Comment by proberts

2 years ago

I wouldn't characterize an O-1 as easy but it's often within reach of talented professionals, particularly founders. At the end of the day, the issue is less about the quality of the evidence - although that matters - and more about the existence of evidence that checks at least 3 boxes/criteria. And now, with the recent public announcements from the Administration, O-1 petitions with an AI component have an even greater chance of approval.

4 comments

proberts

Reply
marymkearney  2 years ago

Hi. I'm a colleague of Peter's who specializes in O-1 / EB-1A cases. I have a special interest in tech and engineering. Peter's nailed it here as usual. The key to "extraordinary ability" is to collect and present high-quality evidence, tailored to fit within the 8 rigid, archaic categories that qualify you for O-1 / EB-1A. That's much more important than being a "genius."

This sounds painful (and it can be), but it's also liberating. Knowing that USCIS is looking for exacting compliance with the checklist, means that you can give them lots of what they want: Exacting compliance with the checklist!

Based on the information you've given here, it sounds like you could be quite close to qualifying for an O-1. It's become a fairly standard route for non-US founders. It's a great option, much better than H-1B for almost all use cases.

abra0  2 years ago

Bonus question on O-1: what do you think are the easiest boxes to check for a talented professionals in AI? High salary and critical capacity for established organizations are a given, but what else?

  • marymkearney  2 years ago

    Hi, yes those two, for sure. And certainly add "original contributions of major significance." AI specialties are generating "original contributions" thick and fast right now for engineers and data specialists.

    "Original contributions" is the foundational category for a tech or engineering case anyway. And trending specialties like AI are well-placed to develop solid evidence in this category.

    I'd also add the publications and judging categories. These are easy-win categories that are evaluated with a more lenient standard than the other 6. They're also a great way to attract "sustained acclaim" by building a reputation as a thought leader in your field.

    Note that the "field of endeavor" for these 2 categories in private-industry cases is industry publications, presentations, podcasts, broadcasts, and events, NOT academic publications or citation counts. (All these industry activities "count" as publications.)