Read the general pathway comparison overview
A North Saanich applicant may be reconstructing foreign employment for L-1 or assessing an enterprise’s current performance for E-2. Neither route should rely on a summary that conceals material changes. The decision is which record the applicant can actually produce. For L-1 it is a day count of the qualifying year abroad built from travel history and payroll, because days worked in the United States do not count toward that year. For E-2 it is the target's current financial statements, because a plan written before a lost contract no longer describes the enterprise.
Assess L-1 employment and duties
Qualifying foreign service, organizations and managerial/executive or specialized-knowledge work are required. Travel history should be evaluated accurately; primary unaffiliated offsite L-1B work needs review of control and labour-for-hire restrictions.
Assess the treaty enterprise
E-2 requires at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, development and direction, substantial at-risk capital with lawful source/path and a real nonmarginal business. Current results and applicable timing matter alongside the original plan.
Resolve the live proposal
Use effective work arrangements and business facts. Do not assume an old employment calculation or a projected revenue figure remains sufficient after a material change.
Hypothetical example: a drone-survey company's operations lead with US project days
Hypothetical example: a North Saanich drone-survey company's operations lead has spent portions of the last three years on US project sites as a business visitor, roughly nine months in total across several trips. The company is weighing an L-1A transfer to a US subsidiary against her buying a small US survey firm as an E-2 investor. For L-1, the one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the last three years must be counted honestly: brief US stays for the same employer do not break continuity, but they do not count toward the year, so the qualifying year is reconstructed from her official travel history, boarding records and Canadian payroll to show at least twelve months of employment physically outside the United States. If the arithmetic falls short, the petition waits. For E-2, the target firm's revenue fell by a third after it lost a utility contract. The original information memorandum is not the enterprise she would buy; the last two years of financial statements, the current contract list and her own plan must show a real, operating business that is more than marginal, with her funds irrevocably committed and at least half the ownership in her hands.
Reconstruct, then decide
Order the official travel history and match every entry to a payroll period before anyone drafts an L-1 petition. Ask the seller for current statements and the reason for each material change before anyone values the target. Then compare the routes on what they lead to: L-1A is capped at seven years and L-1B at five, with primarily managerial duties required for L-1A and the Canadian company kept trading; E-2 is renewable while the enterprise qualifies but offers no direct path to permanent residence. An old employment calculation and a pre-loss revenue forecast are the two documents most likely to mislead the file.
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.