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.
Proving you are a citizen when you were not born one
Hypothetical example: a chartered professional accountant in Qualicum Beach was born overseas, came to Canada as a child and was naturalized at nineteen. His designation is impeccable and his employer's letter is well drafted. What has never been tested is the first thing an officer looks at, which is whether he is a Canadian citizen. Citizenship is the threshold requirement for this route, and for someone born abroad the documents that prove it are not always the documents in the drawer. The decision is whether the citizenship and professional records can be made internally consistent before the employment request is presented. Solve an identity or credential gap first; an officer cannot infer a bridge that the file does not supply.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- What proves citizenship and what does not
- Names have to match across every document
- Then the ordinary professional file
Living in the United States without losing what you have in Canada
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach couple are Canadian permanent residents who have been here for six years and intend to apply for citizenship. One of them receives an offer that would take the household to the United States for three years. Everyone focuses on the American question. The Canadian one is at least as consequential, because permanent residence carries a residency obligation, and a long absence can put both the status and the citizenship application at risk while nothing about the U.S. side notices. The concrete decision is whether the proposed absence leaves enough Canadian presence for both status and citizenship plans, after accounting for the household’s actual travel pattern. That calculation should be completed before a U.S. start date becomes non-negotiable.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- The two statuses are governed by different rules
- Keep a contemporaneous record from day one
- Get the Canadian advice before you accept the offer
Staying qualified: what can quietly undo a treaty investor position after approval
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach owner obtained treaty investor status three years ago for a small U.S. distribution business and has run it successfully since. She is now considering selling a stake to an American partner, adding a passive investor from another country, and moving to a management contract while she spends more time in Canada. Each of those is a reasonable commercial step. Together they could dismantle the basis of her status without anyone filing anything, because the status depends on the enterprise continuing to qualify. The decision is whether a planned commercial change will leave treaty ownership, investor control, and a real non-marginal operating enterprise intact. Review the transaction before it is signed, because restructuring afterwards may not restore the original facts.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Ownership is a continuing condition, not a historical fact
- Directing the business means being there to direct it
- Review the plan before the transaction, and keep the record
Premises evidence: what a signed lease shows that a mailing address cannot
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach food manufacturer opening an American office wants to keep costs down until the operation proves itself, and has arranged a shared workspace membership with a mailing address. It is a sensible commercial choice and a weak evidentiary one, because a petition for a manager coming to open a new office is expected to show that sufficient physical premises have been secured. What sufficient means depends on the business, and a mailbox is not usually it. The decision is whether the proposed premises and staffing plan can support the claimed managerial role within the first year. A cheaper address is not a saving if it makes the operation described in the petition implausible.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Why premises are asked for at all
- Sufficient is judged against the business described
- Keep the premises consistent with everything else
The one-person company: why a transfer route usually does not fit a sole operator
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach consultant incorporated a company years ago, is its only shareholder, its only director and its only employee, and now wants to work in the United States. A transfer route looks attractive because a company already exists. It rarely fits, because the classification is built around an organization employing a person and moving them between related entities, and a sole operator satisfies the form of that without the substance. An ownership route asks questions that a one-person business can sometimes answer better. The decision is whether the person is principally being moved by an existing organization or is personally building and directing a U.S. enterprise. Make that choice from payroll, ownership, capital, and operating facts, not from which label appears easier to obtain.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- What the transfer route assumes about the employer
- What the ownership route asks instead
- The honest question is what the U.S. business will be
The relatives no petition covers: adult children, parents and everyone else
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach household planning a move includes a twenty-three-year-old daughter finishing a degree and a widowed parent who has lived with the family for four years. Both are, in every practical sense, part of the household. Neither is a derivative on any of the routes discussed here. Families discover this late because the categories use the word family and mean something narrower, and the people who fall outside need their own routes with their own requirements and timelines. The concrete decision is whether every person expected to move fits the derivative definition or needs a separate route. List names, ages, marital status, and intended work or study before choosing the principal’s category.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- What derivative status actually covers
- Each excluded person needs their own basis
- Raise it in the first conversation, not the last
Money answers one question and neither route lets it answer the others
Hypothetical example: a Qualicum Beach applicant has ample funds and a complication in his history — an old refusal, a period of overstay, or a matter he has never disclosed to anyone. He is considering both an immigrant investor petition and the gift-based programme, and hopes that a sufficient payment will make the complication irrelevant. It will not. Both routes assess whether a person may be admitted, and that assessment is separate from, and unaffected by, the size of any sum paid or invested. The concrete decision is whether the applicant can meet the chosen route’s requirements and accept its actual financial character after an admissibility review. Neither a qualifying investment nor a payment removes the need for truthful disclosure and lawful admission.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Eligibility and admissibility are separate questions
- Disclose the complication to your own adviser first
- Then compare the routes on their actual requirements