A commercial authorization does not itself establish immigration work permission.
Separate governance rights from family status
Qualifying E spouses may work incident to appropriate status with required evidence, while children do not receive those spouse rights. Review the actual activities and status rather than treating a proxy or signing authority as a substitute.
Separate the investor’s company-control evidence from the spouse’s immigration records. A proxy may let the spouse cast votes under corporate law, yet it does not create U.S. work authorization. An eligible E spouse is generally employment-authorized incident to status with suitable evidence, while E children do not receive that permission. The principal must show treaty nationality, qualifying enterprise nationality, irrevocably committed at-risk funds, substantiality, a real nonmarginal operation, and development and direction through half ownership or operational control. E-2 itself offers no direct permanent-residence route. The common error is using a broad commercial power of attorney as though it proved both the principal’s control and the spouse’s status.
Hypothetical example: A bookkeeping-firm owner near Saint-Charles-de-Bourget gives her spouse authority to vote her shares during travel. Their preparation file describes that proxy accurately but does not list it as employment permission. She documents her own treaty nationality, investment, and continuing direction of the business. If the spouse plans to keep company accounts, the couple waits until valid E-spouse status and acceptable employment evidence are in place. A child accompanying them could study if eligible but could not work through derivative E status.