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.
Barriere TN guide: what changes when the employer files a petition instead
Hypothetical example: Shannon is a Canadian dietitian at a North Thompson health centre and the United States employer offering her a clinical position wants to file Form I-129 rather than have her present herself at a port of entry. Both routes exist for a Canadian citizen. They differ in who assembles the file, what it contains, how long it takes and what happens if something is wrong, and the choice should be made deliberately rather than by whichever the employer happens to prefer. Hypothetical example: A Canadian soil scientist has a signed United States offer but the company’s letter calls the work “field support.” The first review should decide whether to revise the source document before choosing a filing route. The profession entry, degree record, and detailed duty schedule settle that issue. A petition does not cure a vague position description, and a quick admission attempt does not cure a missing qualification record.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- The petition route moves the burden onto the employer
- The port route is faster but unforgiving
- Choose on the facts of this position, not on habit
Barriere guide: there is no work permit to show, and what that means for HR
Hypothetical example: Halina is a Canadian citizen working as an animal scientist for a Barriere feed company, and the United States employer's human resources department keeps asking her to send a copy of her work permit before her start date. There is no such document for a Canadian admitted in a professional classification. Understanding what actually evidences her status, and why a colleague who holds only Canadian permanent residence cannot follow the same route, prevents a preventable delay. Hypothetical example: A Canadian citizen who is a zoologist receives a United States offer, while a permanent-resident colleague is offered the same role. The first decision is citizenship, not which colleague has worked in Canada longer. A passport and the profession entry settle the first person’s route; a PR card cannot substitute for citizenship. The employer should assess the second person separately instead of delaying both hires with a shared checklist.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- For Canadians there is no visa stamp and no separate permit
- Employment verification uses the documents that exist
- A colleague with permanent residence is in a different position
Barriere E-2 guide: which parts of a franchise purchase count as investment
Hypothetical example: Lucille is buying a franchise of a United States equipment-rental chain, funded by savings and the sale of her own machinery. Franchise purchases raise a specific question: a significant part of what she pays is a fee to the franchisor rather than an asset in her business. Whether those payments count toward the investment, and how the total cost of the enterprise is measured, decides whether the substantiality requirement is met. Hypothetical example: A Canadian owner of a musical-instrument repair business buys a United States franchise and wants to leave part of the purchase price in a personal savings account. The first review should decide which dollars are truly committed and which remain available. The franchise agreement, invoice, payment record, and account trail settle that line. A large personal balance may support financial planning, but it does not demonstrate capital placed into the enterprise.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Fees paid to the franchisor are generally part of the cost of establishing
- Count the whole cost of the enterprise, then show what has been committed
- Document the source and the disposal of the Canadian assets
Barriere L-1 guide: when the founder's own qualifying year is the weak point
Hypothetical example: Etienne built a ranch-fencing and corral-construction business near Barriere, working as a sole proprietor for several years before incorporating eighteen months ago. He wants to open a first United States subsidiary using a new-office transfer. The corporate side of that plan is straightforward. The weak point is his own employment history, because the qualifying year must be employment by the organization that will be related to the United States entity, and a sole proprietorship may not be that organization. Hypothetical example: A Canadian commercial-greenhouse contractor incorporated two years ago after operating informally under the founder’s name. The first review must decide which legal entity employed the founder during the qualifying year. Payroll, tax remittances, and corporate records settle that question. A successful business history under an earlier sole proprietorship does not automatically create qualifying employment by the later corporation.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- The qualifying year attaches to the organization, not to the trade
- Prove the employment with documents the company generated
- Then the ordinary new-office requirements apply
Barriere guide: which of two Canadian entities is the one that counts
Hypothetical example: Gaelle's agri-transport business in Barriere is arranged as most small operations are: a numbered holding company that owns the equipment and holds the shares, and a separate operating company that employs the drivers and issues the invoices. When she considers a United States expansion, the two routes ask about different entities. A transfer asks which company is the qualifying organization and which one employed her; a treaty investment asks who owns the United States enterprise and who controls it. Hypothetical example: A Canadian owner of an artisan-food distribution company can either transfer through a related United States subsidiary or buy into an unrelated delicatessen. The first review should decide which entity employs the person, which entity owns the United States venture, and whether the chosen structure supports a corporate relationship or treaty-national control. Share registers, payroll records, and the purchase agreement settle different questions. Combining them under one brand name creates avoidable confusion.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- A transfer needs one entity to carry both facts
- A treaty investment looks at people rather than at the group
- Tidy the structure before choosing, not afterwards
Barriere family guide: how changing the principal's route can remove a spouse's job
Hypothetical example: Simone, a Canadian citizen from Barriere, works in the United States for a sawmill-equipment manufacturer in a specialized-knowledge transfer, and her husband Pete works locally as a carpenter under the employment authorization his dependent status gives him. Her five-year limit is approaching and someone has suggested she move to a professional classification instead. That change would be straightforward for her and would end his right to work entirely. Hypothetical example: A Canadian information-systems analyst is offered a professional role, while the spouse operates a paid online pottery shop and their twenty-year-old child wants a summer job. The first review should list each person’s work and study plan beside the proposed family status. The principal’s offer letter settles only the principal’s position. The household must decide whether a separate work-authorized path is needed before income or staffing plans depend on it.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Dependent categories are not interchangeable
- The five-year limit is a real constraint with limited answers
- Look at the whole household before the principal decides
Barriere guide: what happens to the money under each route
Hypothetical example: Ruth and Karel have sold the remaining assets of a small Barriere sawmill and hold the proceeds in cash. They are weighing an immigrant investor route against the Gold Card framework and keep being given the two amounts side by side. The amounts are the least useful part of the comparison. What separates the two is what becomes of the money, what obligations follow it, and what evidence each route requires years after the decision is made.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Investor capital stays exposed and carries duties
- A gift is spent, and that is the whole point of it
- Ask what each route requires of you in year three