Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: two siblings in Orillia own a hotel company equally. Lucas is a Canadian citizen; his sister Mireille is a Canadian permanent resident but a citizen of a country that has no investment treaty with the United States. The company wants to buy a U.S. motel and send Lucas to run it. Whether the route is E-2 or L-1 turns on ownership nationality — a factor E-2 tests and L-1 does not. Hypothetical example: The owners of an architectural-lighting company can either transfer an executive from their Canadian entity or personally buy into a U.S. showroom. Their decision turns on which factual foundation already exists: qualifying corporate employment and control, or treaty nationality, a committed investment and operational direction. The same commercial project can support very different answers.
E-2 tests the nationality of the enterprise, not just the applicant
For E-2, the U.S. enterprise must be at least fifty percent owned by nationals of the treaty country, and those owners must not be U.S. permanent residents. If the U.S. motel is owned by the Canadian company, and that company is owned half by Lucas and half by Mireille, only Lucas's half carries Canadian nationality; Mireille's half carries her own citizenship, and her Canadian PR card does not change that. Fifty percent is the minimum, so the structure would sit exactly on the line, and any dilution or a third investor without treaty nationality would push it under. The siblings should count nationality by ownership percentages before assuming E-2 is open. They should map ownership, foreign employment and staffing if considering L-1. The company must decide whether it can keep the Canadian operation active while the executive is assigned to the U.S. entity.
L-1 ignores nationality and tests the corporate relationship instead
L-1A does not care what passport the owners hold. It asks whether the Canadian hotel company and the U.S. motel will be parent and subsidiary or otherwise qualifying, whether both will continue to operate, whether Lucas has one continuous year of managerial employment with the Canadian company in the last three, and whether his U.S. role will be primarily managerial. If the Canadian company buys the motel outright, the relationship is a subsidiary and the nationality problem disappears. The cost is that L-1A is an employee transfer with a seven-year cap, and it requires the Canadian hotel to keep running under someone else's management. For E-2, they should trace nationality through the ownership chain and prepare a commitment-and-control record. Personal funds that remain withdrawable do not answer the investment test.
Choose by which requirement you can actually satisfy
The existing 50-50 ownership gives the enterprise exactly 50 percent Canadian treaty nationality through Lucas, so it does not automatically rule out E-2. Lucas must still show that he will develop and direct the enterprise, which a two-owner equal venture can ordinarily establish through genuine negative control if both owners retain full management rights, or through other documented operational control. Majority ownership would make control clearer but is not mandatory. L-1A remains a separate possibility if the corporate relationship, continuing operations, Lucas's qualifying managerial year abroad and the U.S. managerial role are proven. Mireille's Canadian permanent residence does not count as Canadian nationality for E-2. Counsel should assess both routes against the actual governing documents before the motel purchase is signed. The long-term choice is whether a capped employee-transfer period or renewable temporary investor status better matches the business. Neither answer should be inferred from a company name or a Canadian address.
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.