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.
A customer’s site instructions should be connected to the employer’s offer
When work is performed for a customer, explain how the offer and site scope describe the same assignment. The customer may know the daily tasks while the employer controls employment terms. A TN file needs an accurate account of both, with unresolved differences identified. Hypothetical example: A hydrologist's employer offers a water-quality role, while the customer expects environmental permitting support and has not confirmed the final site. The reader must decide whether the records describe one definite professional assignment or a proposal that needs clarification. Start with a responsibility table showing who can verify employment, duties, worksite, supervision, and duration. That table becomes the checklist for resolving differences before a TN process is selected. The deciding next step is to reconcile the current scope before anyone signs a support letter. A clear factual record is more valuable than a polished package built around an assignment that may still change.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify what each party can confirm
- Keep professional qualification separate from the site label
- Prepare records without hiding differences
Nationality should be recorded for the worker, not inferred from the customer
A Canadian employer, a U.S. customer and a Canadian address do not establish the worker’s citizenship. Record the applicant’s actual nationality and supporting documents before assuming a professional-work route. Canadian permanent residence alone is not TN citizenship. Hypothetical example: A Canadian permanent resident who is also a citizen of Chile is offered a professional role by a U.S. engineering firm. The immediate decision is not whether Canadian residence helps; it is which nationality-based route, if any, the person can actually use. Build a one-page identity record with citizenship evidence, permanent-residence document, employer details, and the proposed activity. That avoids letting the address or customer relationship answer the wrong question. For an eligible Canadian citizen, the process may involve requesting TN classification at admission or preflight inspection, or an employer filing Form I-129 submitted to USCIS when that route is suitable. The classification cannot be used for self-employment through a U.S. enterprise the applicant solely owns or controls.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the person whose eligibility is being assessed
- Read the employment arrangement without replacing the nationality test
- Consider alternatives from the real facts
Franchise management terms should show what the investor can actually direct
A franchise agreement may reserve important decisions to the franchisor while leaving others to the operator. Describe those rights precisely when assessing development and direction for E-2. Neither the franchise label nor a majority shareholding alone explains the complete arrangement. Hypothetical example: A treaty-national owner of a bicycle-rental business will buy a branded U.S. location, but the franchisor may veto the manager and restrict seasonal pricing. The decision is whether the retained rights still show that the investor can develop and direct the actual enterprise. Create a decision-rights table from the executed agreement, listing who controls staffing, operating hours, suppliers, marketing, banking, and significant spending. Use the table to test the plan, not to assume a label decides it.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the decisions reserved to each party
- Connect authority with the investment and enterprise
- Document approval and payment conditions
- Check nationality and the funding chain
Outsourced work needs evidence of what the new office will actually control
A new office may plan to use contractors, but a contractor list does not by itself explain the transferee’s managerial or executive role. Show the work purchased, the authority retained and the resources supporting the operation. Proposed outsourcing should remain labelled as proposed until the arrangement exists. Hypothetical example: A foreign company that repairs industrial sensors plans a U.S. launch using an outsourced warehouse and independent sales agents, while its proposed transferee will set budgets and vendor policy. The decision is whether the documented operation can support a managerial or executive role within one year, not whether the company can imagine contractors. Build an operating matrix that distinguishes signed resources from forecasts and shows which functions the transferee will direct. That matrix should guide the new-office presentation. The transferee must also have the required qualifying employment abroad, and L-1A time is subject to a seven-year maximum. Those transfer facts should be documented separately from the proposed U.S. operating model.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Connect the services to the operating plan
- Explain the applicant’s managerial role
- Maintain the qualifying transfer evidence
A decision-maker may have authority without owning the company
Employment authority and ownership rights can point to different evidence for L-1 and E-2. Identify how the applicant obtained authority and what limits it. Do not assume the person who signs contracts is the investor or that an owner necessarily performs a qualifying managerial role. Hypothetical example: A Canadian commercial-laundry director is offered an L-1 transfer and separately considers acquiring half of a U.S. distributor with a treaty-national partner. The decision is whether the current facts support a qualifying transfer, an investor case, neither, or sequential plans that must remain distinct. Create two side-by-side fact lists: entity relationship and foreign employment for L-1; nationality, ownership, funds, commitment, and operating authority for E-2. Do not let the same commercial story blur the separate legal conditions. If an L-1A transfer is chosen, its maximum stay is seven years; L-1B is limited to five years. That separate time horizon can matter when a business purchase is expected to develop more slowly than the transfer plan.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe the authority and its source
- Apply the transfer and investor frameworks separately
- Identify what would change under each proposal
A relative who funds the move may have a different immigration plan
Paying for travel, investment or program charges does not place the payer in the principal’s dependent category. Identify each person’s relationship, intended activity and basis for entering or residing in the United States. A family budget should not be used as the applicant list. Hypothetical example: A culinary-equipment entrepreneur will become the principal applicant, while a retired aunt will provide childcare and expects to help manage supplier calls from the United States. The decision is whether each relative has a lawful basis for the activity actually planned. Make a household activity chart with immigration relationship, funds supplied, intended location, tasks, school plans, and work expectations. A family budget may be shared, but immigration roles and permissions are individual. Before booking travel, decide whether each proposed task is study, family support, or work requiring its own authorization. That one decision prevents a household plan from turning an informal helping role into an immigration problem.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- List financial and immigration roles separately
- Assess activities under the actual classification
- Plan practical support after identifying legal options
A private loan and a government gift should not be described with the same label
Funds may reach an applicant through a private borrowing arrangement and later be used for a program payment. Document both events accurately. The official program’s use of the word gift does not erase the applicant’s repayment obligation to a relative or lender. Hypothetical example: A specialty-pharmaceutical distributor can fund either a qualifying EB-5 project or a Gold Card payment, but its owner expects repayment from a family loan in both scenarios. The decision is not which label sounds better; it is whether the facts meet the distinct requirements and whether the private debt can be documented accurately. Use separate ledgers for loan proceeds, EB-5 capital, project risk, and any payment by the applicant to the U.S. government. Do not allow the government-gift terminology to obscure a private repayment obligation.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe the private funding terms as they exist
- Assess EB-5 capital under its own requirements
- Use the official Gold Card sequence distinctly
- Compare the current investment and gift requirements
- Keep the procedural obligations distinct