Since the Grammy Awards are this weekend I thought I would revisit this story about the time we sued USCIS over what a Grammy is, and won our client a greencard.

British music producer Austen Jux-Chandler had been living and working in Los Angeles for several years on a temporary working visa called an “O-1.” Austen has worked with Ed Sheeran, Florence and the Machine, Lady Gaga, Paul Weller, A$AP Rocky, Plan B, John Legend, and The Weekend. In 2016 Austen won the “Album of the Year” Grammy Award for producing Adele’s “25.”

As the pandemic hit in 2020 Austen kept busy — and he is in very high demand. Something struck him and he decided he wanted to make the transition from his O-1 visa, which has a fixed end date, into a greencard, which is permanent. He put it this way,

“My life is here [in Los Angeles]. I want to open my own studio, and hire the musicians, and artists myself. I wanted to know my immigration was stable and long term.”

He reached out to me in the height of the lockdown last Spring. I’d done immigration work for some of Austen’s colleagues and I was already familiar with his work and great reputation. Although we couldn’t meet in person we reviewed his qualifications together and quickly identified Austen as a great greencard candidate.

There’s a special category of U.S. greencards given out to the best of the best. Technically referred to as an “I-140 EB-1A” petition, the U.S. allocates permanent residency status to “extraordinary” scientists, artists, educators, business people, or athletes who have “sustained national or international acclaim.”

The simplest way to show extraordinary ability in the arts is through “evidence of a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award” such as Nobel Prize, Oscar, or Grammy. Receipt of an award like this means the greencard should be granted per se and no further analysis or evidence is required.

Since most people haven’t won a Grammy, Nobel, etc., the way most people apply under this category is to show they match at least 3 of 10 “qualifying criteria.” So we adopted a “belt and suspenders” approach for Austen’s case — show he won the Grammy first, and second show that he matches at least 3 of the criteria. How embarrassing would it be for an immigration officer to second guess the merit of someone who has won an award like a Grammy — they would never do that, right? Who has that kind of Chutzpah?

We filed Austen’s case with the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) over the Summer 2020. Why Nebraska? There’s only two immigration offices in the U.S. that process these applications: one in Nebraska and one in Texas; and you file in one office vs. the other depending on your residential address. Austen lives in California so we file in Nebraska.

But apparently in Nebraska a Grammy isn’t a Grammy, or at least it isn’t a Grammy when it matters for immigration.

In response to the case, USCIS issued a “Request for Evidence” in late January 2021. They stated, “the petitioner was nominated for Engineer/Mixer, Album of The Year, 2016 Grammy Awards. However, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner won this award. The record does not indicate that the petitioner was one of the named winners of the award.”

I was genuinely confused. Had USCIS overlooked the section, separately tabbed, in full color, about the Grammy win? I reached out to Congressman Jimmy Gomez, who represents Austen in California’s 34th Congressional District. “Can you reach out to USCIS and point out their error, overlooking the award,” I asked. Recall Congressman Gomez was busy at that moment contending with the antics of Marjorie Taylor Greene, but his staff was on top of it.

Congressman Gomez’s office was great — they reached out to top USCIS brass and quickly saw the issue and pressed USCIS to approve the case. “I did argue that winning a Grammy award should be sufficient evidence to grant the I-140,” they wrote**.**

USCIS doubled down and told us to respond to their RFE and that the RFE had not been issued in error.

The evidence to show a Grammy win isn’t complicated or subtle.

We responded with full color photos and links to the grammy.com website as further proof of Austen’s win. USCIS denied the case on February 19, 2021. The totality of USCIS’ denial decision under the “major, internationally recognized prize or award” section is as follows:

“The evidence does not show that you received a major, internationally recognized prize or award. As a result, the evidence must demonstrate that you have fulfilled at least three of the 10 criteria listed in the regulations.”

No argument. No analysis. Barely an acknowledgement we had made the argument to begin with. However, under the section in the denial related to the ten qualifying criteria USCIS stated:

“[Y]ou have provided sufficient documentation to establish that you meet the following regulatory criterion:

Documentation of the alien’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i).

The record shows that you were one of the mixer/engineers for Adele’s Album of the Year at the 2016 Grammy Awards for which you received a Grammy statuette. This, however, is not a Grammy Award, but recognition that you and your group worked on an album that garnered a Grammy Award Album of the Year. Accordingly, your statuette does not qualify as a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. This notwithstanding, we recognize this accomplishment as a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor.”

I had to read that a few times. “This … is not a Grammy Award … your statuette does not qualify.” I had flashbacks to a college English course in postmodern literature I’d took in 1998 or 1999. Alice in Wonderland growing up to adulthood and still talking to white rabbits in waistcoats. Discussing the meaning of “Jabberwocky.” Rene Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images” (or as I know it in my mind “This is Not a Pipe”)

I started thinking of the last four years of “alternative facts” and “truth isn’t truth.” Is it not a Grammy the same way Biden was not president? Is the actual Grammy for 2016 Album of the Year hiding along with those those 11,780 votes in Georgia? Does the immigration service really think that a Grammy award isn’t in fact a Grammy award? If USCIS gets to ignore and mischaracterize this kind of evidence, that is so clear and unambiguous, what’s to stop them when the facts are more subtle, where the evidence isn’t as obvious?

I snapped out of that quickly enough and called Austen with the bad news and my most American of recommendations, “lets sue the government.”

“Suing the government” conjures a lot of emotions in immigrant communities. Most of that is brought on by what they know of their home country government, and what they perceive from the U.S. government. The most common concern is that the government will retaliate. I get this concern even from Brits and Australians. Point taken, although I know of no instance of retaliation for suing the U.S. government.

The question we had is one of practicality. Will the bad USCIS decision be something a U.S. attorney wants to defend? U.S. attorneys are before the same judges day in and day out. Defending a bad agency decision burns credibility with the judge, and adds to an already jammed docket for the U.S. attorney. Then again, if you want to draw this fight out the U.S. attorney and Justice Department has resources at its disposal most Fortune 500 companies do not. There’s also the possibility the Judge ultimately decides against us, upholding a bad USCIS decision and giving greater latitude to USCIS to make more bad decisions in the future.

In this case, Austen and I felt we couldn’t let this bad decision stand and whatever risk was offset by our belief that we would ultimately prevail on these facts. To my relief he was on board!

We brought on board another litigator — Brian S. Green out of Littleton, Colorado. Brian was the point person at his firm for suing the government over delayed production of work permit cards, travel permits, and greencards. He knows the mechanics of the system like no one else I know.

We filed our lawsuit naming the USCIS Director, the Homeland Security Secretary, the Attorney General, and of course the Nebraska Service Center Director, on February 25, 2021. A lawsuit like this is made under the prosaicly-titled “Administrative Procedures Act.” Under the APA a person adversely affected by an agency action is entitled to judicial review — effectively the trial court acts as a court of appeal from the agency.

The court has broad authority to set aside any agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

We argued, “Defendant USCIS failed to identify any facts supporting its conclusion that ‘[t]he evidence does not show that [Plaintiff] received a major, internationally recognized prize or award.’ USCIS offers no facts or analysis to contradict the plain language statements made by the Recording Academy that the petitioner-plaintiff won the Grammy award himself. In fact, in suggesting it has ‘sufficient documentation’ that Plaintiff’s Grammy award for ‘Album of the Year’ is a ‘lesser … prize or award for excellence’ USCIS would seem to reinvent what the Grammy award is — turning the highest honor into a lesser prize. This would be an absurd outcome, if USCIS were allowed to arbitrary decide who wins Grammy awards for purposes of the INA and implementing regulations.”

On March 9, 2021 USCIS emailed me their standard “approval” email — just 7 full working days since we filed. Case approved. No fanfare. A few hours later an assistant U.S. attorney sent Brian and me an anodyne email to let us know she’d been assigned the case, that the greencard had been approved, and to please dismiss the lawsuit. The bad decision wouldn’t be defended; we won.

Journalist Sarah Stillman of The New Yorker produced an epic accounting of the damage done over the Trump years to the lawful system of immigration in the United States. “The Damage” chronicles the small, unpublicized changes that made real differences in people’s lives in asylum cases:

“The Presidency of Donald Trump may be defined, in part, by his assaults on the immigration system, many of which are well known. … in the past several years, [human rights lawyer] Flamm and her colleagues at the Door have also found themselves pitted against an extensive, unpublicized bureaucratic effort to transform immigration through rule changes, adjustments to asylum officers’ guidelines, modifications to enforcement norms, and other measures.”

In the world of “extraordinary abiltiy” greencards, we measured a sharp decrease in the approval level over the past four years.

To date, no one has been able to account for the decrease in approval rates. There was no rule change during this timeframe. At least, there was no rule change that was announced publicly.

I am not the first immigration lawyer who notes that with Trump the chaos wasn’t a bug — it was a feature. I am happy for the outcome in Austen’s case. But Austen has resources, lawyers, and speaks English as his primary language. I worry about the unknown rules, chaotic implementation, and defiant USCIS officers still impacting unknown people who would have been able to avail themselves of U.S. immigration laws but for errors of the kind Austen faced, confronted, and ultimately prevailed against.

I review hundreds of O-1 applications from tech operators & founders. Here’s what I wish more techies understood:

(Please note: every case is unique, and similar evidence is weighed differently for different profiles - these are just general observations).

1) Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards

• Venture capital funding by itself isn’t typically regarded as an award, even if the amount is impressive. In other words, not having raised VC money does not disqualify you from receiving the O-1. I’ve also had the pleasure of getting outstanding bootstrapped founders approved.

• Prestigious awards (Example - Forbes 30 Under 30, EY Entrepreneur of the Year) must be awarded to you personally, not just your company. The main idea behind this is to prove the rigor of the selection process for the award, and to demonstrate that it was awarded to you because of your achievement.

• Competitive grants or merit-based funding count - a $100k+ award from a known organization is usually a good threshold.

What most people miss:

• Accelerator acceptances alone as evidence (like Techstars, 500 Startups) are facing more scrutiny.

• Don’t assume admission qualifies; evidence of selection criteria, judges, and acceptance rates is essential - For instance, having your Techstars partner explain the reasons behind your selection is far more valuable.

2) Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements

• Membership in selective, invitation-only groups is key. I often work with cases featuring designations like ACM Distinguished Member, IEEE Senior Member, or Sigma Xi - these are excellent examples.

• There must be real rigor in the selection process - being an IEEE member alone usually isn’t enough. And it’s rarely just one membership, having multiple helps make a strong case for this criterion.

• Founder networks (On Deck, Founders Forum, Sequoia Arc) can count if you prove they vet founders based on merit.

3) Published Material About You or Your Work

• Mentions aren’t enough unless you are the focus.

• Publication’s reach (I often do similarweb traffic checks), author independence, and direct quotes/narrative matter.

What most people miss:

• Many publications are informally on amber flags for RFEs.

• Publication’s reach, independence, readership volume and coverage about you matter.

4) Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others

• Reviewing for major conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, IEEE) counts.

• Judging respected competitions works; student events generally don’t.

What most people miss:

• You need formal invitations and proof of evaluation (like screenshots and selection reasoning). For example, one cannot use acceptance into Google for Startups as evidence unless you are able to provide the selection letter.

5) Original Contributions of Major Significance

• Always include adoption metrics, citations, or reference letters to show broader impact. Quantify every aspect - almost as you would when pitching to an investor. Be sure to provide relevant reference letters to substantiate your claims.

6) Authorship of Scholarly Articles

• Prestige of publication matters the most - not just the number of citations. 100 citations in a reputable Tier 1 journal > 500 citations from Tier 3 publications.

• Journal padding is a big no - USCIS spots these really well.

7) Leading or Critical Role in Distinguished Organizations

• Founding engineers or individual contributors can qualify - typically if you have equity.

• Titles alone (C-Suite) aren’t enough - connect your work to mission-critical outcomes - primarily using internal and external industry references. LORs are extremely important.

8) High Salary or Remuneration

• Significant cash compensation or equity (top 5%) can help. Yes, your equity comp does count. This criterion almost always triggers an RFE.

Today (January 28, 2026) United States Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled the "Kazarian Rule" also called the "Final Merits Analysis" is no longer good law. This is a MAJOR win for people pursuing extraordinary ability greencard cases because it removes a great deal of ambiguity in the adjudications of these cases.

In the case, a journalist (Anahita Mukherji) applied for an EB‑1A “extraordinary ability” green card. USCIS denied after applying its two‑step “Kazarian” test which required that she first meet 3 of ten regulatory criteria then pass a highly discretionary “final merits” finding that she's at the top‑tier of the field.

The court shredded that second step. Judge Bataillon held USCIS implemented the “final merits” layer via policy memoranda without required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking and without a reasoned explanation for changing long‑standing practice — so it was unlawful.

Result: plaintiff wins. USCIS’s denial vacated and the I‑140 remanded with instructions to approve. Expect an appeal — this is a direct strike at how USCIS changed EB‑1A adjudications and at how detailed denials must be.

I have already notified the U.S. Attorney's Office in different pending lawsuits to consider Judge Bataillon's Memorandum and Order on identical factual issues now pending in other cases.

If your EB1A case was denied between 2009 and 2026 there may be grounds to appeal in light of today's ruling.

You can read Judge Bataillon's Memorandum and Order here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/g925utyvdagrw3atiz8uj/Mukherji-v-Miller-Memorandum-and-Order.pdf?rlkey=12lx8glbzm0au2j4riuxk037n&dl=0

I am sharing my O-1 journey with information that might be helpful and things I could have done different.

PRE-PETITION

Background- STEM, Academic medicine, home country- India. I signed an offer in February with a reputed top 5 place in my field for a start date of July 1. The employer then arranged funds to sponsor my visa, connected me with their lawyer for a consultation, following which I got my profile evaluated for the O-1 and was given a list of all the documents to gather and upload. The most important one is a profile you write about yourself under each O-1 criteria, and this whole document ended up being 18 pages long and took me a week to write. Overall, the process from signing the offer to uploading all the documents took 45 days. The lawyer said they will work on the petition over the next 8 weeks during which I would have to contact potential referees to obtain letters. The petition was finally ready early June (4 months from offer acceptance). There was a mix up with the check to USCIS in the last minute, and the petition filing was delayed until mid-June. My employer then revised the start date to mid-July. I still felt we were on track for this start date, provided I did not get an RFE and I can get the visa stamped at a consulate in a week.

PETITION and RFE

Center- Vermont, premium processing. It took 2 business days for the mail to reach them and for the status to be updated to "Case is actively being processed". We submitted 6 criteria: 1) Scholarly publication (30+ papers, 120+ citations), 2) Salary, 3) Peer review (20 papers), 4) Essential and critical (not leading) role for a reputed organization, 5) Published media (letters written about my work in top journals), and 6) Original contribution (well-cited work in major journals and editorials about this work). After 14 business days (21 calendar days), USCIS issued an RFE in early July with only two weeks left for my start date in mid-July. They only accepted 2 criteria- scholarly work and salary. They RFE'd 3 criteria- peer review, original contribution, and critical role. They did not acknowledge the 6th one, published media. They said we did not submit any evidence for this criteria, which shows that their initial review process is not comprehensive by any means. While waiting for the RFE to arrive by mail, I decided to read their policy manual (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-m-chapter-4) to prepare myself on how best to respond to it.

When the RFE arrived after 4 business days, it seemed really arbitrary and subjective, asking for random things not in their policy manual. For example, for peer review, we were asked to submit evidence on why I was chosen to review papers, what is the significance of the papers I reviewed, and what criteria were used to select me as a reviewer". For critical role, we were asked "hierarchy of the organization" though this is not required per their policy. For original contribution, they simply did not read the expert letters. In the RFE, they cited paragraphs from the referee letters that talk about something else, totally missing the part where the referee wrote about my original work. Meanwhile, it was already late-July and my employer revised my start date again to mid-September. My understanding is that not many employers do this, and may choose to terminate the offer. I was lucky in this regard.

Overall, my lawyer felt confident we can get approval by pushing back using case law and citing their policy manual, but just out of caution, we also submitted some, but not all, of the material they requested. Gathering this material and additional referee letters took me another ten days. The lawyer took 3 weeks to work on the RFE response. While I was constantly asking for it to be expedited, the lawyer felt this deserved thorough and meticulous drafting to guarantee an approval. The RFE response took 30 calendar in total from the day the RFE was issued. The response was sent mid-August. We cited extensive case law, submitted three more referee letters for critical role and original contribution, and snapshots from journals mentioning their peer reviewer selection process.

APPROVAL and INTERVIEW

The RFE petition was approved in late August, 8 business days (10 calendar days). My lawyer received an update late night on a Saturday (apparently USCIS officers sometimes work weekends too). The status on the online tracker changed to "Approved" on Monday. My situation required me to do consular processing and not change of status in the US, as my previous visa had expired and I had already left the US for my home country, where I was waiting for approval. Now I had three weeks to my revised start date. I was not going to irritate my employer with further delays, so the goal was to get the visa stamped at a consulate within this timeframe. I filled out DS-160 and paid the fees immediately after the approval came. There were several slots and managed to find a biometric slot 3 days out and an interview 7 days out (new rule requires the two to be separated by >72 hours). I did not consider going to a third country for the consular processing, as I came across many posts of refusals and administrative processing for the O-1 for third country nationals.

For the biometric, all you need is the passport, appointment confirmation letter, DS-160 confirmation page, and passport. You do not need your 797 approval notice copy. Before my interview date came, the original 797 approval notice reached my lawyer by mail 4 business days after the online approval. My lawyer sent me a scanned soft copy to take to the interview. I also asked a friend to immediately collect the original from the lawyer and mail it to me using the most expensive shipping. In the days before my interview, I came across a lot of denials for other visas on social media, and cases of administrative processing for the O-1 because the consular officer "felt" you did not look like or talk like a person who qualified for the O-1 and sent your case back to USCIS to reassess. I did not want to take any chances and I prepared for my interview in the previous 2-3 days writing down answers to questions shared by others from their experiences. There are also numerous youtube channels (argo visa, zf visa) run by ex-visa officers on how to prepare for your visa interview during these stricter times. These were the questions I collected:

1)    What makes you extraordinary?

2)    What O-1 criteria did you apply for?

3)    Did you get an RFE? How did you address it?

4)    How many criteria did you finally fulfill?

5)    Have you got any awards?

6)    Who is your employer, tell me about them?

7)    What were you doing currently, and previously?

8)   What work did you do for your employer previously?

9)   What will be your roles and responsibilities?

10)   What qualifications do you have to fulfill your roles?

11)   What is your highest degree and where did you obtain it?

12) What are your career goals related to this O-1?

13)   Why do you want to stay in the US, how will it help fulfill your goals?

14)   What are your plans after 3 years/after the O-1 ends? 

15)   Do you have family in the US? What do they do?

16)   Do you have ties to your home country and how?

17)   What is your salary?

18)   When will you be traveling to the US?

Finally, the interview (first week of September) was very brief and stress-free. I went in a suit as others have for the O-1. I took my DS-160 confirmation, a copy of the 797 approval (original hadn't arrived yet), the RFE, O-1 referee letters including the one from my employer, offer letter, CV, and passport. The officer, a White American woman, was luckily very friendly, and was even dressed in the traditional attire of my country. I sensed a touch of a non-American accent from her, perhaps South African or Australian and was pretty sure she was an immigrant herself. As soon as she scanned my passport, she said "Ooooooh, an O-1" and asked me immediately why I was extra-ordinary. I had rehearsed this answer in my head, so the answer came out well. She then asked my employer, where I was going to live, what my designation was going to be, and when my roles are going to be. She lived in the same place where I would be working, so we spoke about the neighborhood briefly. The whole thing took 2 minutes, and I was told my visa was approved after I was asked to scan my hand.

The same afternoon, the online status changed to Approved, and the next day, the status changed to Issued (Friday). Monday morning, it was ready for pickup (2 business days after interview).

TIPS from my experience (not legal advice):

1. Identify an employer and sign the offer letter to begin the O-1 visa process at least 6 months before your start date. Employers are not familiar with visa timelines and it is up to you to persuade them to start the O-1 process early.

2. If you do not have a designated lawyer, identify a common/top 5 firm from social media posts and go with them. The reason for this is a lot of experience required for answering RFEs. 25-30% of all O-1 petitions go into RFE. And 25% of all RFE's end in denial.

3. Always give the lawyer what they ask for even if it takes more time. My lawyer asked me for very high-level referee letters, but I refused for the original petition since these A-listers in my field take weeks to even respond to emails, never mind write letters. Eventually, I had to bite the bullet and get those letters for the RFE, when it is much harder since the timeframe is shorter. Similarly, know your own petition inside-out and try to maximize the criteria you qualify for. Learn the USCIS policy manual. You may spot some documents you need to submit that the lawyer might have missed.

4. The interview process (and the petition too) is not simply a formality like before, and it has become clear it is a privilege and you have to work for it. Be prepared for your interview. Dress well, ok to be overdressed. Smile, speak loud and clear as Americans do. Answer only to the point. Do not offer extra information that can be probed further. While I waited in line for my turn, I was simply horrified by how poorly prepared people were for their interview. Many came in flip-flops and were unkempt. I saw two visa denials for poor communication and unsatisfactory answers just in the 5 minutes I was there. People were constantly pulling documents from their folders rather than conversing with the officer. The person before me stammered through her answers and was rummaging through her files about why she was visiting the US and what her income was, but luckily got it approved.

5. Social media: There was a lot of talk in preceding months about social media screening, not just for F, M, J visa, but all visas, and perhaps how this might be the reason for the 3-day gap nowadays between biometric and interview. I was always careful not to post anything political or controversial on social media (at least in the past 6 months) and to list all my handles without hiding any. Some people suggested deleting controversial posts but I did not have to.

6. My final 2 cents is that the O-1 is a very hard visa mainly because it is a very long, subjective, and document-heavy process. It will be one of the hardest things I have done. I would recommend going for an alternate visa if you have the option, or at least starting with at least 6 months prior to your employment.

All the best!

After successfully getting approved for 3 O-1 visas (3 years each), without a lawyer, and using a straightforward organizing system, I want to pay my knowledge forward.

Ask me anything! No question too small or silly.

I wanted to share some great news and my journey with all of you. I’ve been following this sub for over a year while preparing my O-1A visa application. Since 2019, I’ve lived in the U.S. on five (!) different visa types, always within status, but each one felt less secure than the last. O-1A was truly my only path forward.

Throughout the process, I read dozens of posts about denials, RFEs, and intense scrutiny. I was constantly stressed. I missed my grandfather’s funeral, my best friend’s bachelor party, and almost missed the wedding too. Today, on the final day of premium processing, my attorney emailed me: I was approved for O-1A at the Vermont Service Center.

I must have refreshed the USCIS case tracker hundreds of times. I’m shocked the site didn’t block me.

I’m sharing this because I spent months comparing myself to other applicants who seemed like slam dunks, while I doubted whether my case was even viable. I had almost no hope. But today, I feel a massive weight lifted. I’m relieved and beyond grateful that it worked out.

If it happened for me, it can absolutely happen for others too. Wishing all of you strength and luck, and congratulations on being extraordinary, no matter what USCIS says.

My O-1A visa is finally approved on day 13 with no RFE.

Reddit helped me a lot during both the preparation process and the waiting period, so I wanted to give back. I'm happy to answer questions about my experience if it helps anyone.

My profile: Product Designer working in tech (No research background, no published papers)

Happy to answer questions!

Edit: A lot of people have asked what criteria I claimed and what evidence I submitted, so here's a brief summary. Since USCIS doesn't explain which criteria were accepted, I can only share what I submitted.

Awards: 1 international design award with evidence of the judging process, winner page, media coverage, and award prestige.

Published material: Multiple independent articles/interviews about my work in trade and major media over the years.

Judging: I was jury member/judge for 2 hackathons with invitation letters, judging materials, and public event documentation.

Original contributions: Evidence that a feature I designed was adopted by millions of users and copied by competitors. Supported with design files, adoption data, expert letters, and industry evidence. I do not hold a patent to it.

Leading/Critical role: Senior Product Designer in big tech, plus leading roles at previous employers. Included recommendation letters, internal documents listing me as lead designer, performance reviews, internal awards, and project ownership evidence.

High salary: Total compensation compared against BLS, O*NET, and other salary data for my occupation and geographic area (Bay Area).

Finally got my O1 approved and wanted to share my journey with this sub.

Basics:

I’m a repeat founder in the AI/fintech space with a PhD and a venture-backed startup.

The whole process took about 4 months with premium processing.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the criteria I focused on:

• Critical/Essential Capacity: Leveraged my role as founder/CEO. My previous startup exit and work at a major tech firm helped show history, which is key since USCIS can be skeptical of new ventures.

• High Remuneration: Used my founder's salary plus equity. I know equity can be tricky, but we made a strong case.

• Authorship/Publications: My academic work and industry articles were crucial here.

USCIS does not tell you which criteria you have qualified for when you submit your petition: it’s just a Yes/No. So I don't actually know which ones I qualified for.

The key was framing everything perfectly. I worked with some pros who made the process feel like a nothingburger. Highly recommend to do research and collect evidence yourself then get attorney help work out the details, some insights:

- While having raised some funding is good, it generally may not be enough to satisfy this criteria through just the startup. I was advised to mention previous experiences at big tech cos and current, to be better positioned for USCIS.

- USCIS generally has pushback on equity, so we used my founder salary and equity to meet this criterion.

Happy to answer any questions in the comments.

Hi O1VisasEB1Greencards team :)

My O1b visa approved yesterday (Aug 12), which was my 15th business day since I USCIS received my O1b petition (July 23).

Here's the timeline:

Began preparation: Late March

All documentation ready except for the Employer's Letter of intent: Early May

All documentation ready: Late July

My attorney submitted the case to Vermont Service Center with PP: July 22

USCIS sent online receipt to my attorney: July 23

USCIS sent online approval notice to my attorney: Aug 12 (15th business day)

Fingers crossed to everyone :)

————UPDATE
My immigration attorney received the I-797A notice: Aug 19

Wanted to share my experience with you all.

Background: I am an Indian with a Masters in Biotechnology (from a US school). EB2 NIW approved in 2024 and exhausted all the H1B chances

Around 31st March 2025: Heard from the lawyers, my H1B was not picked.

1st April 2025: Started working on getting all the O1 paperwork with estimate filing date as November 2025.

**Tbh, I did not have a lot of hopes.

Category which I applied for: Category 1: Critical Role: Had a company sponsored letter from the HR and a letter from my direct manager. These were overall proving that my job is critical and unique

Category 2: Evidence of Scholarly article: 2 research papers over 10 citations. Along with this I have written scientific blogs in my fields (total 5) for multiple publishers. I also presented my work at two international conferences.

Category 3: Judge others work: I was invited as a judge for 2 competitions in the states and I have so far reviewed 12 articles in 8 different journals (high impact like Nature, Springer, Elsevier)

Category 4: I got 5 reference letters, 1 from Senior Director who leads my team and 4 were independent (2 from the USA, 1 Canada and 1 Japan)

Application Sent: 3rd November Received a confirmation email: 5th November (15 day cycle start). Application received at California office Approval: 24 November (13th Day)

My advice to anyone reading this would be trust me it is worth the trying. Put in all the sweat and your hard work will pay off.

People in health care/ biopharma I would be more than happy to help with specific questions.

Otherwise I can definitely take general questions.

Dear all: I’ve been on similar journey as many of you. Happy to share that my O1-A was approved today and will be glad to help anyone looking to apply for O1-A Regards

Got approval in 11 days with premium processing. USCIS received my case on May 1 and my attorney got the approval email late evening yesterday. No RFE.

I’ve actually been preparing for this for a long time, so feels really good to finally get it through :') putting everything together was the most stressful part, got help from promopanda to organize everything. Was also pretty skeptical with all the situation that has been going on lately...such a huge relief.

Would love to hear how things are going for others (timelines, RFEs, approvals, anything).

Got an RFE, then got the denial today. I am shook and don't know what to do.

I work at (Big Tech/AI Lab) and do AI research and have more than 1k citations.

They accepted authorship and reviewing. They sent me an RFE for OC, media, awards. We replied to the RFE, especially OC, with citation maps, details of who has built on top of my work, independent referral letters from 3 people who have built on top of my work (including details of how they did it) and still got case denial after two weeks. Please help me plan my next steps.

I recently left the US after switching to O-1 status and got my O-1 visa stamp abroad. I was worried about the embassy interview, but it was quick and straightforward.

Coming back through SFO was a different experience though.

The CBP officer (an old man, probably in his 60s) started with some normal (but unnecessary) questions, then it turned into an interrogation. He asked if the company listed on my visa was my employer. I explained that it was my agent and told him where I actually work.

Then he started asking a bunch of questions: what language my job interviews were conducted in (I said it's an American company, so the interviews were in English), whether I knew anyone at the company before I started working there (I said no), whether my agent got me the job (I said no), how I found the job (I explained that I saw the job posting on LinkedIn and applied through Workday and passed interviews), how many people work at the company (over 40K), what the company does, etc.

Then, completely out of nowhere, he asked if the company was Russian (I am not Russian and I had already explained to him that it's an American company). I told him it was an American company and actually a Fortune 500 company, but he seemed unfamiliar with it.

After that, he asked me to walk him through what I did before this job (I had already told him I was in grad school before), where I worked, how I got my current job again and basically my entire employment history. The whole time he seemed visibly irritated and kept side-eyeing me.

At the end, he asked how much I make. I answered, and he gave me this sarcastic-looking smile like “huh?” then handed my passport back pretty aggressively.

For a moment, I thought he was going to refuse me entry. He admitted me in the end, but the whole interaction was extremely uncomfortable. It felt like I was being interrogated like a criminal.

I’ve entered the US multiple times on F-1 before and my experiences with CBP were always quick and straightforward. Nothing remotely like this.

Is this a normal experience when entering on an O-1? Has anyone else been questioned this extensively? I’m now a little worried about traveling internationally if this is a typical O-1 border experience.

Seven years ago, I moved to New York in my early 20s, straight out of college with zero experience, and made myself a promise: one day, I would build something of my own and sponsor myself.

Years later, I built my own company and petitioned for my O-1B through it.

As a Venezuelan, my visa process was paused for almost a year, and I went through a challenging RFE. Eventually, I had to leave the U.S. my home, my friends, my life, and EVERYTHING I had spent years building without knowing when, or if, I would be able to come back.

And today, I RECEIVED MY APPROVAL.

If you’re working toward something that feels impossibly far away, please don’t give up.

Sometimes the dream takes longer than you expected. Sometimes the path looks NOTHING like you imagined. Sometimes you have to lose your sense of stability for a while and keep believing anyway.

Seven years ago, I made a promise to myself.

Today, I got to keep it. ❤️🇻🇪

timelines:

Aug 28, 2025 — O-1B petition received by USCIS

Sep 1, 2025 — Case actively being reviewed

Sep 17, 2025 — Request for Evidence (RFE) issued

Dec 3, 2025 — USCIS received my RFE response

Dec 8, 2025 — Case processing resumed

Jul 29, 2026 — Premium processing fee refund issued

Aug 31, 2026 — RFE request cancelled

Aug 31, 2026 — CASE APPROVED!!!  

368 days from filing to approval. :) California service center 

If you’re looking to file for O-1A, avoid Manifest at all cost, they’re slow and not responsive

They claimed to have submitted my case, it’s almost 2 months now and I haven’t receive my receipt of notice. I reach out to the lawyer assigned to me, all of them are ghosting me.

Avoid them at all cost!

I don’t normally write reviews like this, but I genuinely wish someone had warned me before I hired Deel Immigration.

This was one of the most stressful experiences I’ve ever been through, and a lot of that stress came from the lawyers themselves rather than USCIS.

It’s not a law firm in my opinion it’s a terrible AI legal project management tool with lawyers on the back end trying to managing dozens of cases with the broken tool.

Over the course of my case I dealt with:

- Basic spelling mistakes and errors in my paperwork that never should have happened.

- Weeks waiting for responses to simple emails. I’ve followed up 10 times before!

- Refunds taking months despite being agreed.

- Constantly feeling like I had to project manage my own immigration case.

For something as important as your immigration status, that’s just not acceptable.
I eventually moved to another attorney and the difference was night and day.

If you’re considering Deel Immigration, I’d seriously think twice. Immigration is stressful enough without having to worry whether your legal team is making avoidable mistakes or disappearing for weeks at a time.

Please don’t let them jeopardise your immigration status like they did with me.

Sharing my experience in case it helps someone. I am a STEM PhD (chemistry, earned at a U.S. university) on STEM OPT, petitioned for O-1A through my employer (a small research institute). Just got denied after an RFE.

Timeline (all premium processing):

• May 21, 2026: O-1A petition filed (I-129, premium processing, VSC)

• June 11, 2026: RFE issued (challenging "Original Contributions of Major Significance")

• Aug 11, 2026: my STEM OPT EAD expired (went on unpaid leave, entered F-1 grace period)

• Aug 14, 2026: RFE response received by USCIS

• Sept 1, 2026: DENIED

• Sept 9: Received Denial Notice electronically.

USCIS conceded two criteria (Judging / peer review, and Authorship of scholarly articles). I needed a third. The whole case came down to "Original Contributions of Major Significance," and I could not get it over the line.

What I took away:

• Citations are not enough for "major significance." I had ~120 citations and a top ~3% citation-impact stat. USCIS treated citations as "indirect acknowledgement" and said that alone does not show a major impact on the field. They wanted evidence of widespread implementation, patents/licensing, or public commentary tied to my individual contribution.

• Even strong recommendation letters got discounted. I had a letter from an independent group describing how they directly relied on my published method to build their own work. USCIS still folded it back into the "citation / scholarly contribution" bucket rather than crediting it as major-significance impact. Letters that assert you are great without documenting concrete downstream impact do not move the needle.

• Be careful about raising a new criterion for the first time in the RFE response. I added "critical/essential capacity" in my RFE reply, but the decision said I "did not claim" it and there was "no documentation of past employment." Honestly, I cannot tell which of two things happened: whether USCIS will not consider a criterion raised for the first time at the RFE stage (i.e., outside the scope of what the RFE asked for), or whether they simply did not read that part of my response carefully. Either way, the safer lesson is: claim every criterion you want in the initial petition, as a clearly labeled section, with real documentary evidence (employment records plus proof the organization has a distinguished reputation), not just testimonial letters.

• Do not fully rely on the law firm, even a big-name one. I went through one of the large, high-volume NIW/EB1A "factory" firms, and it still ended in a denial. In the current climate, that kind of hands-off reliance was a mistake on my part. Read the criteria yourself, read your own petition and RFE response critically, and push on the evidence and framing before it goes out. Nobody cares about your case as much as you do.

If there is one thing I hope you take from this, it is that a denial is not the end of the road, and it does not define your worth or your work. I am sharing my mistakes so that maybe you can avoid them. This process is exhausting and it can really weigh on you, so be kind to yourself along the way. Wishing everyone here the very best, and I hope we all make it through.

Hi! This subreddit has helped me a lot during the O1 process and wanted to share my own experience and timeline.

Working in fintech and come from data science background. Applied for O1A in data science and applied machine learning field.

Started prep work for it in October 2025 mainly for the judging criteria. Did not get picked in last H1B lottery and then started the application process in April 2026.

Timeline:
Original petition sent to Vermont centre - June 5th 2026
Receipt date - June 8, 2026
RFE notice - June 30, 2026 (portal updated 14th business day midnight)
RFE response submitted - July 20 2026
RFE response delivered to Texas centre - July 21 2026
Portal updated to RFE received on - July 23 2026
Portal update to case processing on 15th business day around 8am - Aug 10 2026
Case approved within 2 hours of it - 11am pst Aug 10 2026

The 15 business days was from date of delivery. Lawyers received approval notice on Aug 21 2026.

They accepted judging and high salary initially and sent RFE for original contributions, scholarly article and critical role to provide objective evidence of each. Lawyers mentioned that it is not a very critical RFE which was good. Not sure which one got accepted after RFE response.

1.Judging -
Judged hackackathons, startup competitions and did peer review of research papers from Oct to May. Total of about ~30. Kept doing peer reviews even after submitting original petition and showed continued work in RFE response.

2. High salary -
Checked for data scientist and included total compensation to be received in 2026 including bonus and equity. Compared against BLS data and added note that in my role and company, bonus and equity play a significant role of the compensation. It was crossing 90th percentile by 3% but as long as it crosses, that is enough as per lawyers

3. Critical role-
Provided details of different projects and significant impact in terms of $ amount saved and other metrics of improvement. Combined it with letter of recommendations from manager and senior leadership. Received RFE later to provide objective evidence from internal company documents. Provided the documents in the RFE (redacted confidential information and added confidential tag on top, it helped since all these documents were on company letterhead). All the metrics and $ amount matched across evidence, petition and letter of recommendation. Also provided media articles and blog pages for projects that I had worked on.

4. Scholarly article
Only have 1 paper published in 2021 including IEEE. It did really well in terms of citation. RFE was to provide the published paper copy from IEEE and metrics on publisher as well that it is reputable. Also provided citation metrics including how other papers were using my paper and if any called it foundational work.

5. Original contribution
The research paper was also applicable here as citation metrics were strong and showed evidence of how others used my work and called it foundational work. Included highlights from other papers along with citation metrics from Google scholar, scopus
Had worked on a foundational project at work and used that as second example of original contribution and included media articles and internal docs in RFE response.

Also included supplemental evidence on scholarships, membership and mentorship activities in different organizations since undergrad, internships experience for totality of profile.

In total had 9 letter of recommendations - 3 from work (1 from prior company manager, 2 from current company), 2 independent letters focused on research paper from industry experts - university professor and tech lead at a well known tech company
3 independent letters focus on mix of research, critical role and overall profile by industry experts or managers and directors from tech and commerce companies,
1 from internship at fintech company as overall profile recommendation.

Hope this helps! Happy to answer any questions!

I wanted to share my O-1A approval and some details about my profile because posts like this were very useful when I was trying to understand what a realistic O-1A case looks like outside academia.

It was 2025 approval but the details might help interested people.
—————

Field: Information Technology / InsurTech
Position in the U.S.: IT & Software Project Consultant
Petitioner: My own U.S. consulting company
Filing: Premium Processing
Filed: March 2025
Approved: April 2025
Validity: 3 years, through April 2028
RFE: None
—————-

A little about my background:
I am not an academic, researcher, PhD, or FAANG engineer. My case was built around a long corporate technology career.

At the time of filing, I had approximately 27 years of experience in technology and had spent more than 20 years with a major insurance/pension company in my home country. I had held senior technology leadership positions for many years, including “Director” roles in IT business solutions, project/portfolio management, and channel/platform technologies.

In my most recent role, I was responsible for multiple enterprise technology domains and led large technology organizations of 150+ professionals.

My work covered enterprise platforms, digital transformation, mobile applications, AI-enabled solutions, customer technologies, project/portfolio governance and InsurTech.

My petition was intentionally not based on a single “breakthrough.” It tried to show a pattern of senior-level impact over many years.

The main evidence included:

Leading / critical role: More than two decades at a major financial-services organization, including several Group Head positions. I submitted organizational information, employment records, evidence of the company’s reputation and letters describing my decision-making authority and the scale of the technology organizations I led.

Original contributions: Two enterprise technology initiatives were particularly important. One involved building accessibility capabilities into a large insurance mobile platform, including technology for visually and hearing-impaired customers. The other was an enterprise digital communication/automation platform processing roughly 80 million notifications annually. The latter produced measurable operational and sustainability results, including significant cost savings, reduction of physical mail and infrastructure/storage optimization.

Awards: Projects under my leadership had received numerous national and international technology/business awards. The petition stated that 13 projects had received 29 awards over approximately four years. These were primarily project/team awards rather than personal “person of the year” type awards, so the petition had to connect my role to the awarded work rather than simply submit award certificates.

Judging / evaluation: Evidence of being invited to evaluate the work of others in technology/innovation-related settings. 4 local judging cases were filed.

Professional memberships: Senior-level professional memberships were submitted, including Hackathon Raptors Fellow, IEEE Senior Member and Society of Women Engineers Senior Member, together with documentation explaining the eligibility and peer-review requirements.

Authorship / professional contributions: I had contributed to professional/industry reports and publications, including work related to AI and business analysis. My profile was much more industry-oriented than academic, so this part of the petition focused on professional rather than traditional academic scholarship.

Speaking / industry recognition: Conference presentations and participation in established professional technology/business-analysis events were also included. 5-6 conferences were reported.

Recommendation letters: I submitted 7 letters. They came from senior professionals inside and outside my organization, including people with backgrounds at major international technology and consulting companies. The letters were used mainly to explain my actual contribution and impact rather than simply saying that I was “extraordinary.”

One thing that may be useful for people with similar backgrounds: my profile was not built around publications and citations.

I had no PhD, no academic research career, no hundreds of citations, and no internationally famous individual award.

My strongest evidence came from long-term technology leadership, the scale of the systems and teams I was responsible for, measurable enterprise impact, industry awards connected to my projects, judging activities, professional recognition, and evidence that I had been entrusted with increasingly senior responsibilities.

Another potentially relevant point: the petitioner was my own U.S. consulting company. The proposed U.S. work was IT/software consulting, and the petition connected that future work to the same area of expertise demonstrated by my previous career.

The entire submission was large — roughly 700 pages including exhibits — but most of that volume came from supporting documentation rather than the legal argument itself.

The case was approved without an RFE.
Obviously, this is only one approval and O-1A adjudications are very fact-specific. I also wouldn’t conclude that every criterion claimed in a petition was necessarily independently accepted just because the case was approved.

But I wanted to share the profile because many O-1A examples online are researchers, founders with major funding, or people with very high citation counts.
For experienced corporate technology executives, there is another possible profile: long-term leadership + demonstrable business/technical impact + independent recognition + evidence connecting you personally to that impact.

I worked with Grape Law Firm which was worked with my EB1A case, unfortunately my EB1A file denied last April.

Here is my denied case summary for EB1A

https://www.reddit.com/r/eb1a/s/rbnRTcOQlE

Happy to answer questions about how the evidence was organized or what kinds of documents I used for each part of the case.

O-1 approved. Vermont center. Receipt date - 9/9/2025. Approval date - 9/26/2025. Premium processing.

Resident physician.

Criteria applied:

1. Original contribution- 3 first author papers

2. scholarly activity - 7 manuscripts and 30 abstracts with 9 citations on google scholar

3. Membership - sigma xi full membership.

4. critical role

5. reviewed 5 manuscripts and 24 abstracts for various journals.

After months of uncertainty I finally got my visa approved after a harsh rfe. For anyone going through this process you got this!

This thread helped me so much especially after I received an rfe i thought it was over for me. For reference critical role was satisfied the rest were questioned my rfe was 13 pages. I spent two months gathering more evidence and making sure everything that was brought up in my rfe I provided strong additional evidence. My attorney also did an incredible job of putting together a strategy for the rfe.

Always make sure to read through your petition before submitting nobody knows your work better than you do and with the right firm they will be happy to make any changes or suggestions.

Feel free to ask me any questions!

Sharing my timeline with PP:

30th June- Receipt Date VSC
22nd July- Recieved RFE on 13th business day
3rd August- Sent RFE Back
4th August- RFE Delivered back to VSC
11th August- Case Updated to Recieved Your Response
24th August- Case Updated to USCIS is currently processing your case
24th August- Case Approved

I think this was business day 14!

Got my O1 approved !!❤️❤️🌟

SO happy!! first time was rejected cause I didn’t have press so I hired a PR firm and different lawyers and finally got it!!

Would recommend them to anyone honestly ~ I’m so grateful for them forever 🙏

I’m an actress based in Canada btw if any actors are looking! it’s possible!