Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Frontenac Islands contractor who owns all of a dock, shoreline and septic installation company wants to expand into a lakeside market in New York. As sole owner he could form a U.S. subsidiary and transfer himself under L-1A, or invest personally in a U.S. enterprise under E-2. L-1 requires that the Canadian company keep operating while he is in the United States; E-2 requires that his funds be at risk in a business he develops and directs. The question of who runs the island company while he is gone decides more than he expects.
L-1A for a sole owner
Hypothetical example: the Frontenac Islands contractor has eight employees and a foreman who runs crews when he is off-site. An L-1A petition by his newly formed U.S. subsidiary must show one continuous year of managerial employment abroad, which his years running the company satisfy, and a qualifying relationship, which sole ownership provides. It must also show that the Canadian company will continue doing business, because the relationship must remain active on both sides. If he is the only person who bids work, signs contracts and supervises, the petition needs a credible plan for the foreman or a hired manager to run the island operation. As a new office, the U.S. petition would be approved for one year on evidence of secured premises.
E-2 for the same person
If instead he buys or starts a U.S. installation business with his own money, the E-2 analysis looks at the funds: are they irrevocably committed, substantial relative to the enterprise's cost and at his risk, and is the enterprise real and non-marginal? As a Canadian citizen owning all of it, nationality and the develop-and-direct requirement are met. E-2 does not require that the Canadian company continue, so he could wind it down or sell it and use the proceeds. But E-2 has no direct path to permanent residence, whereas an L-1A manager of a subsidiary that reaches a year of operations may later be sponsored in the multinational-executive immigrant category.
What should decide it
Three questions settle the choice. Does he want the island company to continue, and can someone else run it? If yes, L-1A keeps both businesses alive under one group. Does he want permanent residence eventually? If yes, L-1A offers a path that E-2 does not. Does he have capital to commit now, or only a business to expand? A contractor whose wealth is tied up in equipment on the islands may find L-1A easier to fund, since the subsidiary can be capitalized gradually, while E-2 needs a committed investment before the visa. His spouse may work under either L-2 or E-2 spousal status; children under 21 may study but not work in either. Canadians need a consular visa for E-2 but not for L-1.
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.