Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: the owner of a Mission dairy-equipment installation and service firm wants to work in the United States, either by forming a subsidiary and transferring himself as its manager under L-1A, or by personally buying a U.S. service business under E-2. Both are open to a Canadian owner, but they rest on different facts: L-1 on his employment history and the corporate relationship, E-2 on his personal capital and control. Which one fits depends on how the U.S. business will be owned and how long the family means to stay.
L-1A treats him as an employee of the group
For a transfer he needs one continuous year working for the Mission company, a U.S. subsidiary or affiliate related to it by ownership, and managerial or executive duties in both roles. Being the owner does not disqualify him; owner-managers of small companies are transferred regularly, but the petition must show the U.S. entity is a real business, not a vehicle, and that both entities keep trading. If the U.S. operation is new, the one-year new-office rule applies. L-1A is capped at seven years and requires no personal investment at risk; the capital comes from the company. His spouse would be employment-authorized in L-2. Canadian citizenship is not required, and there is no visa stamp for Canadians.
E-2 treats him as an investor with his own money exposed
For a treaty investment he needs Canadian citizenship, at least half Canadian ownership of the U.S. enterprise, funds irrevocably committed and at risk, an amount substantial for that business, an enterprise that is more than marginal and personal control of it. Employment history is irrelevant; capital and control are everything. If the Mission company funds the purchase and owns the U.S. entity, its own Canadian ownership must be traced to establish treaty nationality. E-2 has no fixed maximum and renews while the business continues, but it offers no direct path to permanent residence, and Canadians must obtain the visa at a consulate. The spouse is likewise employment-authorized incident to status.
Decide on ownership, horizon and appetite for risk
If the U.S. business will be a subsidiary of the Mission firm and the owner wants the corporate structure to carry the risk, L-1A fits, with the seven-year limit and the need for a later permanent-residence strategy in view. If he wants to own the U.S. business personally, or the Canadian firm will be sold, E-2 fits, with his own capital at stake and a status that lasts as long as the business does but not beyond it. Some owners pursue both in sequence. The wrong choice is the one made by which application seems easier this month; the right one starts from where the ownership will sit in five years and works back.
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.