Read the general pathway comparison overview
A Metchosin applicant may transfer into a parent-funded operation or acquire an enterprise through escrow. Each proposal needs evidence of actual rights and resources. The cap table is usually the document that decides the comparison. E-2 requires that at least half of the enterprise be owned by Canadian nationals, and that the investor develop and direct it; L-1 requires a parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship between the Canadian and US entities. Draw both ownership charts before choosing.
Explain the intracompany case
L-1 requires qualifying organizations, foreign service and managerial/executive or specialized-knowledge duties. Group assets should be connected to US support, and a project list should identify the employee’s real contribution.
Explain the treaty investment
E-2 requires at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, direction, substantial at-risk capital with lawful source/path and a real nonmarginal business. The actual escrow terms should be assessed rather than assumed to qualify or fail by label alone.
Use current effective terms
A proposed allocation or amended refund clause may change the relevant analysis. Keep actual commitments and remaining conditions clear before relying on either route for US work.
Hypothetical example: a boat-builder’s US yard, two ways
Hypothetical example: a Metchosin boat-building shop, owned by two Canadian partners, is offered a chance to work with a US yard. Route one: the Canadian shop forms a US subsidiary it owns outright and transfers its foreman as L-1B, relying on his knowledge of the shop’s hull-lamination procedures and one continuous year of employment abroad; the shop must keep building in Canada and the US subsidiary needs premises and the financial ability to start. Route two: the partners personally buy into the US yard as E-2 investors. If a US owner keeps 60% of that yard, the enterprise fails the nationality test even though the Canadians run it daily, because at least 50% must be held by treaty nationals. If the Canadians take 50% or more and direct operations with irrevocably committed funds substantial relative to the yard’s value, E-2 is arguable. The foreman’s L-1B time is capped at five years; the partners’ E-2 can continue while the yard qualifies.
Ask the seller and the lawyer these questions
Who will own what percentage after closing, and does that keep Canadian ownership at half or more? Is the purchase price committed irrevocably or refundable if no visa issues? Will the Canadian shop remain a real operating business, which L-1 requires and E-2 does not? Who will direct the yard, an employee of the Canadian company or the investors personally? The answers usually point to one principal-owner route and rule out the other. Under L-1, the foreman needs the qualifying corporate relationship and must meet the specialized-knowledge requirements; under E-2, he could work only if he separately qualifies as a same-nationality executive, supervisory or essential employee of the treaty enterprise.
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.