Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: Beth runs a tire-service contractor in Logan Lake that maintains haul-truck tires for mine operators. A U.S. mining contractor has offered to co-own a U.S. tire-service company with her. The question of L-1A versus E-2 is decided less by preference than by the ownership percentage in the final deal, because L-1 needs a qualifying corporate relationship between her Canadian company and the U.S. entity, while E-2 needs Canadian nationals to own at least half. This guide shows how each split lands, and what to settle before the shareholders' agreement is signed.
If the Canadian company owns the U.S. entity, L-1A is available
Where Beth's Logan Lake company holds a majority, or holds half with equal control, of the U.S. company, the two are parent and subsidiary or affiliates, and L-1A can transfer her as a manager provided she has worked for the Canadian company for a continuous year in the last three in a managerial capacity. The U.S. company would be a new office, with a one-year initial approval and evidence of premises and staffing capacity. Her spouse would be work-authorized incident to L-2. The advantages are that the U.S. partner's nationality does not matter and that a managerial record supports later immigrant sponsorship. The constraint is that the Canadian company must remain active and must keep the qualifying stake throughout, and L-1A status is capped at seven years.
If Beth personally owns at least half, E-2 is available
E-2 looks at the nationality of the owners of the U.S. enterprise. If Beth, as a Canadian citizen, personally holds at least fifty percent and develops and directs the business, the enterprise has Canadian nationality and she can apply for E-2 at a consulate. Her investment must be substantial relative to the cost of the tire-service company and at risk, meaning her share of the equipment, premises and start-up costs actually paid. The U.S. partner's share does not count toward the treaty-nationality half. E-2 does not require the Canadian company's involvement at all, and no prior year of employment is needed. Its limits are the absence of a direct path to permanent residence and the need for the business to remain non-marginal at each renewal.
Splits that satisfy neither, and how to fix them
A deal in which the U.S. partner holds sixty percent and Beth forty percent, held personally, fails both routes: the Canadian company has no qualifying relationship, and Canadian nationals own less than half. Common fixes are to have the Canadian company rather than Beth hold the stake, so that a fifty-fifty arrangement with equal veto rights creates an affiliate relationship for L-1A, or to renegotiate to a Canadian majority for E-2. Before signing, Beth should ask her accountant and her U.S. counsel to model both structures, confirm who controls day-to-day operations under the operating agreement, and check whether the partner's contribution is capital or merely a customer contract. The immigration route should be chosen on the term sheet, because changing the split after incorporation is expensive and sometimes impossible.
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.