IN THIS GUIDE · An equity stake that may turn a job into self-employment
Start with the TN eligibility and application overview
TN requires an employer, and self-employment is not permitted
The classification rests on prearranged professional employment with a U.S. employer. Working for oneself in the United States is outside what TN provides, and that limitation is not satisfied by the existence of a company name on a payslip. Where an applicant owns part of the entity that would employ him, the question becomes whether he is genuinely an employee of a business controlled by others, or effectively working for himself through a corporate structure. That is a factual assessment about control rather than a bright line, and it is made on the actual shareholding, the governance arrangements and who can hire and dismiss him. Begin by producing a control map, not merely a share percentage. It should identify who appoints directors, who approves compensation, who can end the employment relationship, and whether any side agreement changes those answers. That map lets the company decide whether the role can safely remain an employee role or whether another route needs consideration.
Disclose the stake early rather than being asked about it
The worst version of this situation is not a difficult ownership structure; it is an undisclosed one. Share registers, corporate filings and shareholder agreements are discoverable, and an applicant who omitted an interest has a credibility problem on top of a legal one. Damien should put the shareholding in front of counsel at the outset, along with the shareholders' agreement, any option or vesting arrangement, and the composition of the board. It is far easier to design a workable arrangement while the offer is still being negotiated than to explain an existing one after the fact. The record should distinguish a contemplated award from an issued interest. Board consents, option documents and the cap table should be dated and reconciled. An unexplained difference between an offer email and the signed corporate record is avoidable evidence of uncertainty, particularly when the support letter presents a simpler picture than the governing documents.
Small, passive and non-controlling is a different fact pattern
Not every interest creates a problem. A modest, passive holding in a company controlled by others, with no board seat, no veto rights and no ability to determine his own employment, describes an employee who happens to own shares. A stake carrying control — through voting arrangements, a shareholders' agreement, or the practical reality that no one else can remove him — describes something closer to self-employment. Between those poles lies a range of arrangements that require an actual assessment. The relevant documents are the shareholders' agreement and the constating documents, not the percentage alone. Passive ownership needs proof of its passivity. Minutes showing independent directors, a manager with real authority to supervise the employee, and limits on voting or veto rights may settle questions that a percentage cannot. Conversely, a low percentage coupled with a personal veto can change the assessment, so the review must read the rights attached to the shares.
The rest of the TN framework does not bend around this
Whatever the ownership analysis concludes, the ordinary requirements continue to apply. Damien must be a citizen of Canada or Mexico; permanent residence is not a substitute. The position must be one of the professions on the USMCA list and he must hold that profession's own degree, licence or experience credential. The employment must be prearranged and professional in nature. A Canadian citizen presents the request at a port of entry or through an employer-filed Form I-129, with no visa stamp issued. A spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one may hold TD, may study, and may not work. Eligibility also depends on a specific professional position and the applicant’s matching credentials. TN is available solely to citizens of Canada or Mexico. A Canadian citizen may seek admission at a border inspection location or preclearance, while a U.S. employer may instead submit Form I-129 to USCIS; neither method permits the applicant to perform work on the applicant’s own account in the United States.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.