Effective January 8, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published an update to its Policy Manual, providing clarity and consolidation of existing policy on how USCIS evaluates evidence for O-1 eligibility. These Policy Manual updates provide helpful clarity for founders and/or entrepreneurs to potentially demonstrate that they meet various O-1 criteria.
Highlights of the updated guidance include the following items:
Clarifies that although O beneficiaries may not petition for themselves, a separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary, such as a corporation or limited liability company, may file a petition on behalf of the beneficiary.
Provides examples of acceptable evidence to prove an individual works in a critical or emerging technology area (including AI).
Provides guidance on occupational transitions, such as a STEM professor transitioning to a researcher position for a private company, or an engineer transitioning to a leadership position for a tech startup. These types of transitions can result in tricky cases, as it must be shown that the prospective work is within the beneficiary’s “area of extraordinary ability.” USCIS interprets the phrase “area of extraordinary ability” broadly, such that it can include multiple occupations involving shared skillsets, knowledge, and/or expertise, to the extend they are considered within the same “area of extraordinary ability.” The guidance provides a list of relevant factors to consider, including, but not limited to the following items:
whether the past and prospective occupations are in the same industry or are otherwise related based on shared duties or expertise;
whether the prospective occupation is a supervisory, management, or other leadership position that oversees the beneficiary’s previous position, or otherwise requires shared knowledge, skills, or expertise; and
whether it is common for persons in one occupation to transition to the other occupation based on their experience and knowledge.
Clarifies the circumstances under which USCIS limits an extension of stay to one year and when USCIS may grant a longer extension, up to three years. When evidence shows the beneficiary will engage in a new event or activity, USCIS may grant an extension of stay for a period determined to be necessary to accomplish the new event/activity, but not to exceed three years. The guidance provides an example in which a researcher’s work involves a different phase or trial for the same research project. Such work would count as a new project and the employer could request a three-year extension.
Provides guidance on the types of supporting documentation acceptable to meet the regulatory criteria. Some of the most noteworthy points for entrepreneurs and startups under the O-1A guidance confirm the following:
To meet the “command-a-high salary” criterion, a startup founder or entrepreneur may present evidence that the business has received significant funding. Such evidence can be used to evaluate the credibility of submitted contracts, job offer letters, or other evidence of prospective salary or renumeration for services.
Meeting the “critical or essential role” criterion requires a showing that the beneficiary works for a “distinguished” company or organization. The guidance lists several factors that can be helpful for evaluating the reputation of startups, including the scale of its customer base, media base, and longevity. Also, USCIS will consider the amount of funding received from government entities, venture capitalists, and other funding sources.
For a beneficiary in the early stage of their career, it can be proven that they meet the “critical or essential role” criterion by proving they are a contributor of intellectual property to a startup business that has a distinguished reputation. Also, for a beneficiary in a supporting role rather than a leadership role, USCIS considers factors such as whether the beneficiary’s performance is integral or important to the organization’s goals or activities, especially in relation to others in similar positions within the organization.
Also relevant to meeting the “critical or essential role” criterion: A letter, or other documentation from an interested government agency (including a quasi-governmental entity) can serve as valuable evidence if it demonstrates the agency funds the beneficiary or the work in which the beneficiary plays a critical or essential role.
Lastly, the Policy Manual update added a new item to the list of documents that could serve as relevant evidence for meeting the “totality of evidence” requirement, in which it is determined whether the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of the field and that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim. The new item entails a letter or other documentation from an interested government agency, including a quasi-governmental entity, that attests in detail to the beneficiary’s sustained national or international acclaim.
© Jewell Stewart Pratt Beckerson & Carr PC 2025