They may qualify as affiliates, but only if the ownership records show that the same person or group owns and controls both in substantially the same proportions. Shared branding, shared customers or a common founder are not by themselves a qualifying relationship.
Prove the relationship from records, not from reputation
Start by asking a simple question of the corporate records: who owns each company, in what percentages, as of today. Then compare the two answers side by side. Where they match, the affiliate argument has a factual base and the remaining work is assembling the documents that show it. Where they diverge — an outside investor on one side, a trust or holding company in the middle, shares issued at different times — the argument becomes more complex and may need a corporate lawyer before it needs an immigration one. The mistake to avoid is treating this as a formality that counsel will handle later. The ownership structure is a fact that already exists; nobody can improve it by describing it well, and discovering a mismatch early leaves time to consider whether a different route fits the same commercial plan.
Hypothetical example: Hugo, a paper-converting plant director, discovers the U.S. purchaser will own the operation before his transfer date. His review should place the signed closing record beside the corporate charts, his foreign payroll history and the proposed reporting structure. The ownership documents decide whether the companies have the required relationship when the petition is filed; they do not prove that his U.S. work will be primarily managerial or executive. The file must also show one continuous qualifying year abroad in the relevant three-year period. Prior L time belongs on the same chronology because L-1A classification is limited to seven years.