IN THIS GUIDE · Reviewing a prior overstay or status violation confidentially with counsel before any job-category drafting begins
Start with the TN eligibility and application overview
Put admissibility ahead of category drafting
Review both the TN category and admissibility. The category analysis concerns citizenship, a listed profession and its credential path, prearranged professional work, and a genuinely temporary proposed entry. An ongoing job is not necessarily disqualifying merely because the contract lacks a fixed end date. The history analysis separately asks whether a prior violation affects a visa, admission or the available procedure. Put the duty list beside the category description and mark who sets priorities, reviews output and can end the assignment. That comparison produces a usable issue list: a credential question, a profession-to-duty question, an employer-control question, or an admissibility question. It prevents a polished letter from concealing that the actual work is outside the selected profession.
Assemble the exact factual record
Gather what proves the dates rather than what anyone remembers: travel history and I-94 records, passports with entry and exit stamps, prior applications and any refusal or removal paperwork, correspondence from any agency, and employment or school records covering the disputed period. Legal consequences can hinge on when a period began and ended, so an approximate recollection is not enough, and a gap you cannot document should be identified now. Make a dated chronology from the records and mark every interval that depends on inference. The first review should identify the one document that settles each disputed date, such as an I-94, a passport stamp or a decision notice. If no primary record exists, identify that weakness before anyone repeats an uncertain date in a support letter.
Keep the review privileged and complete
Discuss the history with counsel, not in a recruiter or HR thread. The employer generally needs to know that timing is uncertain, not the personal details behind it. Tell counsel everything, including facts that seem damaging, because advice built on a partial account is unreliable. Concealing a material fact from an officer is a separate and more serious problem than the original violation. Use a short factual memorandum to separate confirmed facts, missing records and questions for legal advice. That format lets counsel test consistency against prior filings without inviting casual circulation of sensitive history. It also gives the applicant a concrete decision: obtain replacement evidence, defer the request, or proceed only after the risk has been assessed.
Choose the route only after the review
The routes present history differently. A Canadian citizen seeking admission is questioned at a port of entry, a visa applicant is assessed by a consular officer, and a petition route adds a separate approval step before any admission. Counsel can say whether a particular ground applies, whether any relief or waiver process exists in the circumstances, and whether waiting is the better option on these facts. Sequence the work by the controlling constraint, not by the employer’s hoped-for start date. Once counsel identifies the viable mechanism, prepare only the evidence that mechanism needs and keep the duty description consistent across every record. A later change in employer, location or ownership can require a fresh assessment rather than a cosmetic update.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.