H-1B Contingency Planning: The Canadian Backup Plan

Not every international candidate needs H-1B sponsorship; some may qualify for other visa categories with different rules, and some may already have status through other means. Build a simple list of candidates and current employees whose US work authorization depends specifically on the H-1B lottery, since that's the group a contingency plan needs to cover, not your whole international pipeline.

Rather than the person waiting out a lottery cycle unable to work, or working around it informally, a Canadian option lets them work legally for your company from Canada while their US path is sorted out, whether that means re-entering next year's lottery, pursuing a different US visa category, or simply staying based in Canada longer term if that ends up working well for both sides. This requires either a Canadian entity or, more commonly for a company this size, employment through a Canadian EOR.

The candidate still needs their own valid Canadian work authorization, which is a separate process from how you employ them once they have it; a Canadian EOR handles the employment and payroll side but doesn't obtain someone's immigration status for them. Depending on the candidate's citizenship and background, various Canadian work permit pathways may apply, and this is worth a real conversation with an immigration specialist rather than assuming one path fits every candidate.

Some companies treat the Canadian option as strictly temporary, a bridge until the person's US status resolves, and plan the transition back to a US entity once it does. Others find the Canadian arrangement works well enough operationally, given the time zone overlap with most of the US, that they keep the person there longer term rather than rushing a transition purely because the original plan was US-based. Decide this explicitly with the employee rather than leaving it ambiguous, since it affects their own planning too.

The contingency plan is far easier to execute calmly when it's already designed before a specific candidate's lottery result comes back, rather than improvised in the weeks after a rejection. Have the Canadian EOR relationship or process already scoped, so that when a strong candidate doesn't get selected, you can make the offer to relocate within days, not months, while the alternative is losing them to a competitor who moves faster.

Have these in place before any lottery result comes back:

1. A list of candidates and employees whose US work authorization depends specifically on the H-1B lottery.
2. A scoped Canadian EOR relationship or process, so you can make a relocation offer within days.
3. An immigration specialist who can advise each candidate on Canadian work permit pathways.
4. The Canadian option raised during the offer conversation, not after a rejection.
5. An explicit decision with the employee on whether the arrangement is a temporary bridge or a longer-term base.

Bring up the Canadian contingency option during the offer conversation, not after a lottery rejection has already happened, so it reads as a thoughtful backup plan rather than a scramble. Being upfront that you have a real, workable path if the lottery doesn't go their way is also a meaningful differentiator against competitors who leave candidates to figure out their own backup plan, or who simply walk away from a candidate the moment the lottery result comes back unfavorable.

The Canadian EOR fee and the operational overhead of a temporary cross-border arrangement is a real cost, but weigh it against the alternative: a strong candidate sitting idle for a year, or taking a job elsewhere entirely, while you wait for next year's lottery with no guarantee of a different outcome. For a role that's genuinely hard to fill, the contingency path is usually cheaper than the lost time and the risk of losing the candidate altogether, and it's a cost you can budget for in advance rather than one that shows up as a surprise.

For example, say you have a hard-to-fill senior backend role and a candidate who isn't selected in the lottery. Compare two costs side by side: the EOR fee and coordination effort for a Canadian arrangement over the coming year, against the value of the role sitting empty or the search starting over. If the role has been open a long time, or the candidate is one of very few qualified people, the arrangement is easier to justify. If several similar candidates are available without visa dependence, hiring one of them may be the simpler call. Put the comparison in writing so the decision doesn't rest on urgency alone.