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.
Separating two adults’ work plans in a TN family file
If a move depends on two adults earning income, the document review should identify each person’s proposed activities separately. The principal’s TN preparation does not settle a spouse’s work authorization. A clear household record helps reveal whether the planned budget depends on work that has not been assessed. The first review should end with a list of facts that are proved, facts that need a record, and activities that must not begin until their status is known. For the principal, that means testing citizenship, profession, credentials, duties, and the employer relationship. Canadians may request TN classification from CBP when entering or an employer may use Form I-129 with USCIS; the route does not permit self-directed U.S. work in place of qualifying employment.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Write down the actual employment assumptions
- Separate the principal packet from the spouse’s question
- Document the decisions that depend on an answer
- Hypothetical example: an assumption that expired quietly
How should a Canadian PR describe work performed in different countries?
The location and substance of the proposed activity matter independently of Canadian residence. Describe where duties would actually be performed and who would direct them. A Canadian employer, payroll arrangement or home address should not be treated as an automatic answer to whether work in the United States is permitted. A first review should produce a map of where work will occur, who benefits from it, who directs it, and when it is meant to start. The record that settles the point is normally the actual task pattern supported by an employer description, contract, schedule, or communications, rather than Canadian residence. Canadian permanent resident status does not create U.S. work authorization, and a short visit does not by itself answer whether a planned activity is permissible.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Map the actual work pattern
- Separate residence from permission
- Give the employer a clear question
- Hypothetical example: a work pattern that drifted
Can a payroll forecast substitute for an E-2 investment?
Future wages belong in a credible operating plan, but a hiring forecast is not the same as capital already invested. Separate employment projections from actual payments and commitments. E-2 does not impose EB-5’s ten-job requirement, so adding salaries to reach an invented hiring or spending target is the wrong calculation. A first review should create two columns: money already committed to the enterprise and future operating expenses that remain projections. Source documents, transfer records, contracts, and receipts settle the first column; a grounded business plan explains the second. E-2 capital must be irrevocably committed and exposed to commercial loss, while the enterprise must be more than marginal. A prospective payroll total cannot replace either analysis.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Distinguish planned and paid amounts
- Support why the roles are needed
- Evaluate non-marginality independently
Does the compensation plan match the new-office funding evidence?
USCIS new-office guidance asks about the foreign entity’s financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary. Clarify who will fund and administer compensation, and reconcile that arrangement with the business plan. A promised salary and an unexplained bank balance do not together show how the proposed role will be supported. A first review should reconcile the first year’s payroll plan with the foreign entity’s resources, the new office’s launch costs, and the beneficiary’s actual role. The governing records are corporate approvals, accounts, funding documents, employment terms, and the operating plan—not an unsupported promise of wages. The beneficiary generally needs one continuous year of qualifying foreign employment within the prior three years, and a new-office L-1 initial period is generally one year. Longer-term maximum periods are generally seven years for L-1A and five years for L-1B.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the proposed arrangement
- Compare commitments with the forecast
- Preserve evidence during operation
- Hypothetical example: a funding arrangement that changed after approval
Does existing U.S. status make L-1 or E-2 the simpler route?
Existing status changes the procedural questions, not the underlying eligibility tests. L-1 still needs a qualifying transfer and E-2 still needs a qualifying treaty investment. Review admission records, work authorization and travel plans before comparing a domestic status request with consular processing or assuming that approval of status produces a travel visa. A first review should identify the route’s earliest documentary gate and then list the procedure separately. For L-1, inspect the qualifying relationship and the beneficiary’s continuous qualifying foreign employment for one year in the three years before filing; L-1A has a generally seven-year maximum and L-1B a generally five-year maximum. For E-2, examine treaty nationality, enterprise ownership, capital irrevocably committed and exposed to loss, non-marginality, and the investor’s role directing the business.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Build an accurate status chronology
- Keep eligibility and procedure in separate columns
- Review work and travel before action
How should we handle different names across family documents?
Identify name differences before relying on documents to establish a family relationship or individual status. Passports, relationship records and admission evidence may need to be connected clearly. Do not silently standardize original documents or assume a shared surname is either necessary or sufficient to establish the relevant relationship. A first review should make a document-to-person matrix: the name shown, the document’s purpose, the difference observed, and the record that links it to the next document. That matrix identifies whether the issue concerns identity, relationship, or a government record, and it prevents one family member’s clean file from obscuring another’s. The immediate decision is whether a discrepancy needs an explanation, correction, or simply careful presentation in the relevant process.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Create a private document comparison
- Link the discrepancy to its purpose
- Use the appropriate review process
Can advertised speed decide between EB-5 and Gold Card?
A processing comparison should identify the same endpoint for both routes. Preparation, petition review, visa availability and obtaining status are different events. Gold Card’s expedited description does not guarantee a personal finish date, and an EB-5 project schedule should not be confused with the investor’s immigration timeline. A first review should compare evidence milestones rather than promotional timelines. For EB-5, the route involves qualifying capital at commercial risk, the required job-creation framework, visa availability, and conditional residence before later conditions are addressed. The Gold Card is not a conventional visa: its described gift is made by the applicant to the Department of Commerce, deposited in a separate Treasury fund, not paid by the government to the applicant, and it does not replace eligibility, vetting, or adjudication.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Define the event being estimated
- Map dependencies in each case
- Use uncertainty in the decision
- Hypothetical example: two estimates measuring different things