Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak plant supervisor is asked to help run the U.S. operation his employer is setting up. He owns nothing, so he assumes the investment route is closed to him and that only a company transfer is possible. That is not quite right. Treaty status is available to certain employees of a treaty enterprise as well as to the investor who funds it, and the two possibilities are tested in very different ways.
Know what an employee route asks for
An employee may qualify for treaty status where the enterprise and employee have the same required treaty nationality and the position is executive or supervisory, or involves skills essential to the enterprise's operations. Essential skills are judged on the specific need: proven expertise, local availability, the training required, and whether the need is long-term or limited to start-up. The underlying E-2 enterprise must also rest on substantial capital irrevocably committed and at risk, be real, operating and non-marginal, and be developed and directed by treaty nationals through ownership or control. This employee classification creates no direct route to permanent residence.
Compare it with what a transfer asks for
A company transfer asks different questions: whether the entities have a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship, whether the employee has one continuous year of full-time qualifying employment abroad within the preceding three years, and whether the U.S. role is primarily managerial or executive or requires specialized knowledge of the company's own processes. Nationality is irrelevant. L-1A is capped at seven years and L-1B at five. If the U.S. operation is a new office, the initial approval is limited to one year and the petitioner must secure sufficient premises and show capacity to support the qualifying role. A long-serving employee may satisfy the transfer rules while a recent hire may fit only the treaty-employee analysis; check both against the same facts.
Have the company decide its structure before the individual decides his route
Both routes depend on facts the employer controls. Treaty status depends on who owns the U.S. enterprise and in what proportion, since at least half must be held by nationals of the treaty country. A transfer depends on whether the U.S. entity is a subsidiary, branch or affiliate of the employer, and on both being actively doing business. Those are corporate decisions, usually taken for tax or commercial reasons, and once taken they narrow the individual's options considerably. Ask the company to settle the ownership and the corporate relationship first, then test each candidate employee against whichever rule the structure has actually made available.
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.