Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: Élodie owns sixty per cent of a Richmond County ferry and workboat operator, her brother owns the remaining forty, and they want an American chartering arm in Maine. Both an intracompany transfer and a treaty investor application look plausible on the same facts, and advisers have suggested each. The useful comparison is not which is easier to obtain but what each one does to the family in year six, when the business is established and the children are older.
What the same shareholding means to each category
For a transfer, the shareholding matters only insofar as it creates a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship between the Canadian company and the new American one, with both actively doing business; who owns how much of the Canadian company is otherwise beside the point. For a treaty investor application it is central, because the American enterprise must be at least half owned by treaty nationals traced to individuals, and Élodie must be coming to develop and direct it. Her sixty per cent supports control comfortably. If a prospective American partner were later given a majority, the investor route would close while the transfer route would be unaffected.
Ceilings, renewals and what happens when they run out
Time in the managerial or executive transfer category is capped at seven years, and specialised-knowledge transfers at five, with time already spent in the United States counting toward the total. Treaty investor status has no equivalent ceiling and can be renewed for as long as the enterprise continues to qualify, which sounds like an advantage until the other half of the rule is stated: it provides no direct path to permanent residence. A family that intends to settle is therefore comparing a route with a hard stop against a route with no natural end and no destination, and the answer depends entirely on what they want at the far side.
Questions to put to an American lawyer before the entity is formed
Ask how the proposed corporate structure reads under each category, since one entity cannot be optimised for both without deliberate drafting. Ask what evidence the new American company will be able to produce a year from now, because a transfer opened as a new office is approved for one year and re-examined. Ask what the family's settlement intentions imply, given that an immigrant category has its own requirements decided on its own merits and is never automatic. Ask what happens to Élodie's brother, who may want to spend time there without qualifying under either route. And ask which structure the chartering customers themselves will expect to contract with.
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.