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.
The offer letter has to prove a professional job and a temporary one at the same time
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak agronomist working for a seed and crop-input dealer is offered a position with a U.S. agricultural retailer. The profession is listed and the degree is the right one, so the household assumes the file is straightforward. It is not, because the employer's letter promises a permanent career with an open-ended term, and this category admits people for temporary entry. One document has to satisfy both findings at once.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Say what the professional work is, in the profession's own terms
- Give the position a stated period and a reason for it
- Keep ownership, self-employment and prior filings visible
Before choosing a visa category, find out whether one is needed at all
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak dairy technician has been told all his life that his mother was born in Maine, and he holds Canadian permanent residence through his wife. He has been comparing work categories. He should not be: if U.S. citizenship passed to him at birth then no category applies, and if it did not then his permanent residence supports none of them either. Settle the citizenship question before anything else is considered.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Citizenship through a parent is a legal question, not a family story
- The answer changes everything downstream
- Sort the rest of the household separately
A cheap business does not mean a small investment
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak auto-body technician is buying a small powersports and small-engine repair shop across the border for a modest price, and assumes that a modest price makes the investment easy to justify. The substantiality test works the other way round. It compares the amount invested with the total cost of acquiring or establishing that particular business, so the lower the cost, the higher the proportion expected before an investment counts as substantial.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Work out the total cost of the enterprise first
- Understand what is excluded from the amount invested
- Make the commitment visible in documents
A first U.S. office can receive a specialist, but the rules are not the manager's rules
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak animal-health and veterinary-supplies distributor is opening its first U.S. office and wants to send the employee who built its proprietary inventory and cold-chain handling procedures rather than a manager. The petition still requires a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship, one continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the prior three years, and an active foreign business. A new office receiving a specialized-knowledge employee must secure sufficient premises, show the financial ability to pay the employee and commence business, and support a role requiring company-specific knowledge. Initial approval is limited to one year.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Show premises and the ability to support the position
- Keep the specialized knowledge in the foreground
- Plan the first year knowing it will be reviewed
Treaty status is not only for owners, and that widens the choice
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak plant supervisor is asked to help run the U.S. operation his employer is setting up. He owns nothing, so he assumes the investment route is closed to him and that only a company transfer is possible. That is not quite right. Treaty status is available to certain employees of a treaty enterprise as well as to the investor who funds it, and the two possibilities are tested in very different ways.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Know what an employee route asks for
- Compare it with what a transfer asks for
- Have the company decide its structure before the individual decides his route
A spouse who keeps a Canadian job still needs to know where the work is performed
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak household moves on a managerial transfer, and the spouse expects to keep her position with a Canadian employer, working from the new house. Her status permits employment, so the answer is more comfortable than it would be in other categories, but the question is still worth asking properly, because the analysis turns on where the work is physically performed rather than on who signs the cheque.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Employment authorization comes from the status, not the employer
- The practical questions are tax and payroll, not immigration
- The children's position is different and does not improve
The two routes cover different people and end in different places
Hypothetical example: a Nashwaak couple already have two adult children living in the United States, and are choosing between immigrant investment and the official gift process. Their first question is not which is cheaper. It is who each route actually covers, what condition attaches to the status it produces, and what has to be proved two years later, because those three answers differ far more than the headline amounts do.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Immigrant investment covers a defined family and nobody else
- The gift process states its own family terms, and they have changed
- Compare the endings, not only the entry