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.
Linking a changed legal name across a TN passport, degree and offer
A legal name change raises two separate questions, and mixing them wastes preparation time. The first is whether the records identify one single person. The second is whether the credential answers the requirements of the profession being claimed. Gather the name-change record, the passport and the academic documents, then decide with the person reviewing the file which question each document is there to answer. Hypothetical example: an electroplating-bath chemist has a doctorate in a former name, a current passport in a new name, and an employer letter using both names. The practical decision is whether the civil record creates an unbroken identity chain before anyone debates the credential. A first review should produce a document map that assigns one record to identity and another to qualifications.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Assemble the identity chain in date order
- Do not treat a name gap as a credential question
- Plan translation before ordering anything
Recording nationality facts while a citizenship decision is pending
An offer can arrive months before a decision on citizenship. For planning, what matters is the nationality you actually hold today and the documents that establish it, not the one you expect to hold. Write down each citizenship, each valid travel document and your Canadian status, and describe the pending application as pending rather than as a date. Hypothetical example: a municipal-wayfinding type designer holds Canadian permanent residence, a valid Chilean passport, and a citizenship application receipt. The immediate decision is whether to plan from the passport nationality now, rather than treat the receipt as proof of a citizenship not yet acquired. A first review should separate present proof from an event that may occur later.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Write today’s position, not the hoped-for one
- Keep the employer’s timeline apart from the application’s
- Prepare the questions each route raises
Separating inventory, goodwill and a deposit inside one asking price
A seller’s single number often bundles several different things: stock on hand, goodwill, equipment, and a deposit that may be recoverable. For an E-2 discussion, break the price into its components with amounts and dates, and state what has been paid, what is committed and what is still conditional. Leave the characterization of each component to the review. Hypothetical example: a purchaser of a cello-bow rehair workshop pays a non-refundable equipment balance while the seller keeps the inventory price subject to a final count. The decision is whether the signed terms place the paid amount genuinely at risk or leave it withdrawable, not whether the seller’s headline price sounds substantial. A first review should identify the contract clause that controls each payment.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Itemize the price before characterizing it
- Show which money is actually at risk
- Trace and date the payments
Dating the start of operations against the lease and the incorporation
Incorporation, lease commencement, fit-out and first revenue rarely fall on the same day. For a new-office proposal, record what actually happened on each date and with which document, so the file shows when the operation began doing business and when the premises were ready, instead of implying that one date covers all of it. Hypothetical example: a handheld-spectrometer calibration company signs for a small suite, orders benches, and has no customer invoice before the proposed transfer. The decision is whether the premises, funding, and first-year plan are documented as they actually stand, rather than dated back to incorporation. A first review should distinguish secured resources from projected operations.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Build one timeline with a document beside each date
- Describe the premises as they will be used
- Keep the foreign side and the one-year horizon in view
Two cofounders, one company: sorting employment from shareholding
Founder is a business title, not a category. When one cofounder has been employed abroad by the company and the other holds shares and supplied the capital, the two routes read those facts differently. Set out employment, ownership and nationality in separate columns before asking which analysis applies to which person. Hypothetical example: a seaweed-fibre weaving company has one founder who directs foreign staff under payroll and another who supplied capital through a shareholder loan. The concrete decision is whether either person’s own evidence supports the route being discussed, rather than treating the company’s combined story as both people’s eligibility. A first review should produce two individual fact sheets before comparing categories.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Separate the employment record from the share register
- Ask what E-2 requires of nationality and control
- Do not let a title choose the route
Reconciling separate I-94 records when arrivals are weeks apart
When a spouse follows the principal applicant by weeks or months, each person is admitted on their own record and each record carries its own dates. Retrieve every I-94 and compare them line by line before booking anything. Do not assume the household’s periods of authorized stay end at the same time. Hypothetical example: a bookbindery-dye supplier begins an L assignment while the spouse delays travel until a child finishes a school term. The decision is whether the spouse’s later entry record and planned activity have been checked separately, not whether the family intended to move together. A first review should produce one dated status line for each person.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Read each record on its own
- Separate what each status permits
- Build the calendar from the records you hold
When a parent offers funds: two different meanings of a gift
A parent’s offer to fund an adult child’s plan and the gift described in the official Gold Card FAQ are unrelated ideas that share a word. One is a private transfer between family members that has to be documented and traced; the other is a step within a government process. Keep them apart in your notes and in your questions. Hypothetical example: a lunar-soil-simulant manufacturer receives family funds for an EB-5 proposal while a separate applicant considers the Gold Card process. The decision is whether the person is documenting capital exposed to enterprise risk or preparing the applicant’s own gift payment after the applicable vetting; the two transfers cannot be relabelled as one. A first review should make the payee, purpose, and governing process explicit.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Document the family transfer as its own record
- Ask what the EB-5 evidence must establish
- Read the Gold Card FAQ on its own terms