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.
Building the document trail for an experience-based TN category
Hypothetical applicant: Elena, connected to Barrie, is pursuing TN classification as a Management Consultant, a profession where the USMCA professional list allows relevant work experience to substitute for a baccalaureate degree in some circumstances. Because her file relies on experience rather than a directly related degree, her document trail has to work harder to show qualifying professional-level activity over time. The decision is whether the file proves both the person and the particular job. Start by naming the exact profession being claimed and making a two-column chart: one column for the credential rule and one for the proposed duties. Hypothetical example: A cartographic analyst has a relevant degree, yet the letter only says she will “support mapping projects.” She needs the employer to identify the professional analysis, tools, and deliverables that make the job match the claimed profession. A degree settles education; it does not describe the work.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Confirm the specific profession's own credential rules first
- Document years of experience with primary records, not summaries
- Separate qualifying consulting experience from generalist business experience
Why Canadian permanent residence does not establish TN eligibility
Hypothetical applicant: Dov holds Canadian permanent residence and lives connected to Barrie, but he is a citizen of a third country. He assumes his Canadian PR card lets him use TN because it was issued by Canada. TN classification under the USMCA depends on citizenship of Canada or Mexico, not on holding permanent residence or another immigration status in either country, so Dov's assumption does not hold. Canadian permanent residence is not treaty citizenship. The key decision is whether the person holds Canadian or Mexican citizenship for TN purposes, not how long they have lived in Canada or what provincial documents they hold. Hypothetical example: A dental-laboratory quality manager has Canadian permanent residence and a Canadian professional licence, but holds only Brazilian citizenship. The licence may support competence, yet it does not supply the nationality condition for TN.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Citizenship, not residence, is the USMCA test
- Check what Dov's own citizenship actually supports
- Do not let one family member's status be assumed for another
Why a passive rental-style investment does not fit E-2
Hypothetical applicant: Grace, connected to Barrie, inherited a small U.S. rental duplex and considers using it as her E-2 investment while managing it long-distance through a property manager. E-2 requires an investor to actually develop and direct a real, active commercial enterprise, and a passively held rental property managed by someone else generally does not meet that standard. The investor must decide how much capital can be placed into the business without an unrestricted ability to pull it back, while still keeping the enterprise commercially credible. Hypothetical example: A recycled-textile processor plans to keep most funds in a personal account until an application is approved. That reserve may be prudent personally, but it may leave the business without the committed, loss-exposed investment required for the case.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- E-2 requires active development and direction, not passive ownership
- Understand the marginality doctrine
- Consider what an active alternative would look like
Evidentiary differences for a first-year U.S. office transfer
Hypothetical applicant: Farid's company, connected to Barrie, is forming a new U.S. subsidiary and wants to send him as the first L-1A manager before the U.S. office has any other staff. New-office petitions are evaluated differently from transfers into an already operating U.S. entity, with a shorter initial approval period and evidence focused on whether the new operation will actually be able to support the proposed role within a year. A new-office plan should be assessed as a one-year operating story, not as an address and a proposed job title. Hypothetical example: A flood-control equipment supplier leases a small unit and names its head of engineering as U.S. president, but has no customer pipeline or staffing model. The lease helps prove premises; it does not by itself show that the person will move into a qualifying managerial, executive, or specialized-knowledge role as the office develops.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Show sufficient physical premises are secured
- Build a business plan tied to Farid's proposed role, not just company growth
- Understand the one-year initial period and what extension requires
- Confirm the foreign entity's financial ability to support the new office
Choosing between an intracompany transfer and a treaty investment structure
Hypothetical applicant: Noor has run a Canadian consulting company connected to Barrie for fourteen months and is deciding between transferring herself to a new U.S. subsidiary under L-1A, or instead directly investing in a new U.S. company as an E-2 treaty investor. The two routes rest on different facts, and Noor's actual situation, not a general preference, should decide which is worth pursuing. The choice depends on the business facts, not which label sounds more flexible. L-1 turns on an existing qualifying organizational relationship and the transferee’s eligible overseas employment; E-2 turns on treaty nationality, a real non-marginal enterprise, capital exposed to loss, and investor direction. Hypothetical example: A digital-archiving company owner wants to buy into an unrelated American firm and relocate its chief operating officer. The purchase may create an investment question, while the lack of an established related-company relationship may defeat an L-1 plan.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- L-1 depends on corporate affiliation and prior employment, not investment size
- E-2 depends on treaty nationality and a substantial at-risk investment, not corporate history
- Match the route to what Noor actually has, not what sounds more prestigious
Work authorization differs by category for accompanying spouses
Hypothetical family: within the Okafor household, connected to Barrie, one adult holds TN status and a close relative holds L-1 status, and the two households are comparing what each accompanying spouse can actually do. The rules are different by category: a TD spouse under TN has no independent work authorization, while a qualifying E-2 or L-2 spouse is generally employment-authorized incident to status itself under current USCIS policy. The core decision is whose status will support the household and what each family member may do under that status. Hypothetical example: A marine-biology researcher is deciding between a professional work classification and an investor route while her spouse plans to accept a teaching position. The household should compare the spouse’s actual work authorization under each option before signing a lease or declining the job offer.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- TD spouses cannot work, regardless of a promised remote job
- E-2 and L-2 spouses are employment-authorized incident to status
- Children never receive work authorization, regardless of category
Comparing an operating-business EB-5 case with a Gold Card gift-based filing
Hypothetical applicants: the Petrov household, connected to Barrie, runs a growing operating company capable of creating jobs, while the Lindqvist household holds liquid personal wealth and no interest in operating a U.S. business. The two households illustrate different fits: EB-5 is built around job creation and a defined regulatory framework with TEA, rural and infrastructure set-asides, while the Gold Card program is publicly described as a gift-and-fee pathway routed through existing EB-1 or EB-2 categories, without a job-creation requirement described in the same way. The first decision is whether the person is willing to place capital in a job-creating enterprise exposed to loss, or is evaluating the separate gift-payment program under its official current terms. Hypothetical example: A geothermal-drilling contractor wants a route that keeps business capital recoverable while also seeking permanent residence. EB-5 cannot be described as a protected deposit: capital must be at risk and job creation is central. A Gold Card payment, if available under current terms, has a different recipient and purpose.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- EB-5 rests on a specific statutory and regulatory framework
- The Gold Card is described as newer and administratively implemented
- Both paths still require lawful source of funds and admissibility