Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: a Stoneham-et-Tewkesbury guided snowmobile and ATV tour and rental company is owned forty percent by its operations partner and thirty percent each by two other Canadian partners. The company wants to open a base in Maine and the operations partner would relocate to run it. Because he owns a minority stake, L-1A through a subsidiary of the Québec company and E-2 in his own name lead to different structures, and the choice depends on who is treated as the investor and who as the employee.
Route one: the company expands and transfers its manager
If the Québec company forms a Maine subsidiary and owns it, the operations partner is an employee being transferred, and his forty percent shareholding is context rather than the basis of the case. L-1A requires his continuous year with the Québec company in a managerial role, which his years running guides, fleet and bookings satisfy, a qualifying parent-subsidiary relationship, and a new-office plan with a leased base, trail permits and the first hires. The initial approval is one year, extendable on evidence, with a seven-year ceiling. His L-2 spouse would be employment-authorized incident to status. The company, not he, controls the U.S. operation.
Route two: he invests personally and directs the Maine business
If instead he wants to own the Maine operation himself, E-2 looks at his Canadian nationality, at whether his own funds are irrevocably committed and substantial relative to the base's cost, and at whether he develops and directs the enterprise, which ordinarily means at least fifty percent ownership or operational control. A forty-percent stake in a new U.S. company held with the same two partners would need documented control rights to satisfy that test; a majority stake or a management agreement with real authority would be cleaner. E-2 is renewable while the enterprise operates and non-marginal, but it offers no direct path to permanent residence, and the money is his, not the company's.
Ask which entity should own the fleet and the permits
The practical question that decides the route is who will own the snowmobiles, the trailers, the Maine lease and the trail-use permits. If the Québec company buys them, the subsidiary is the operating entity and L-1A follows. If he buys them with personal funds, E-2 follows, and the Québec partners' involvement must be structured so that he retains control. Mixing the two, with the company owning the equipment while he claims to be a personal investor, produces a file that satisfies neither test. Decide the ownership on commercial and tax grounds first, document it, and then let the immigration route follow the ownership rather than the reverse.
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.