Choose from evidence—not assumptions
Compare an existing cross-border trade strategy with an investment-led U.S. enterprise strategy before committing funds, restructuring ownership or preparing a case.
Side-by-side comparison
This table is general educational information, not an eligibility determination.
Substantial, continuing qualifying international trade
Substantial investment in a real and operating U.S. enterprise
No fixed investment threshold; trade is the central test
No universal fixed amount; investment must be substantial for the enterprise
Usually relies on an established flow of qualifying trade
May involve a new enterprise, acquisition, franchise or qualifying expansion
More than 50% of international trade must be U.S.–treaty country trade
No corresponding principal-trade percentage test
Enterprise must have qualifying treaty-country nationality
Investment enterprise must have qualifying treaty-country nationality
Treaty trader, executive, supervisor or qualifying essential employee
Investor developing and directing the enterprise, or qualifying employee
Transactions, invoices, contracts, payments, shipping or service delivery
Investment trail, source of funds, commitments, operations and business viability
Frequently asked questions
The correct route depends on the complete nationality, ownership, trade, investment and immigration record.
Potentially, depending on the nationality, ownership, trade history, investment and applicant role. The stronger route must be determined from the complete facts.
Not necessarily. E-1 substitutes a demanding trade record for the investment analysis. The enterprise must still demonstrate substantial, continuing and principally qualifying trade.
Plans can provide context, but an E-1 analysis generally depends heavily on existing qualifying trade. Projections alone should not be treated as an established E-1 record.
Transactions should reflect genuine commercial activity. Artificial or poorly documented activity can create serious credibility and legal concerns.