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.
Describe the professional assignment when the offer mentions both an employer and a customer
A Pointe-des-Cascades applicant may receive an offer describing services for a customer of the proposed employer. Explain the actual entities and work without treating the customer’s project name as the whole TN arrangement. The first review should produce an entity-and-duty chart, the profession selected from the TN list, and a document list tied to each claim. A Canadian may request classification from an inspecting officer when seeking entry, or the employer may submit Form I-129 to USCIS; neither route permits disguised self-employment. Hypothetical example: a woodwind-pad acoustics consultant is assigned through an engineering firm to improve a musical-instrument maker’s sealing process. The decision is whether the employer, duties, credential, and control described in the records support the selected professional category.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the real duties and relationships
- Test the individual’s profession and credentials
- Keep the temporary arrangement and ownership clear
Choose the nationality relied upon in the proposed case rather than the most convenient document
A Pointe-des-Cascades resident may hold more than one nationality or several identity documents. Identify the actual citizenship and category basis before deciding which records belong in a U.S. work or investor assessment. A first review should produce a nationality table, copies of the documents that establish each status, and a route-by-route list of conditions still to be met. Canadian permanent residence may be relevant to personal history, but it does not convert a person into a Canadian citizen for TN. Hypothetical example: a Chilean citizen with Canadian permanent residence is offered a U.S. logistics role while considering an investment in a food-testing company. The decision is whether citizenship, enterprise ownership, and the proposed work support any category separately.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Separate permanent residence from citizenship
- Connect treaty nationality to the real enterprise
- Keep an L comparison tied to employment and organization
Explain why the payment recipient differs from the enterprise’s trading name
A Pointe-des-Cascades investor may see a trade name on a proposal and a different legal name in transaction records. Reconcile the actual entities and payment purpose before presenting the transfer as evidence of investment. The first review should create a payment ledger linking each transfer to a signed obligation, the actual legal recipient, and the investor’s source-and-path record. The investor must place substantial lawful capital beyond unilateral recovery and at risk, then direct and develop a real nonmarginal enterprise. Hypothetical example: a maker of custom violin cases pays a deposit to acquire a workshop operated under a trade name. The decision is whether the agreement, recipient, and escrow terms show a genuine commitment rather than funds still available for any purpose.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the legal recipient and the rights acquired
- Trace lawful capital and real commitment
- Connect the transaction to the qualifying business
Evaluate shared premises through the actual needs and rights of the new operation
A Pointe-des-Cascades company may consider shared U.S. premises for its launch. Explain the access, permitted activities and resources available rather than assuming that the label shared office either proves or defeats sufficient premises. The first review should produce a premises checklist, a foreign-employment chronology, an entity chart, and a one-year operating plan tied to the actual space. New-office L cases require more than an address: the operation must be supported by the available premises and evidence. Hypothetical example: a reusable laboratory-glassware maker proposes a small production suite with separately booked loading access. The decision is whether that agreement supports the planned work and the claimed first-year role, rather than merely offering a U.S. location.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe what the agreement actually provides
- Keep the new-office category conditions specific
- Connect the premises to the actual organization
Distinguish a commercial partnership from the corporate relationship needed for a transfer
A Pointe-des-Cascades business may have a U.S. distribution or service partner. Identify the actual ownership and control before treating the commercial agreement as a qualifying L relationship or the basis for investor authority. A first review should draw two separate maps: an L entity-and-employment map and an E-2 ownership-and-capital map. The decision is which map is supported by records now, rather than selecting a preferred label and fitting the facts afterward. Hypothetical example: a seed-bank inventory software company licenses its platform to a U.S. distributor and plans to send its product architect. The decision is whether the corporate relationship and foreign employment support L, or whether the person instead has treaty ownership, committed capital, and operational control for E-2.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Establish the L relationship and employee record
- Identify the E-2 enterprise the person would actually direct
- Keep additional L conditions attached to the actual proposal
Keep the family’s evidence of relationship separate from its travel reservations
A Pointe-des-Cascades household may book or coordinate travel before every dependent document has been reviewed. Establish the actual qualifying relationship and category instead of treating a shared itinerary as evidence of eligibility. The first review should produce a separate dependent checklist for every person: relationship record, identity record, current status, age where relevant, and planned activity. The decision is whether each family member fits the particular dependent category before travel or work plans are made. Hypothetical example: a teenage child of an L-1 transferee plans to help a mobile bicycle-library business during a school break. The family must decide whether the proposed activity is employment, study, or both before treating family status as permission to help.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify each intended dependent on their own record
- Assess work and study through the actual category
- Keep unresolved dates and eligibility visible
Read the investor’s actual participation rights rather than treating reports as the entire EB-5 role
A Pointe-des-Cascades applicant may receive project updates and describe the proposal as passive. Identify the actual governing rights and immigration conditions before comparing it with the official Gold Card gift route. The first review should make a comparison table with the investment agreement, source-and-path evidence, job-creation records, government payment instructions, and the separate immigration decision required by each route. EB-5 uses capital at risk and conditional residence; Gold Card involves a payment by the applicant to the U.S. government and is not a conventional visa. Hypothetical example: a maker of adaptive rowing equipment can either invest in a new commercial enterprise or pursue a gift payment route after official instructions. The decision is which complete set of conditions, not which promotional label, the applicant can satisfy.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the participation required by EB-5
- Retain capital, job and residence conditions
- Keep Gold Card’s actual government terms distinct
- Separate reports, rights and decisions in the comparison