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.
Multiple work locations should still describe one coherent professional assignment
A Carignan applicant may receive an offer involving several facilities. Organize the actual employer, duties and locations before preparing TN evidence. A list of addresses does not explain the professional activity, and a familiar job title does not show who has arranged the work. A first review should produce a single duty-and-employer map: who signs the offer, who pays the professional, where services occur, and whether each task fits the named USMCA profession. The record that usually resolves uncertainty is the signed employer letter supported by contracts or assignment schedules, not a travel itinerary. Canadian applicants may request TN classification at inspection or preclearance, or an employer can seek an I-129 classification request with USCIS; Mexican applicants generally need a TN visa. The route is for temporary prearranged professional employment, not self-directed U.S. business activity. Hypothetical example: a wildlife economist has one offer letter from a consultancy but spends two days each week at a client’s facility. The decision is whether the consultancy remains the actual employer and whether the letter explains the client work; the service agreement and payroll records provide the needed context.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the employer and the work at each location
- Apply the profession’s own qualifications
- Review changes before relying on the original letter
A renewed Canadian resident card does not itself change U.S. visa eligibility
A Carignan resident renewing Canadian documents should separate that administrative process from a U.S. visa assessment. The document can help explain the person’s situation in Canada; it does not by itself supply a nationality or a qualifying U.S. job. The first review should separate three records: the passport that proves present nationality, the Canadian document that records residence status, and the U.S. evidence required by the chosen route. That sequence prevents a residence card from being asked to prove a fact it cannot prove. Hypothetical example: a Japanese citizen with Canadian permanent residence is offered a U.S. engineering role and assumes the PR card permits TN processing. The decision is whether another available category fits the person’s citizenship and job; the passport, offer, and employer structure settle that assessment before travel plans are made. Use this separation when choosing timing. A pending Canadian renewal may require planning around re-entry, but it does not pause or extend a U.S. offer. Ask the U.S. employer which dates are flexible only after the correct category and travel-document needs have been identified. The reader must decide which fact needs proof first: nationality, Canadian residence, or the conditions of the U.S. route. Start with the document that legally fixes the disputed fact, then collect only the supporting records that follow from that choice. Hypothetical example: a South Korean citizen with Canadian permanent residence receives an offer as an acoustic-levitation materials engineer. The immediate decision is not whether the PR card is current; it is whether the passport’s nationality and the employer’s actual role fit an available U.S. category. The passport, detailed offer, and corporate records settle separate points.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- State the citizenship independently
- Compare the facts relevant to another pathway
- Keep travel-document questions visible
Hiring a bookkeeper does not answer who develops and directs the E-2 business
A Carignan investor may delegate bookkeeping, payroll or routine administration while retaining business decisions. Describe those responsibilities accurately. Outsourcing a task neither automatically removes investor control nor proves that the applicant has a qualifying directing role. A first review should create two separate lists: commitments that put funds beyond the investor’s control and records showing how the investor will direct the operation. A bank balance, a contractor agreement, or a delegation clause may answer only one of those questions. Sequence the source-of-funds trail before relying on a forecast, then test the purchase, lease, escrow, and refund terms to see whether capital is truly exposed to business loss. Hypothetical example: the owner of a company making climbing-wall safety panels hires an operations firm but keeps authority over pricing, suppliers, and expansion. The decision is whether the agreements show genuine direction rather than passive ownership; the management contract and signed decision authorities are more useful than a generic organizational chart. The same review should identify the enterprise’s ownership before accepting the investment. A control claim should be reconciled with share records, voting rights, and any operating agreement, because a person who funds an enterprise may not necessarily direct it.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe the applicant’s decisions
- Retain the other investment conditions
- Separate administrative evidence from eligibility
A plan to hire a manager is different from a plan that supports the transferee as manager
For a Carignan company opening U.S. operations, a business plan may name several future hires. Explain which role belongs to the proposed transferee and who will perform the operating work. A staffing table should show actual duties and timing rather than make every future position sound managerial. New-office treatment concerns a U.S. organization doing business for less than one year. A first review should produce a dated operating plan: premises, start-up funding, customers, staff, and the transferee’s own duties during the first year. The deciding record is often the combination of lease rights, hiring sequence, and budget, because it shows whether the U.S. organization can support the claimed role rather than merely intend to do so. Hypothetical example: a manufacturer of precision greenhouse vents leases a small U.S. workshop and proposes transferring its Canadian production manager before the first technician is hired. The decision is whether the one-year plan credibly moves operating work to staff while leaving the transferee in a qualifying capacity; the staffing timeline and signed premises agreement matter more than the job title alone.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the transferee’s role in the planned structure
- Keep the foreign year and premises in the evidence
- Do not reuse the same role test for L-1B
A shared franchise brand is not the same as a qualifying corporate relationship
Two businesses using the same brand may have unrelated owners. A Carignan operator comparing L and E-2 should trace the actual companies and investment rather than treating a common franchise name as a ready-made intracompany transfer. Make the route decision in a fixed order. For an L case, verify the qualifying company relationship and the employee’s uninterrupted qualifying year abroad during the three-year lookback before assessing the proposed managerial, executive, or specialized-knowledge role. L-1A time is ordinarily limited to seven years and L-1B time to five years. For E-2, test treaty nationality, qualifying control, capital committed beyond the investor’s unilateral reach and exposed to loss, and a real enterprise that is not marginal. Hypothetical example: a designer of earthquake early-warning sensor housings owns a Canadian company and considers buying an unrelated U.S. franchise. The decision is whether a transfer relationship actually exists or whether an investment analysis is needed; share records, the franchise agreement, and the funding commitments answer different parts of that question. The first review should produce two evidence maps instead of one combined business story. One map tests the corporate link, the worker’s twelve continuous months with the qualifying foreign company during the relevant thirty-six-month period, and the proposed L role; the other tests treaty nationality, control, committed funds exposed to loss, and a business that cannot be marginal for E-2. Hypothetical example: a founder of a cold-spray metal-deposition robotics business owns 60 percent of a Canadian company and plans to acquire 60 percent of a U.S. plant. The concrete decision is whether the ownership and foreign payroll support an L transfer, or whether the signed purchase and committed capital should be assessed as E-2 facts. The cap table, payroll, escrow agreement, and operating forecast serve different tests.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Examine ownership and control for L
- Assess the E-2 business on its own facts
- Use the contracts to explain the real structure
A spouse’s own professional offer may call for an independent pathway assessment
A Carignan couple may each have a U.S. professional opportunity. Compare the proposed work and each person’s eligibility before deciding that one must simply accompany the other. An independent classification and a dependent classification have different evidence and work consequences. A first review should make two calendars, one for each adult, showing proposed work start, status expiration, travel, and any dependent child’s age. That makes the family’s concrete decision visible: choose one principal route with a dependent spouse, or preserve two independent cases. The record that settles the choice is usually each person’s own offer, credentials, and status history, not a combined household budget. Hypothetical example: a maritime-acoustics engineer has a TN-eligible offer while their spouse has an E-2 enterprise proposal. The decision is whether the spouse needs independent work authority now or can rely on qualifying dependent status; the timing of the offers, investment evidence, and the planned work determine the practical sequence. The family should make the work-authority decision before either adult begins U.S. services. List the work each person expects to do, the route that authorizes it, and the document or status event that must occur first. Hypothetical example: a quantum-clock vacuum systems engineer has a TN-eligible offer while their partner expects to launch a separate E-2 enterprise. The concrete decision is whether to maintain two principal cases or defer one person’s work while dependent status is obtained. The offer, treaty-nationality evidence, investment records, and the family’s start-date calendar decide the sequence.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Assess the second offer independently
- Understand a qualifying E/L spouse’s position
- Plan changes before work begins
An adult family member should not be hidden inside a household investment estimate
A Carignan family comparing investor pathways should list the intended applicants and relationships before comparing prices. Shared household funding does not establish derivative eligibility. An unmarried child aged 18 to 20 can still fall within the under-21 rule; assess a parent or a child aged 21 or older separately, including any applicable immigrant age-protection rule. Start by deciding whether the family needs an investment case that can meet EB-5’s capital, at-risk, job-creation, and conditional-residence requirements, or whether an applicant may independently meet the Gold Card’s EB-1 or EB-2 eligibility conditions. Gold Card is not a conventional visa; its required payment is made by the applicant to the U.S. government under official instructions, not to a project or intermediary. Hypothetical example: a family that owns a mosquito-control franchise can fund one adult’s EB-5 project but hopes to add an adult sibling through the same payment. The decision is whether that sibling has derivative status or needs an independent basis; the relationship records, age, and each person’s eligibility provide the answer.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Distinguish an EB-5 principal from derivatives
- Use the Gold Card family terms accurately
- Review any separate applicant as a separate case