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.
When a provincial licence, not a degree, carries a TN engineering file
Hypothetical example: Kwame is a mechanical engineer at a Bradford West Gwillimbury food-equipment manufacturer. His engineering degree was awarded outside North America, and what he relies on professionally in Ontario is his provincial licence rather than the diploma. A U.S. employer wants him under TN. The Engineer entry on the USMCA professional list can be satisfied by a baccalaureate degree or by a state or provincial licence, and which of those a file rests on changes the documents it needs.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Decide which branch of the credential rule the file uses
- Confirm the licence is current, in the right name, and verifiable
- Make the job description match the profession, not the industry
A Mexican citizen with Canadian permanent residence has a route, but a different one
Hypothetical example: Xiomara is a Mexican citizen who holds Canadian permanent residence and works as a greenhouse production supervisor near Bradford West Gwillimbury. Offered a horticultural role in the United States, she assumes her Canadian PR card is what matters. It is not. TN classification depends on citizenship of Canada or Mexico, so her Mexican citizenship is the fact that could open the route, while her Canadian permanent residence contributes nothing to it — and the procedure for a Mexican citizen differs from the one Canadians use. Hypothetical example: A Mexican citizen who restores antique clocks holds Canadian permanent residence and receives a U.S. offer. The decision is whether the offer fits a listed profession and whether Mexican citizenship can be documented, not how long Canadian residence has lasted.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Permanent residence is never the qualifying fact
- The procedure for a Mexican citizen is not the Canadian procedure
- Check the profession, then check the rest of the household
How much is substantial when you are buying an operating business
Hypothetical example: Nkechi runs a produce repacking business connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury and is comparing two U.S. cold-storage operations for purchase — a small one she could buy outright, and a larger one she could only acquire with substantial debt. She assumes the bigger purchase looks more serious. The E-2 substantiality test is proportional rather than absolute, and the comparison it makes is between the amount invested and the cost of the business, which can favour the smaller deal. Hypothetical example: A maker of compostable shipping inserts chooses between an inexpensive established shop and a costly startup. The decision is whether the committed amount is proportionate to the real transaction, not whether it is the largest number.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Substantiality is a proportion, not a threshold
- Asset purchase and share purchase produce different records
- Marginality and control are separate questions from size
A new U.S. office and a specialized-knowledge transferee, not a manager
Hypothetical example: an irrigation and fertigation systems company connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury is opening its first U.S. office and wants to send Dermot, its controls technician, rather than a manager. New-office petitions are usually discussed in managerial terms, but the new-office framework applies to specialized-knowledge transfers as well, with its own evidence and its own shorter initial approval. The combination is less common and tends to be prepared as though it were an ordinary L-1B, which is where it runs into trouble. Hypothetical example: A company that refurbishes laboratory centrifuges sends its diagnostic-systems lead to start a U.S. operation. The decision is whether first-year evidence supports the specialized role and a functioning office, rather than merely a promising market.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- The new-office rules apply to L-1B too, with different emphasis
- Premises and capacity are evidence, not intentions
- The specialized knowledge itself still has to be established
Which route survives an ownership change, and which one does not
Hypothetical example: Aurélie and Bastien co-own a frozen-vegetable packing company connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury and are weighing an L-1A transfer into a U.S. subsidiary against an E-2 investment. They also expect to bring in an outside investor within two years. Most comparisons of these routes stop at the entry requirements. The more useful question for owners planning a future transaction is what happens to each status when the ownership of the business changes, because the two routes fail in different ways. Hypothetical example: A manufacturer of reusable water-filter cartridges expects a minority investor and later spin-off. The decision is which ownership change can be tolerated by the chosen status before transaction documents are signed.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- E-2 depends on treaty nationality continuing to hold
- L-1 depends on a qualifying relationship and on a clock
- Ask the question that actually separates them
Dependants do not automatically follow a change of category
Hypothetical example: Joachim holds TN status as a horticulturist and lives with his wife Saskia and two children, a household connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury. His employer is restructuring and his position may move to an L-1 transfer instead. The family assumes the change is his paperwork alone. Each dependant holds a status in their own right — TD in the present arrangement, L-2 in the proposed one — and a change of the principal's category requires each of them to be dealt with as well. Hypothetical example: A paper-conservation specialist changes from TN to L-1A while a spouse has accepted a U.S. job. The decision is to file each dependant's change on time and confirm the spouse's evidence of work authorization.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Derivative status is separate paperwork, not an attribute of the principal
- What each dependant may do changes with the category
- Age, citizenship and the questions to ask now
When the deciding factor is what you can prove about the money
Hypothetical example: Magda co-owns a produce packing business connected to Bradford West Gwillimbury. Much of her capital originates in a family land sale in another country decades ago, documented only by a short deed and family memory. She is comparing EB-5 with the Gold Card program on cost and speed. EB-5 requires a documented lawful source and path of funds; the current official Gold Card framework instead states government vetting and Form I-140G supporting documents, without publishing a separate source-of-funds-audit condition. Each route must be assessed only under its own current rules. Hypothetical example: An inventor of recyclable insulation panels has liquid assets but incomplete records from an early overseas sale. The decision is whether source evidence can be rebuilt before choosing an investment route or a gift-payment program.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Both routes look at where the money came from
- What the two routes ask the money to do differs completely
- Sequence the decision around the record, not the brochure