Read it.
Use it.
Focused guides for the questions that need more than a quick answer. Each includes a worksheet to prepare your next conversation.
Guides for your next decision.
Build a TN employer evidence brief before drafting the letter
Read & prepare Applicant planningKeep an L-1A new-office record from approval to extension
Read & prepare Applicant planningCompare the E-2 evidence for a startup and a business purchase
Read & prepare U.S. destination planningCanadian RN planning for New York State
Read & prepare U.S. destination planningCanadian RN planning for California
Read & prepareSeven decisions, answered before you prepare.
Turn a proposed TN role into a list of claims that can be verified
Before the employer letter is drafted, list the individual claims the file needs to establish: citizenship, an identified professional position, and the specific qualification the listed profession requires. Give each claim a record and a named person who can verify it. That produces a genuinely useful review file without making the job sound more favourable than it actually is. The decision to make before collecting more paper is whether the actual position can be described accurately as a listed professional engagement for an independent employer. If that answer is uncertain, solve it before paying for translations or setting travel. Hypothetical example: an environmental-restoration economist is offered a temporary habitat-damage valuation assignment, but the employer’s draft calls her a project coordinator. She should ask for the economic analysis deliverables, supervision, and payment terms, then decide whether the true duties support the proposed category rather than editing the duties toward a preferred title.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Start with whatever duty is unclear
- Keep employer facts and credential facts apart
- Resolve conflicts before anyone signs
Keep citizenship and Canadian status as two separate facts
A Canadian permanent resident card establishes Canadian status, not Canadian citizenship, and a Victoria household can hold several citizenships and face different U.S. options even while sharing an address. Prepare the actual passports, current status, and proposed activities before deciding which category or process might apply. The practical decision is whose status creates a route today and whose does not. Do not turn a citizenship application, a spouse’s passport, or a shared business into a substitute for the particular person’s eligibility. Hypothetical example: a laser-safety officer holds Canadian permanent residence and French citizenship, while her spouse is Canadian and may accept a U.S. role. The couple should first determine whether the officer has an independent treaty or employment option, then plan any dependent status without misdescribing her Canadian PR as citizenship.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Record what has actually happened, not what is expected
- Assess the opportunity under its own category's rules
- Track the applicable process and any Canadian obligations
Confirm what stage a transaction is actually at before calling it an E-2 investment
A funding balance, a conditional loan approval, and a signed purchase agreement describe different stages of the same deal, so map the actual proposed commitment and its conditions before deciding what the record establishes. The investment and the operating enterprise need to be reviewed together, with nationality and control kept clearly visible throughout. The central commercial decision is whether the deal can be structured so the investor truly controls a viable treaty enterprise while capital is committed beyond easy recovery. Hypothetical example: a bicycle-dynamo repair workshop is offered for sale with a refundable reservation fee and a seller who will retain veto rights over hiring. The buyer must decide whether to renegotiate ownership and payment terms or abandon the E-2 plan; calling the reservation an investment does not solve either control or risk.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Ask what happens if a condition is not met
- Trace the source and identify what secures it
- Explain the enterprise beyond the purchase price
Keep the new-office plan separate from the operation that later develops
For an L-1A new office, the initial proposal has to explain an operation capable of supporting a managerial or executive role within one year of approval, and that submitted plan should stay on file exactly as it was, with actual developments recorded separately. Extension preparation needs evidence of what the business actually did, not only an updated version of the original forecast. The key decision is whether the company can document a one-year path from a startup deployment to a role that is principally managerial or executive. Hypothetical example: a seismic-data visualization firm has a signed U.S. lease and a transfer candidate, but its only planned employee is a freelance designer. It must decide whether to fund and schedule the staff and functions that support management or postpone the transfer; a registered entity and a lease alone do not answer the role question.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe the resources behind the launch
- Record a material change as soon as it happens
- Build the extension case from what actually happened
Compare a company expansion and a personal business purchase without blending the facts
An L-1 transfer and an E-2 investment should be compared using the actual arrangement each would require, and one proposal's employment history should never be combined with another proposal's ownership or funding as though the result were a single established option. Start with two complete, separate descriptions, then identify what is still unanswered in each. Choose only after writing two non-interchangeable fact patterns. The L-1 path asks whether related entities, past qualifying employment, and the U.S. role are established; E-2 asks whether a treaty investor controls a real enterprise with capital truly committed and exposed to loss. Hypothetical example: a commercial-beekeeping equipment distributor could transfer its general manager to an affiliated U.S. entity or have her buy an unrelated supplier. The owners must decide whether they are preserving a corporate transfer or creating an investor-owned business, because one set of documents cannot prove both arrangements.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Map the entities for each proposal separately
- Describe what the applicant would actually do under each option
- Compare the commitments and the household consequences
Build the household plan around each person's own activity
A shared household move can still involve different employment, study, and arrival plans for each person, so record everyone's citizenship, relationship, age, and intended activity before assuming one person's status automatically covers the family. The principal applicant's opportunity is a starting point for the household plan, not a complete answer to it. The household decision is whether each person’s intended work, study, travel, and age can be accommodated by the principal’s actual category, rather than by a hoped-for outcome. Hypothetical example: an archival-digitization specialist receives an L-1 transfer, her spouse wants to open a weekend catering venture, and their eighteen-year-old expects paid laboratory work. They need three separate activity reviews: the spouse’s derivative work authorization, the child’s proposed employment, and the principal’s qualifying transfer, not one general family answer.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Treat remote work as work
- Separate study from employment and age-related limits
- Identify the consequence if a date changes
Separate a commercial investment from a Gold Card gift
EB-5 and Gold Card describe genuinely different financial and legal frameworks. EB-5 concerns qualifying capital and required job creation, while the official Gold Card FAQ describes a gift-based process leading to EB-1 or EB-2 permanent residence for eligible successful applicants, subject to admissibility and visa availability. Compare the actual requirements rather than treating two dollar figures as prices for the same outcome. The decision is not which headline price is easier to pay, but which framework matches the actual source of funds, risk tolerance, evidence, and immigration eligibility. Hypothetical example: a modular-aquarium-system founder has sale proceeds and is offered both a regional-center investment and a Gold Card pathway. She must decide whether she is willing to place capital under commercial risk with job evidence or make a government-directed gift if eligible; neither option becomes suitable simply because the funds are liquid.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Ask what the money is actually meant to do
- Check the family total and individual eligibility together
- Keep the financial and immigration reviews independent