Read the general pathway comparison overview
Suppose a Russell applicant can transfer through an existing employer or establish a separate venture with landlord assistance. The two proposals place different obligations on the applicant. Identify which business will employ them and which enterprise they would own and direct.
Test the proposed transfer
L-1 requires a qualifying corporate relationship, foreign employment and US managerial/executive or specialized-knowledge capacity. A third-party tenant business does not become part of the employer group because the applicant wants to work there. L-1 requires a continuous qualifying foreign year within the relevant three years and continuing U.S. and foreign business through the qualifying group.
Test the investor proposal
E-2 requires treaty nationality, including at least 50% relevant national ownership of the enterprise, substantial at-risk qualifying funds with lawful source and path, and a real nonmarginal business the investor develops and directs. A landlord’s willingness to reimburse improvements does not establish those conditions. The investor must also intend to depart when E status ends.
Account for obligations under both offers
Review employment, lease and financing agreements before assuming the proposals can be combined. Permission under one category is not blanket authority to perform work in the other business. Ask how a delayed decision affects each actual commitment.
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.