Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: a Pontiac resident owns 30% of a lumber remanufacturing company and serves as its vice-president of operations; the majority is held by two other Canadian partners. The company wants a U.S. plant and he is the person to run it. He asks whether he should go as an L-1A executive of the company's U.S. subsidiary or as an E-2 investor. The answer turns on his minority stake, because the two categories treat ownership in opposite ways: L-1A cares about the relationship between the companies, E-2 about his personal control of the enterprise. This guide works through both.
L-1A: his 30% is irrelevant; the company relationship is everything
For an intracompany transfer the question is whether the Canadian company and the U.S. plant are qualifying organizations — parent and subsidiary, or affiliates under common ownership and control — and whether he has been employed by the Canadian company for a continuous year in the last three in an executive or managerial capacity. His minority stake does not help or hurt; he is an employee-executive being transferred. The U.S. plant should be formed as a subsidiary of the Canadian company, and if it is new the petition is a new-office case with a one-year initial approval and a requirement for secured premises. L-1A runs to seven years. L-1A experience may support a later, separate EB-1C petition, but it does not guarantee permanent residence; the U.S. petitioner must have been doing business for at least one year and every EB-1C requirement must be met.
E-2: his 30% is the problem, unless control comes from elsewhere
E-2 requires the treaty investor to develop and direct the enterprise. Ownership of at least half ordinarily establishes that; a 30% holder does not have it by ownership and would need to show operational control through some other means, such as a management agreement or governing documents that vest day-to-day direction in him, which his partners may not accept. Alternatively, the U.S. plant could be owned by the Canadian company, which is majority Canadian-owned and therefore a treaty enterprise, and he could apply as an executive or essential employee of that enterprise rather than as the investor — a legitimate E-2 route, but one that requires the company itself to have made a substantial, at-risk investment in a real, non-marginal U.S. operation, and that provides no path to permanent residence. E-2 has no fixed maximum, and his spouse would be employment-authorized in either category.
Deciding: the plant's timeline, his intentions and the partners' agreement
If the company is building a new plant and he expects to stay, L-1A is the natural fit: it uses the corporate structure the partners already have, tolerates his minority stake, and leads toward EB-1C once the U.S. operation has been active for a year. If the partners are unwilling to form a subsidiary, or he wants a personal stake in the U.S. business rather than a salaried transfer, the E-2 conversation requires either a larger ownership share or a control arrangement in writing, and he should accept that it ends in a renewable non-immigrant status. Whichever he chooses, the plant needs premises, permits and staff on its own timeline, and his children's ages should be weighed if permanent residence is the goal, since derivative eligibility ends at 21 in both categories.
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.