Choose L-1 or E-2 from the business facts

L-1 and E-2 can both appear in a US expansion discussion, yet they solve different legal problems. L-1 requires qualifying organizations and a transferee who performed qualifying foreign work for the required continuous period. The US job must be executive, managerial, or specialized-knowledge work, and total L time is limited. E-2 instead centres on treaty nationality, a genuine US enterprise, capital placed into commercial risk in proportion to the business, and the investor’s ability to develop and direct it. It does not require a parent-subsidiary relationship or the employee’s foreign qualifying year. Neither classification itself promises permanent residence. Compare ownership, the foreign company’s history, the individual’s role, the source and deployment of money, staffing plans, and the desired time horizon. Select the route that the evidence actually supports rather than reorganizing facts to fit a preferred label. A comparison table can be useful if it stays factual: foreign employer relationship, applicant’s qualifying work history, ownership of the US business, capital source, risk exposure, expected role, staffing model, and long-term objective. Mark which facts are established and which are only prospective. This can reveal that neither category is ready yet, or that an ordinary employment route deserves separate consideration. It is better to delay a filing for missing evidence than to stretch a business decision into a classification that the record cannot sustain. The better route is the one supported by truthful records, even when its practical timetable is less convenient. Review the current official source again immediately before a consequential filing or payment. Record any changed fact, the supporting document, and the date it was confirmed, then revise the plan consistently. Keep the final version with the date and person who approved it for use.