Read the general pathway comparison overview
A shareholders’ agreement can be the decisive document in a transfer petition and in a treaty-investor application at the same time, while answering completely different questions in each. In the transfer case it is asked whether two companies are related. In the investor case it is asked whether one person can run a business. Before filing either, say out loud which question each page of the cap table is being offered to answer.
For L, identify the qualifying relationship and person
On the transfer side, the ownership records exist to prove a relationship between entities. Show who owns or controls whom, and that the Canadian and U.S. companies stand as parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate with both actively trading. Then stop, because the chart has finished its work. It cannot show that this employee held a qualifying year abroad, and it cannot show that the U.S. job is managerial, executive, or built on specialized knowledge of the group’s own products, processes or procedures. Those facts come from payroll records, organisational charts naming the people supervised, and a duties description written by someone who has actually seen the work. A flawless corporate chart paired with a one-sentence description of the U.S. role leaves the harder half of the petition unanswered.
For E-2, identify the investor and enterprise
On the investor side the same records are asked something else entirely: not whether the companies are related, but whether this individual is a treaty national, whether nationals of that treaty country hold at least half of the enterprise, and whether the investor will develop and direct it, ordinarily through ownership of at least half of the enterprise and otherwise through control that genuinely exists in the documents. Alongside that sit the money conditions: lawfully sourced funds, traced into a real and non-marginal operating business, substantial for what that business costs, and irrevocably at risk. A parent-and-subsidiary structure that satisfies the transfer relationship test can fail every one of these, because a subsidiary owned by a corporate parent is not owned by treaty nationals merely because its staff are, and being employed by a company is not the same as directing it.
Do not treat common documents as interchangeable conclusions
Hypothetical example: a minority shareholder holds thirty per cent of a Grimsby machine shop, but a side agreement gives him a veto over hiring, borrowing and the annual budget. Every summary the parties produce describes him simply as a thirty per cent owner. That description answers the wrong question. Have the instrument read for the rights it actually confers, and expect neither outcome to be automatic: a minority position is not disqualifying on its face, and it is not rescued on its face by a title. Three details follow from getting this right. The qualifying foreign year for a transfer must be one continuous full-time year within the three years before filing, held in a managerial, executive or specialized-knowledge capacity, with the U.S. role tested separately; brief trips into the United States do not necessarily interrupt it, and days spent there do not count toward it. An owner or major stockholder being transferred needs the further evidence that the U.S. service is temporary and that a foreign assignment follows. And on the investment side, a business that will only ever keep one household afloat is marginal unless it makes a significant economic contribution, with any future capacity reachable within about five years of ordinary trading.
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.