There is no universal answer based solely on the transaction label. Assess how the actual structure establishes qualifying ownership, control, investment and an operating enterprise. Commercial liabilities, licences and contract transfers also need appropriate advice. Choose a supported arrangement rather than assuming one legal form guarantees immigration eligibility.
Compare the post-closing business
Identify what the applicant will own and direct under each proposal and what must happen before operations can continue. Explain any excluded assets or retained seller interests. The immigration analysis should use the final arrangement, not an earlier purchase concept that was abandoned.
Begin with a closing-and-control chart: investor nationality, final owners, percentage interests, decision rights, purchase conditions and the activities the investor will direct. The first review should answer whether the deal creates an active enterprise under the investor's direction, not just whether money can be transferred. Signed agreements, corporate records and operating responsibilities settle the core facts.
Hypothetical example: A Canadian buyer plans to acquire a custom prosthetics studio in Oregon but a former owner will retain veto rights over hiring, pricing and supplier contracts for three years. The buyer may have to decide whether those rights leave sufficient practical control. Trouble arises when a nominal majority is presented without addressing contractual limits that govern the actual business.
Obtain final governance documents before characterizing control. The review should list vetoes, management agreements, financing covenants and side letters that affect daily authority. Ignoring those provisions can make a majority percentage misleading.
The investor should know which contractual right, if any, needs to be amended before proceeding.