Read the general pathway comparison overview
Two advisers may suggest different routes because they are relying on different facts. Compare the proposed U.S. activity and the evidence supporting each route before treating either recommendation as a workable plan.
Write down what each recommendation assumes
Hypothetical example: HR assumes the applicant will transfer within a qualifying group, while a business broker assumes the applicant will buy and direct an independent enterprise. Record who will employ the applicant, who owns the entities and what the applicant will actually do. These are materially different proposals, not interchangeable labels.
Request the records that could confirm the assumptions
For L-1, establish the qualifying relationship, required foreign employment and qualifying U.S. role. For E-2, assess treaty nationality, ownership and control, qualifying committed capital and the enterprise requirements. A shared business goal does not remove either set of requirements. Identify unsupported statements rather than averaging the two recommendations.
Compare consequences after the facts align
Review employer constraints, contemplated ownership changes, funding commitments and each family member’s intended activity. Qualifying E and L spouses may have employment authorization incident to status with appropriate documentation; children do not receive work permission solely from dependent status. Choose the next evidence-gathering step before making commitments based on an unverified route.
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.