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.
Coordinating TN and dependent documents when family travels later
A family that travels on different dates needs an organized record of the principal worker’s position and each dependent’s circumstances. Keep the family file connected without treating everyone as one application. Citizenship, relationship evidence and the procedure used by each traveller can affect the documents that need individual review. A first review should produce a traveller-specific checklist, a current-status record for the principal, and a decision about the correct route for every family member. A Canadian TN principal may seek classification from CBP when entering, while an employer normally uses Form I-129 for an extension or in-country change. TN also does not permit self-employment, so ownership of the receiving business deserves separate analysis before anyone relies on a family travel plan.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Create a person-by-person file index
- Update the principal’s record after entry
- Keep permission questions separate
- Hypothetical example: a packet that aged in the folder
Can my Canadian-citizen spouse solve my own work-permission question?
A spouse’s Canadian citizenship does not become your citizenship or automatically authorize your U.S. work. Distinguish your own possible principal route from any dependent classification through your spouse. The actual category matters: TD does not permit employment, while qualifying L-2 and E-2 spouses have different employment rules. The first review should identify each spouse’s immigration facts, proposed activity, and the household income that depends on authorization. Canadian permanent residence is not Canadian citizenship, and neither status by itself creates U.S. work permission. The concrete choice is whether one person has a supportable principal route or whether the family can responsibly use a dependent category with its actual limits.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify whose opportunity leads
- Assess the dependent alternative
- Compare the household consequences
- Hypothetical example: testing which route the household should lead with
Can equal partners each rely on the same E-2 investment total?
A shared enterprise needs a clear account of who contributed what and who controls the business. Do not present the same capital as two separate personal contributions without explanation. Each proposed investor’s eligibility should be assessed against the actual ownership, investment and management arrangements rather than a single combined bank balance. A first E-2 review should produce a source-and-path ledger for each investor, a signed governance map, and a decision about who will actively lead the enterprise. The capital must be irrevocably committed to the business and exposed to loss, not merely earmarked in a joint account. The enterprise cannot be marginal, and each investor must be able to develop and direct the venture on the actual facts.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Create a contribution ledger
- Read the shared-control provisions
- Avoid a two-for-one eligibility claim
- Hypothetical example: one payment described twice
Can outside providers support the new-office operating plan?
Outside providers can be part of a real business model, but their roles must be described accurately. If the new-office plan relies on them to perform operational work, show the scope, capacity and funding of those arrangements rather than assuming the word outsourced proves the transferee will primarily manage. A first new-office review should map the related entities, the transferee’s one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad during the prior three years, the secured premises, and the first-year staffing evidence. The L-1A ceiling is seven years and the L-1B ceiling is five years, subject to applicable rules, so previous L time belongs in the early planning file. Outsourcing can support operations, but it cannot conceal that the transferee will personally perform the core work.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Map the services actually provided
- Identify the transferee’s remaining duties
- Test continuity and affordability
- Hypothetical example: verifying what the providers actually do
Which spouse should be assessed as the principal founder applicant?
The best-supported principal may differ between L-1 and E-2. One spouse may have qualifying foreign employment while the other owns or controls the investment. Compare each person’s actual evidence and intended work before choosing a principal; marriage does not transfer employment history, capital ownership or managerial qualifications between spouses. The first comparison should produce two separate evidence files and a reasoned choice of principal, not a blended account of a married couple’s assets. For L-1, the proposed transferee needs one continuous year of qualifying employment with the related overseas organization in the prior three years; overall L-1A and L-1B time limits differ. For E-2, capital must be committed beyond revocation and exposed to loss, the enterprise cannot be marginal, and the investor must direct and develop it. Neither route automatically promises permanent residence.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Prepare two individual fact sheets
- Trace investor rights and money
- Connect the choice to real family plans
Should a spouse compare dependent status with an independent work route?
Compare the spouse’s actual opportunity under both approaches instead of assuming dependent status is always sufficient. TD does not permit work, while qualifying L-2 and E-2 spouses have different rules. An independent route needs its own eligibility and procedure assessment, even when both people plan to move together. A first family review should produce a timeline for each person’s intended activity, a current-status check for the principal, and a written decision about how the spouse may work. TN-derived TD status does not grant employment permission. By contrast, an eligible L-2 or E spouse may have work authorization incident to status when the applicable requirements and evidence are satisfied, but an independent option still needs its own complete eligibility review.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Describe both opportunities honestly
- Identify what each approach permits
- Plan the consequences of change
- Hypothetical example: comparing what each route permits
Which costs belong outside the headline commitment?
A useful comparison separates EB-5 invested capital and Gold Card gifts from government fees, family processing and professional expenses. The amounts perform different functions, so an all-in figure should disclose its assumptions. Check current charges rather than copying a historic fee schedule or treating an adviser’s quote as an official total. The first comparison should produce separate commitment schedules, not one blended immigration budget. EB-5 involves capital placed at business risk, required job creation, and conditional residence before a later conditions-removal stage. A Gold Card contribution is a gift by the applicant to the Department of Commerce, deposited in a separate Treasury fund, and is not invested capital or a conventional visa purchase. The decision is which obligations the family can meet without treating either program as a guaranteed financial return.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Build parallel cost categories
- Check what the professional quote covers
- Avoid an artificial net-price ranking
- Hypothetical example: the lines a headline figure leaves out