Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: Pavel owns a heating, ventilation and refrigeration contracting company in Essa that installs and services systems for agri-food plants and commercial buildings. He wants to establish a U.S. presence and is unsure whether to have the Canadian company open a U.S. subsidiary and transfer himself as its manager under L-1A, or to invest personally in a U.S. company he controls under E-2. The two routes look at different facts, and most of those facts sit in his accountant's files: who owns what, how long he has drawn a salary, and where the money for a U.S. venture would come from. This guide lists the questions to put to the accountant before an immigration adviser is asked to choose.
Questions that decide whether L-1A is even available
L-1A requires a qualifying corporate relationship and one continuous year of Pavel's own employment with the Canadian company, in a managerial or executive capacity, within the three years before filing. Ask the accountant: is the Canadian company a corporation that can own a U.S. subsidiary, or a sole proprietorship that cannot? Has Pavel been on payroll as an employee, with T4 records, for at least a year, or has he drawn only dividends? Does the organizational chart show him managing supervisors and technicians, with hiring authority, rather than working as the lead technician who also runs the office? Can the Canadian company fund a U.S. subsidiary and keep operating in Essa at the same time? A no to any of these points either rules L-1A out or means work must be done before a petition is possible.
Questions that decide whether E-2 is realistic
E-2 does not care about corporate history or a year on payroll. It asks whether Pavel, as a Canadian national, will own at least half of a U.S. enterprise and direct it, whether the capital is his own and lawfully sourced, whether it is substantial relative to the cost of the venture, and whether the enterprise will be more than marginal. Ask the accountant: how much personal capital can Pavel commit without borrowing against the U.S. business itself? Can the source of that capital be traced from savings, retained earnings distributed as dividends, or a documented asset sale? If the Canadian company rather than Pavel personally invests, is the company itself at least half Canadian-owned, so that the enterprise still counts as a treaty enterprise? What will a U.S. HVAC start-up cost, so substantiality can be measured against a real number?
Reading the answers together
If the accountant's answers show an incorporated Canadian company with Pavel on payroll as its manager, capable of funding a subsidiary, L-1A is available and carries the advantage that the Canadian operation remains the parent and Pavel's wife would be employment-authorized as an L-2 spouse; the new-office rules would apply in the first year. If instead Pavel has drawn dividends rather than salary, or the company is a proprietorship, but he has substantial personal capital with a clean trail, E-2 is the more natural route; the E-2 spouse is likewise employment-authorized, but E-2 does not lead directly to permanent residence, whereas an L-1A manager may later be a candidate for an employment-based route. Neither category permits him to sit in the United States as a working technician; both expect him to manage or direct.
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.