An Engineer, Not a Founder: O-1A Approved With No RFE
An Engineer, Not a Founder: O-1A Approved With No RFE
An O-1A approval for a software engineer who holds no executive title at the company that petitioned for him. He was the second engineering hire. No doctorate, no published papers, no patents. Approved on the first attempt, under premium processing, with no request for evidence.
An O-1A approval for a software engineer who holds no executive title at the company that petitioned for him. He was the second engineering hire. No doctorate, no published papers, no patents. Approved on the first attempt, under premium processing, with no request for evidence.
July 10, 2026
July 10, 2026
Petition Type | Processing | RFE | Status | Filing Route |
O-1A Extraordinary Ability | Premium | None | Approved | Employer-Sponsored |
Case Background
Case Background
Almost every O-1A story in technology is a founder story. This one is not. He works for someone else's company, and the case rests entirely on what he has built. Here is who he is:
A Polish national, based in Poland, working remotely for a San Francisco artificial intelligence company backed by a top-tier venture firm in an eight-figure seed round
The second engineering hire at that company, where he built the core product from nothing: the pipeline that pulls financial data from banking institutions, the engine that classifies it, and the system through which the product learns from its users' corrections
Co-founder of a collectibles marketplace where he single-handedly built the entire consumer product stack and engineered three proprietary systems with no prior precedent, growing it past 30,000 registered users and more than $1.5 million in transaction volume
Earlier, co-founder and CEO of what became the most popular competitive gaming organization in his country, competing in a publisher-sanctioned national league and named Organization of the Year in 2023
A founding partner at a collectibles company, where he designed the algorithmic pricing and listing system that still runs its inventory operations today
Field: Technology
Almost every O-1A story in technology is a founder story. This one is not. He works for someone else's company, and the case rests entirely on what he has built. Here is who he is:
A Polish national, based in Poland, working remotely for a San Francisco artificial intelligence company backed by a top-tier venture firm in an eight-figure seed round
The second engineering hire at that company, where he built the core product from nothing: the pipeline that pulls financial data from banking institutions, the engine that classifies it, and the system through which the product learns from its users' corrections
Co-founder of a collectibles marketplace where he single-handedly built the entire consumer product stack and engineered three proprietary systems with no prior precedent, growing it past 30,000 registered users and more than $1.5 million in transaction volume
Earlier, co-founder and CEO of what became the most popular competitive gaming organization in his country, competing in a publisher-sanctioned national league and named Organization of the Year in 2023
A founding partner at a collectibles company, where he designed the algorithmic pricing and listing system that still runs its inventory operations today
Field: Technology
The Challenge
The Challenge
1. He is not a founder at the petitioning company
The familiar O-1A shape in technology is a founder filing through a company they own. He holds an engineer's title at a company someone else started. There is no funding round of his own to point to and no chief executive line on the org chart. Everything had to rest on what he built rather than what he owned.
2. His best work lives inside products, not papers
No doctorate. No peer-reviewed publications. No patents. His record is code that shipped and systems that still run. That is real evidence, but it stays invisible unless someone who understands it explains, in writing, what was hard about it and why it mattered.
3. He works from outside the United States
He is based in Poland and works remotely. His compensation had to be measured against his own market rather than an American one, and his internal job title does not appear in any published wage survey.
1. He is not a founder at the petitioning company
The familiar O-1A shape in technology is a founder filing through a company they own. He holds an engineer's title at a company someone else started. There is no funding round of his own to point to and no chief executive line on the org chart. Everything had to rest on what he built rather than what he owned.
2. His best work lives inside products, not papers
No doctorate. No peer-reviewed publications. No patents. His record is code that shipped and systems that still run. That is real evidence, but it stays invisible unless someone who understands it explains, in writing, what was hard about it and why it mattered.
3. He works from outside the United States
He is based in Poland and works remotely. His compensation had to be measured against his own market rather than an American one, and his internal job title does not appear in any published wage survey.
Our Strategic Approach
Our Strategic Approach
We filed on six criteria and built each one on work he had already done.
1. Critical role
Four organizations carried this. He was the second engineering hire at a venture-backed AI company and built its core product himself. He co-founded a marketplace and built the whole of its technology. He founded and led a competitive gaming organization to the top of its national league. He designed the pricing system that still runs another company's operations. Senior people at each confirmed his role in writing, with specifics.
2. Original contribution
Two systems carried this criterion. One was a marketplace architecture that introduced a product model with no precedent in its category. The other was an algorithmic pricing and listing engine. Independent practitioners with no stake in the outcome confirmed in writing that the work was new and that the field is different because of it.
3. High salary
His remuneration is set in US dollars and documented through a consulting agreement and a sustained record of invoices. Measured against independent benchmarks for engineers in his country and in his city, he earns roughly 2.1 and 2.7 times the 90th percentile. We used generalist engineer benchmarks rather than senior ones, deliberately, because the more conservative comparison is the harder one to argue with.
4. Membership
He belongs to two selective founder networks. One is invitation-only. The other admits members through a committee of founders, venture partners, and technology executives.
5. Judging
He judged two technology competitions, including a San Francisco hackathon hosted by an applied research lab in partnership with a major technology company, scoring other builders on architecture, implementation quality, and product execution.
6. Published material
His work has been the subject of coverage in a long-running American newspaper and a technology trade publication.
Alongside these six, we submitted advisory opinion letters from outside experts who vouched for his standing in the field.
We filed on six criteria and built each one on work he had already done.
1. Critical role
Four organizations carried this. He was the second engineering hire at a venture-backed AI company and built its core product himself. He co-founded a marketplace and built the whole of its technology. He founded and led a competitive gaming organization to the top of its national league. He designed the pricing system that still runs another company's operations. Senior people at each confirmed his role in writing, with specifics.
2. Original contribution
Two systems carried this criterion. One was a marketplace architecture that introduced a product model with no precedent in its category. The other was an algorithmic pricing and listing engine. Independent practitioners with no stake in the outcome confirmed in writing that the work was new and that the field is different because of it.
3. High salary
His remuneration is set in US dollars and documented through a consulting agreement and a sustained record of invoices. Measured against independent benchmarks for engineers in his country and in his city, he earns roughly 2.1 and 2.7 times the 90th percentile. We used generalist engineer benchmarks rather than senior ones, deliberately, because the more conservative comparison is the harder one to argue with.
4. Membership
He belongs to two selective founder networks. One is invitation-only. The other admits members through a committee of founders, venture partners, and technology executives.
5. Judging
He judged two technology competitions, including a San Francisco hackathon hosted by an applied research lab in partnership with a major technology company, scoring other builders on architecture, implementation quality, and product execution.
6. Published material
His work has been the subject of coverage in a long-running American newspaper and a technology trade publication.
Alongside these six, we submitted advisory opinion letters from outside experts who vouched for his standing in the field.
The Outcome
The Outcome
APPROVED | NO RFE | PREMIUM | SIX CRITERIA |
O-1A Extraordinary Ability | First attempt | Premium Processing | Filed across six categories |
Approved on the first attempt, under premium processing, with no request for evidence.
He never did anything for the sake of a visa. He shipped products, solved hard problems, and answered when people asked him to judge their work. The petition simply put that record in front of an officer in the terms the regulations recognize.
APPROVED | NO RFE | PREMIUM | SIX CRITERIA |
O-1A Extraordinary Ability | First attempt | Premium Processing | Filed across six categories |
Approved on the first attempt, under premium processing, with no request for evidence.
He never did anything for the sake of a visa. He shipped products, solved hard problems, and answered when people asked him to judge their work. The petition simply put that record in front of an officer in the terms the regulations recognize.
Key Success Factors
Key Success Factors
1. We did not need a founder title
Extraordinary ability is about the work, not the org chart. Being the engineer who built the product can be a stronger fact than being the person who owns the company, provided someone senior will put it in writing.
2. We made the engineering legible
An adjudicator is not an engineer. One of his systems solved a routing problem that is computationally hard in the formal sense, and he found a way to guarantee an optimal result every time. Left unexplained, that is a line on a resume. Explained by practitioners who understood it, it became evidence.
3. We benchmarked him against his real market
Salary is a comparison, not a number. We measured him against engineers where he actually lives and works, sourced to named independent platforms, and chose the most conservative titles available.
4. We used the whole career, not the current job
The marketplace, the esports organization, and the pricing system were all years behind him. They still counted, and they carried real weight.
5. We filed above the minimum
Six criteria instead of three left no single point of failure. If an officer had questioned one, five would have remained.
1. We did not need a founder title
Extraordinary ability is about the work, not the org chart. Being the engineer who built the product can be a stronger fact than being the person who owns the company, provided someone senior will put it in writing.
2. We made the engineering legible
An adjudicator is not an engineer. One of his systems solved a routing problem that is computationally hard in the formal sense, and he found a way to guarantee an optimal result every time. Left unexplained, that is a line on a resume. Explained by practitioners who understood it, it became evidence.
3. We benchmarked him against his real market
Salary is a comparison, not a number. We measured him against engineers where he actually lives and works, sourced to named independent platforms, and chose the most conservative titles available.
4. We used the whole career, not the current job
The marketplace, the esports organization, and the pricing system were all years behind him. They still counted, and they carried real weight.
5. We filed above the minimum
Six criteria instead of three left no single point of failure. If an officer had questioned one, five would have remained.
Why Engineers Trust OpenSphere
Why Engineers Trust OpenSphere
OpenSphere prepares O-1A and other extraordinary ability cases for engineers and builders, including people who have never held a founder title and people working for US companies from abroad.
A proven approach to employer-sponsored filings, where the case rests on your work rather than your ownership
Experience translating shipped systems and technical depth into evidence an adjudicator can actually assess
Careful handling of cross-border filings, from remote arrangements to the right salary benchmarks for your market
Whether you are an engineer, a researcher, or a founder, OpenSphere can help you build a case that stands on its own.
Get your free visa evaluation at opensphere.ai
Note: Client details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality while preserving the essential facts of the case.
OpenSphere prepares O-1A and other extraordinary ability cases for engineers and builders, including people who have never held a founder title and people working for US companies from abroad.
A proven approach to employer-sponsored filings, where the case rests on your work rather than your ownership
Experience translating shipped systems and technical depth into evidence an adjudicator can actually assess
Careful handling of cross-border filings, from remote arrangements to the right salary benchmarks for your market
Whether you are an engineer, a researcher, or a founder, OpenSphere can help you build a case that stands on its own.
Get your free visa evaluation at opensphere.ai
Note: Client details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality while preserving the essential facts of the case.