No. Ownership establishes the corporate relationship between the two entities but says nothing about capacity. The petition must show that the U.S. position involves directing the organization, setting goals and policies and exercising wide discretion, with others performing the operational work.
Two different questions, proved by two different documents
Petitions for owner-executives fail for a predictable reason: the file proves the wrong thing thoroughly. Share registers, incorporation certificates and an acquisition agreement establish that the Hope company and the U.S. company are parent and subsidiary, which is a necessary element and an easy one.
The capacity question is separate and is proved by evidence about work, not ownership. What the founder decides, what he delegates, who reports to him, what he signs, how his week divides between recovery calls and direction. A one-person U.S.
operation is the difficult case, because an executive who directs an organization needs an organization to direct. The workable answers are to file after the U.S. business has hired, to file for a role that genuinely sits above a general manager, or to accept that the honest current description is operational and to plan accordingly rather than dress it up.
Hypothetical example: a Hope commercial-laundry group buys a small U.S. plant and wants its founder to supervise the conversion. The first review maps the ownership chain separately from the job chart: share records settle the qualifying relationship, while staffing records and duty allocation settle executive capacity.
If the founder will run machines and cover shifts because the plant has no supervisors, the role may be operational despite the title. L-1A also requires qualifying employment with the related foreign organization for a continuous twelve-month period during the relevant three-year lookback, and total L-1A stay is capped at seven years.