TN eligibility depends on clearly established prearranged professional employment with defined duties. Conflicting descriptions of supervision, duties, or dates in the supporting documents can undermine that clarity, since a reviewer may not be able to tell which version accurately represents the arrangement. Resolving the mismatch is part of establishing a credible, well-supported case.
Treat consistency as part of eligibility evidence
A well-matched profession and a genuine job offer are not enough if the paperwork describing them contradicts itself. Reviewers compare documents for internal consistency as one way of assessing whether the arrangement is genuine and clearly defined. Resolve discrepancies before submission rather than hoping they go unnoticed, since a corrected, consistent file is stronger evidence than two documents that disagree with each other.
The governing conditions are worth restating plainly, because they are what the paperwork must establish. TN covers prearranged professional employment in a listed USMCA occupation; the applicant must personally hold the qualification that the occupation requires; and self-employment is not permitted. A document set that leaves any of those three points ambiguous is doing the applicant no favours.
Where the contradiction touches supervision, the risk is specific: a letter that reads as though the professional directs her own engagement, set against a contract that names an employer, can raise the self-employment question even where the underlying arrangement is ordinary employment. Correct the wording so it says who directs the work, then check that the corrected description still matches the profession being claimed.