Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: the general manager of a Pilot Butte electrical contracting company owns thirty percent of it; the founder owns the rest. The company wants him to establish and run a U.S. operation. He cannot be an E-2 principal, because he neither holds fifty percent nor controls the enterprise, and the capital would be the company's. Two routes remain: L-1A as a manager transferred to a U.S. subsidiary, or E-2 as an executive employee of a Canadian-owned enterprise. Which fits depends on the subsidiary's structure, his year of employment, and how long the family expects to stay.
Why he is not the E-2 investor
The treaty-investor rules require the principal to develop and direct the enterprise, which is ordinarily shown by owning at least half of it or by holding operational control through a managerial position or other corporate device. A thirty-percent holding does not meet the ownership test, and control through his management role is a harder showing when a majority owner exists. More fundamentally, the investment would be made by the Canadian company, not by him personally, so the funds at risk are not his. E-2 can still be relevant, but through a different door: a Canadian-owned U.S. enterprise may employ a Canadian citizen in an executive or supervisory role, or in an essential-skills role, on E-2 as an employee of the treaty enterprise.
L-1A and E-2 employee compared
L-1A requires the U.S. company to be a subsidiary or affiliate of the Canadian one, both doing business, his one continuous year with the Canadian company in a managerial capacity, and a primarily managerial or executive U.S. role; a newly formed subsidiary is a new office with a one-year first approval. It is capped at seven years and can lead to the EB-1 multinational-manager immigrant category. E-2 as an executive employee requires the U.S. enterprise to be at least half Canadian-owned, a substantial investment by the Canadian company that is at risk and not marginal, and a role that is executive or supervisory in character; it has no year-abroad requirement and no cap on renewals, but no direct path to permanent residence. Both spouses may work incident to status.
Choosing on the facts
If the family intends to settle, L-1A with a real subsidiary is the more direct route, since a year of managing the U.S. company can support an EB-1 petition. If the stay is open-ended but not necessarily permanent, and the Canadian company will fund a substantial U.S. operation it owns, E-2 as an executive employee avoids the seven-year limit and the qualifying-year question. If he lacks a full managerial year with the Canadian company, only E-2 is available immediately. Ask the founder whether the company will capitalize a U.S. subsidiary at a level that satisfies E-2 substantiality, or only at the level needed to open an L-1A new office; the answer often decides the matter. Document his thirty percent either way, since ownership must be disclosed.
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.