaped by decisions that are taken for tax and commercial reasons long before anyone thinks about immigration. Ask a U.S. accountant how the American entity should be organised, who will be recorded as owning it, and what that means for filings on both sides of the border. Ask whether the structure that minimises tax also creates the corporate relationship the L category needs, because sometimes it does not. Ask what evidence of ownership will exist a year from now. Then bring those answers to immigration counsel, because a structure chosen first and examined afterwards is expensive to unwind once the shares are issued and the money has moved.
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.