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.
TN documents for a graphic designer role
Graphic designer qualifies through a baccalaureate or licenciatura degree, or a post-secondary diploma or certificate plus three years of experience in graphic design. Because design portfolios can look impressive without matching either documentary path, the file needs paperwork that actually proves the credential or the experience, not just work samples.
A portfolio can usefully describe the work an applicant has done, but it does not on its own establish a degree or the required diploma or certificate plus three years of experience. Gather the actual transcript or diploma/certificate alongside the portfolio. The practical consequence is an ordering problem: assemble the documentary path first and treat the portfolio as supporting material showing that the work is genuinely design work. Obtain the transcript or the diploma directly from the institution, together with a statement of the program length, because the regulation distinguishes a post-secondary diploma or certificate from shorter training. Where the experience route is relied on, count the three years against dated letters rather than against a resume, since resumes routinely round periods up and overlapping engagements can appear to cover more time than they do.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Do not let a strong portfolio substitute for required documents
- Document the experience path with real specificity
- Confirm the employment structure, not only the design work
What changes when an employer revises the US assignment plan
When an employer revises the US plan mid-process, the applicant's Canadian permanent residence or citizenship status stays constant, but nearly every visa-side fact tied to the original plan may no longer match. Revisit duties, location, compensation, and legal employer identity before assuming the original classification strategy still fits, since employer petition approval, visa issuance, and admission at the border are each separately evaluated.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Re-test the classification against the new duties
- Check whether the corporate or investment structure moved
- Confirm what has and has not been decided
When an employer revises the plan behind an L1 new-office petition
An L1 new office petition is built around a specific business plan describing staffing, structure, and the executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge role being filled. When the employer revises that plan after filing, the revised version needs to be tested against the same requirements again, because approval of the original plan does not automatically extend to a materially different one.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify what actually changed
- Test the revision against the same requirements
- Update the record before the next filing
Handling an employer that revises the U.S. business plan mid-case
A new-office L1 petition is built around a specific business plan describing staffing, physical premises and the scope of the U.S. operation. When the employer revises that plan after filing or before an extension, the change needs to be reconciled with what was originally represented, because an extension is evaluated against whether the office is actually doing what it said it would do, not against a newer, different plan.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Distinguish refinement from contradiction
- Document why the plan changed
- Reassess whether the role still fits the classification
When the employer changes the plan mid-process, L1 and E2 respond differently
An employer revising the U.S. plan after the process has started affects L1 and E2 in different ways because one route is tied to a corporate structure and role, and the other to a specific investment and business plan. Treat a revision as a trigger to re-check eligibility, not as a formality.
If the employer changes the intended U.S. role, reporting structure, or entity involved, the qualifying relationship and the specialized-knowledge, managerial, or executive character of the position both need to be reassessed. For a new-office L1, a revised business plan also changes what the company must show about staffing and physical premises, and approval was never automatic even under the original plan. Handle the intracompany route by re-proving three things in order: that the qualifying corporate relationship still exists between the entities now involved, that the applicant's continuous qualifying year abroad still falls within the three years preceding the filing, and that the proposed duties still meet the managerial, executive, or specialized-knowledge definition. A revision changing the employing entity resets the first, and a long delay can quietly compromise the second while everyone is focused on the third.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- What a revision does to an L1 case
- What a revision does to an E2 case
- Confirm the sequence before relying on either plan
What to do when an employer revises the US assignment plan
When an employer changes duties, worksite, or entity partway through planning, the change has to be checked against what was actually filed, not just described to the family. Employer petition approval, visa issuance, and admission at the border are three separate steps, and a revision can affect one without automatically affecting the others.
A revised offer describing new duties, a different work location, or a different legal employer may no longer match what was approved in a TN letter, an L1 petition, or an E2 filing. Before treating the revision as a minor update, compare it line by line against the filed or planned documentation to see whether the classification itself, not just the wording, has shifted. Put the filed documents and the revised offer side by side and read for four things: the legal employer, the worksite, the duties, and the period. Those are the elements most likely to have moved and the ones most likely to matter. A household hearing about a change second-hand usually receives a summary rather than the document, so ask for the document. The comparison takes an hour and often prevents a decision the family would otherwise make on incomplete information.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Separate what changed from what was filed
- Determine whether the change requires new filing
- Reassess each family member independently
When the new enterprise revises its US business plan mid-process
Neither EB-5 nor Gold Card involves a traditional employer; EB-5 capital is invested in a new commercial enterprise, and Gold Card is a direct government contribution tied to an underlying immigrant petition. What changes here is that the enterprise or business plan behind the EB-5 investment is being revised, which is a materially different event from a Gold Card contribution because EB-5 eligibility is built around the specific plan submitted.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Establish what actually changed
- Assess EB-5 exposure from the revision
- Compare the standing offer against Gold Card