Skip to content
COQUITLAM · DUTIES DEFINE THE CATEGORY

Reassessing a role when the proposed duties change

USAvisa field guide · 3 minute readReviewed 7 September 2026

Read the general life across the border overview

THE SHORT ANSWER

A change to the job description someone was hired for is not a formality. TN eligibility is tied to a specific listed profession and matching duties, and L1 eligibility depends on the role staying genuinely managerial, executive or specialized-knowledge. A revised set of duties can move a person outside the category they were planning to use.

01

Re-map the revised duties to the category definition

Write out the new duties as plainly as they were actually described, not as a relabeled version of the old job description. For a TN case, check whether the revised duties still match a recognized professional category and still require the credentials the person holds. For an L1 case, check whether the new duties still involve real managerial or executive authority, or specialized knowledge of the company's product or processes, rather than day-to-day operational work.

02

Check whether the change affects TN profession fit or L1 role fit

A shift toward broader operational, sales or hands-on technical work can quietly convert a role that once fit a listed TN profession into one that no longer does, since TN categories are defined narrowly. Similarly, a shift away from managing people or setting strategy can undercut the qualifying nature of an L1 role, even if the title and salary stay the same.

03

Update or delay filing to match the confirmed job description

Get the duties finalized in writing before filing, rather than filing against an earlier draft and hoping the final role matches it closely enough. If duties are still being negotiated internally, that negotiation should finish before the case is built, since a mismatch between the filed description and the actual job is a problem that surfaces later, not one that resolves itself.

04

Write the revised description before anyone argues about it

Discussions about whether a change matters tend to run on impressions, with the employer describing the role as essentially unchanged and the applicant privately unsure. The way out is mechanical. Produce two documents side by side: the description the plan was built on, and an honest account of the position as it now stands, written by the manager who runs it, in the same format and at the same level of detail. Where possible use hours in a typical week rather than adjectives, because a narrative can accommodate almost any interpretation and a schedule cannot. Then mark each line as unchanged, expanded, reduced or removed. Most of the argument disappears at that point, because the parties are looking at the same thing rather than at two recollections. What remains is a specific question about specific lines, which is the question worth taking to advice. Do this before deciding whether the change is material, not after, since materiality is a conclusion drawn from the comparison rather than a starting position. Hypothetical example: a project manager's role is described by the employer as broadly the same, and a side-by-side comparison shows one line expanded from a fifth of the week to more than half, which converts a disagreement about tone into an arithmetic question anybody can check.

SOURCE NOTES

Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.

A CONVERSATION IS A GOOD PLACE TO START.

WHAT’S YOUR
NEXT CHAPTER?

Tell us where you are today.
Let’s talk about where you want to go.

Book a free consultation Or call +1 778 654 2671