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 an economist role
The economist entry requires a baccalaureate or licenciatura degree. The degree's subject matter must support the work proposed; do not assume any degree is sufficient. The duties must be those of an economist, rather than primarily financial analysis, market research or marketing simply labelled as economics. Two conditions sit alongside the credential and are just as decisive. The employment must be prearranged with a United States employer or entity, since this category does not permit an applicant to work for their own account, and the applicant must be a citizen of Canada or Mexico. Admission may be requested at a port of entry or, where an employer prefers, through a petition, and the same requirements apply either way.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Connect the degree's subject matter to economist duties
- Test the job title against the actual duties
- Assemble the supporting file
How inconsistent employer names complicate residence-based visa planning
When an employer's name appears differently across an offer letter, payroll records and corporate filings, it creates a documentation problem that is separate from, but can be confused with, the applicant's own citizenship or permanent residence status. Resolving entity naming and confirming the applicant's status are two different tasks that both need to be finished before a filing can rely on either. It is worth stating the citizenship point in its own words, because it is the one that ends cases. TN is available to citizens of Canada or Mexico only, and Canadian permanent residence does not satisfy that requirement no matter how settled the applicant is. The L categories turn on the employment relationship rather than nationality, and E-2 turns on treaty nationality, so a person barred from one may still qualify under another.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Trace the entity name to a single legal identity
- Do not let entity confusion stand in for a status check
- Rebuild the file around the confirmed legal name
How to handle an employer using inconsistent entity names
A petition or support letter has to name the actual legal employer consistently across every document. Where paperwork uses a trade name, a parent company, and a payroll entity interchangeably, that inconsistency needs to be resolved before filing, not explained afterward. For an E-2 case the identity question runs to the enterprise as much as to the employer. The investment must be irrevocably committed and at risk in a specific real and active enterprise that the investor develops and directs, so the entity named in the purchase documents, the lease, the bank mandate and the licences should be one entity rather than a family of similar names.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the true legal employer
- Reconcile the documents before submission
- Keep a record of the correction
Fixing inconsistent entity names before filing an L1 case
An employer that refers to itself by different names across documents, whether a trade name, a former legal name or an abbreviated version, creates a problem an adjudicator has to resolve rather than one it can safely ignore. The legal entity named in the petition must be traceable, exactly, through every supporting document. Where the United States entity is newly established, the naming question compounds a set of requirements that already demand precision: secured premises, the qualifying relationship documented, and the financial ability to begin doing business and to pay the employee. Initial new office L admission is limited to one year, and time spent resolving an avoidable naming problem comes out of the preparation, not out of that year.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Identify the one legally correct name
- Reconcile older documents against that name
- Apply the same standard on both sides of the relationship
Comparing L1 and E2 when entity names do not match
Inconsistent entity names across offer letters, incorporation records, and payroll documents create doubt regardless of category, but they threaten L1 and E2 in different ways. Comparing how each category depends on entity identity clarifies what must be corrected before filing. The consequences of each category differ too, and belong in the comparison from the start. L-1A permits a maximum period of stay of seven years and L-1B five, while E-2 has no equivalent maximum but requires treaty ownership, at-risk capital and the investor's control to persist throughout. Neither category confers permanent residence, and neither is made available by tidy paperwork alone.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- See why L1 depends on precise entity identity
- See why E2 depends on the enterprise's identity
- Correct the record before comparing categories further
How to resolve an employer's inconsistent entity names
A petition or support file only works if every document points to the same legal employer, and a business that uses a trade name, an abbreviated name, and its full registered name across different documents creates confusion an officer has to resolve. Fix the entity name mismatch before it becomes an eligibility question. The household's own documents are caught by the same problem more often than people expect. Dependent applications reference the principal's case and frequently repeat the employer's name, so an inconsistency corrected in one place and not another simply reappears later, at a point when it is more awkward to fix and the family is already committed to dates.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Establish one legal name of record
- Explain the variation, don't just correct it
- Check name consistency against the underlying relationship
Resolving inconsistent entity names before comparing investment paths
When an employer or business appears under different legal names across offer letters, financial records or incorporation documents, that inconsistency has to be resolved before either an EB-5 or a Gold Card filing can rely on the entity. EB-5 ties its ten-job requirement to a specific qualifying enterprise, so the enterprise's identity has to be unambiguous. Gold Card's $2 million corporate-principal option similarly depends on a clearly identified company standing behind the applicant. The two routes rest on different foundations, which is why the identity question bites differently in each. EB-5 places capital at risk in a new commercial enterprise and depends on that enterprise creating qualifying jobs, with conditional residence followed by a petition to remove conditions. The Gold Card route involves payments made by the applicant to the United States government and depends on separate EB-1 or EB-2 eligibility.
WHAT THIS GUIDE COVERS
- Confirm which name is the legal entity
- Apply this to the two structures differently
- Address dependents once the entity is settled