Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: the sole owner of a bookkeeping and payroll firm in L'Ancienne-Lorette, a Canadian citizen who has run it for four years, wants to open a U.S. office and work there herself. She could transfer as a manager of a new U.S. affiliate under L-1A, or invest her own funds in the U.S. office as an E-2 treaty investor. Unlike a case with two different people, here the same applicant fits both descriptions, and the choice turns on what each route demands of the Québec firm, how long each lasts, and what the family wants at the end.
What each route asks of the Québec firm
Under L-1A the Québec firm must own the U.S. office, or share common ownership with it, and must keep operating with staff and clients for as long as she holds L status; if she winds it down to concentrate on the U.S. office, the qualifying relationship ends. She must also have worked for it in a managerial capacity for a continuous year in the last three, and her U.S. role must become primarily managerial within a year, which a one-person office cannot show without a credible hiring plan. Under E-2 the Québec firm is irrelevant; she may keep, sell or close it. What matters is her Canadian nationality, her substantial funds at risk in a real U.S. enterprise, and her direction of it.
What each route asks of the money and the calendar
L-1A has no personal investment test; the firm funds the U.S. office and must show it can. E-2 requires her own capital, traced from a lawful source, committed irrevocably and substantial relative to the cost of setting up the office, in an enterprise that is more than a job for herself. L-1A new-office approval is for one year, then extensions to a seven-year ceiling; E-2 status can be renewed for as long as the enterprise and her eligibility continue, with no fixed ceiling but no direct path to permanent residence either. If the family wants permanent residence eventually, an L-1A manager may have an employment-based immigrant route on her own facts that E-2 does not supply; compare that with counsel before choosing.
Choose the route the facts already support
List what she can prove today. If the Québec firm is strong, will continue under a manager, and can fund a U.S. office that will hire staff within a year, the L-1A file describes a genuine expansion. If the firm is essentially her, with no one to run it in her absence, the L-1A relationship is fragile and E-2 on her own capital describes the truth better. Do not build a hybrid in which the firm funds the office and she also claims a personal investment; each route stands on its own documents. Her spouse would be employment-authorized incident to status under either L-2 or E-2 derivative status. Whichever door she chooses, she should not work in the U.S. office before the status exists.
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.