Immigration
E-2, L-1A and EB-5, structured the way the regulations are
Adjudicators read the same templates over and over, and a recognisable template is a credibility problem rather than a formatting one. These documents are derived from your business, in the structure the rules themselves enumerate.
The fields the tests turn on — owner compensation, household size, a cost-of-enterprise denominator — are first-class inputs to the model, not paragraphs bolted onto the end.
This is a document preparation and financial modelling tool. It does not provide legal advice, it does not represent you, and nothing here is a substitute for licensed immigration counsel. Regulatory figures in the product carry their own effective dates and confidence levels, and anything we have not confirmed against a primary source is labelled unverified in place rather than presented as settled.
The E-2 tests drive the model, not the prose
Marginality asks whether the business will generate more than a minimal living for the investor and their family. That is a financial question, so it needs financial inputs: owner compensation as a named, visible line in the profit and loss, and household size as a required field, because the test is assessed against the family rather than the individual.
- Owner compensation is a first-class role in the model and appears in every statement
- Household size is captured at intake because the test needs a denominator
- The five-year horizon runs from commencement of normal business activity — not from incorporation, and not from visa issuance
Substantiality is proportional, so the use of funds needs a denominator
The investment test is not a dollar threshold; it is a ratio against the total cost of the enterprise. A use-of-funds table that states an amount and no denominator fails the proportionality question on its face, whatever the amount is. Ours carries both, and the plan states the ratio rather than leaving the reader to compute it.
L-1A new office: the regulation enumerates the plan's contents
For a new office petition the regulation sets out what the supporting evidence has to establish — that physical premises have been secured, the beneficiary's prior year in a qualifying managerial capacity, the nature and structure of the intended office and its financial goals, the size of the United States investment and the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary, and the organisational structure of the foreign entity. The section map follows that enumeration rather than a generic template.
- Premises, prior managerial year, structure and financial goals, investment size, foreign entity structure
- The staffing plan is modelled, so the org chart, the payroll and the narrative headcount are one number
- The first-year hiring schedule comes out of the model rather than being asserted beside it
EB-5: projections, and the bases therefor
The element most commonly failed is not the projection itself but the requirement that the plan show the basis for it — and that is precisely what a driver-built model with a sources appendix produces. Where the required elements are conditional on the business model, the document branches rather than emitting an empty heading, because a non-responsive section reads worse than a missing one.
- Every projection traces to a driver, and every driver carries its provenance
- Market and industry claims carry retrievable, dated sources or they do not appear
- Credibility is treated as a global constraint on the whole document, which is what it is
Anti-boilerplate is a compliance feature
A generator that emits near-identical plans across clients actively harms outcomes in this segment. Ours derives each document from the specific drivers, the specific market and the specific staffing plan captured at intake, and the consistency checker means the derived figures cannot drift back toward a template's defaults.
Where these filings come apart
- Owner compensation shown as zero
- It is the most common silent failure in the whole category. A lender substitutes a market salary; an adjudicator reads it as a business that does not support the applicant. Our validator blocks on it.
- Headcount that does not reconcile
- The narrative says eight employees, the payroll carries five, the org chart shows six. Three unrelated research paths identified this mechanical inconsistency as the highest-value thing to check, and the product blocks export until the figures agree.
- A recognisable template
- Adjudicators see the same documents repeatedly. Where credibility is itself a requirement, a plan that reads as a filled-in form is a problem the content cannot rescue.
What this does not do
Any page listing only strengths is marketing. These are the limits we would want to know about.
- We are not a law firm and we do not file anything on your behalf. Have licensed counsel review the document before it is submitted.
- Regulatory thresholds change on statutory schedules. Ours are dated configuration with sources, and the ones we have not verified against a primary source say so — but a figure's presence in the product is not a representation that it is current for your filing.
- Country eligibility, treaty status and case-specific history are outside what a document tool can assess.
Start with the numbers.
Free to generate and read. Pay once, when you are ready to send it.