An L dependent child does not receive the employment permission of a qualifying L spouse.
Assess the activity before assigning it
Routine or unpaid assistance can still raise work-permission questions. The company’s need to complete a migration does not authorize a dependent’s participation by itself.
Classify the proposed data entry as work before deciding who may do it. Payment is not the only concern; productive services for the company can remain employment even when described as family help or training. An L-2 child is not employment-authorized. A qualifying L-2 spouse, by contrast, may work incident to valid status with the appropriate evidence. The principal's L-1B case independently requires a continuous qualifying foreign year within the previous three, active related organizations and special or advanced company knowledge rather than a general skill. Keep Canadian citizenship and permanent residence as separate facts when planning travel documentation. A migration deadline cannot expand a dependent child's permission.
Hypothetical example: A Bégin dairy-equipment company transfers a database specialist to implement its proprietary service taxonomy. Her seventeen-year-old son offers to clean customer records after school without pay. The employer should assign that production task to authorized personnel and keep him out of the workflow. His mother's specialized-knowledge evidence and his dependent status answer different questions; neither her approval nor his technical ability permits the work.