Read the general pathway comparison overview
Magog applicants should assess a qualifying company transfer and a treaty investment using the evidence each arrangement actually requires. The reader must decide the order of two events: closing the purchase of the U.S. business and applying for the status that lets someone run it. E-2 needs the funds already committed, so the purchase comes first or sits in a visa-contingent escrow; L-1 needs the acquired business to be a qualifying affiliate before anyone can be transferred to it.
Read the transfer history
L-1 requires qualifying entities, foreign service and managerial/executive or specialized-knowledge duties. A recent promotion should not rewrite earlier work, and account access does not establish expertise by itself.
Read the investment commitments
E-2 requires at least 50% relevant national enterprise ownership, direction, substantial at-risk capital with lawful source/path and a real nonmarginal business. Several legitimate accounts need a clear explanation rather than an invented single-account requirement.
Use the effective arrangement
Identify current duties, rights and funds. Do not convert a planned promotion or an intermediary transfer into a completed eligibility fact merely to simplify the proposal.
Sequence the purchase and the application deliberately
Hypothetical example: a Magog family that operates two country inns agrees to buy a twelve-room inn in northern Vermont and wants the eldest son, who has managed one Québec property for three years, to run it. Under E-2, the funds must be irrevocably committed before the application: either the sale closes and the money is spent, or it is placed in an escrow that releases only when the visa is granted and returns to the buyers if it is refused. Signing an offer conditional on financing commits nothing and supports nothing. Under L-1A, the sequence reverses: the Vermont inn must first be owned by the same Québec company, or by the same owners in the same proportions, so that it is a qualifying affiliate; only then can the son be petitioned as a manager with one continuous year abroad. If the family buys the inn in the son’s personal name to simplify the mortgage, they destroy the L-1 relationship and complicate the E-2 ownership count in one stroke.
What the closing documents must show for each route
For E-2, the purchase agreement, wire confirmations and escrow terms demonstrate commitment and at-risk capital; the inn’s occupancy records and a staffing plan show the business is real and not marginal; the share register shows Canadian nationals holding at least half. For L-1A, the deciding documents are the corporate ownership chart linking the Vermont entity to the Québec company, the son’s payroll and duties history, and a description of what he will manage, since an inn with three housekeepers may not supply subordinates whose work is professional or managerial. The family should also note that L-1A stops at seven years while E-2 renews with the business but leads nowhere permanent by itself.
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.