Not “The Field as a Whole”: A Tech Founder’s O-1A, Approved After RFE
Not “The Field as a Whole”: A Tech Founder’s O-1A, Approved After RFE
An O-1A approval for a technologist who helped build two venture backed startups, first as a founding engineer and then as a co-founder. The RFE accepted two criteria and found the rest insufficient. Some of its reasoning used standards the regulation does not contain. We answered with the regulation's own words, USCIS's Policy Manual, and documents that filled every real gap. Approved.
An O-1A approval for a technologist who helped build two venture backed startups, first as a founding engineer and then as a co-founder. The RFE accepted two criteria and found the rest insufficient. Some of its reasoning used standards the regulation does not contain. We answered with the regulation's own words, USCIS's Policy Manual, and documents that filled every real gap. Approved.
October 22, 2026
October 22, 2026
Petition Type | Processing | Status | Field |
O-1A (Extraordinary Ability) | Premium | Approved after RFE | Technology |
Case Background
Case Background
The O-1A is for individuals with extraordinary ability who have sustained national or international acclaim. Most cases are proven by meeting at least three of eight regulatory criteria, followed by a final look at the record as a whole. Here is the case:
A technologist with years of experience building core product and engineering systems at early stage startups
A founding engineer at one venture backed company, and later a co-founder at another backed by a leading venture fund
Filed through an agent, the structure built for professionals who work with more than one organization
Supported by media coverage, judging work, and letters from founders, investors, and researchers in the field
The O-1A is for individuals with extraordinary ability who have sustained national or international acclaim. Most cases are proven by meeting at least three of eight regulatory criteria, followed by a final look at the record as a whole. Here is the case:
A technologist with years of experience building core product and engineering systems at early stage startups
A founding engineer at one venture backed company, and later a co-founder at another backed by a leading venture fund
Filed through an agent, the structure built for professionals who work with more than one organization
Supported by media coverage, judging work, and letters from founders, investors, and researchers in the field
What the RFE Said
What the RFE Said
appears to have met the plain language for this criterion." On the two criteria we chose to argue, here is what it said:
Critical role: a standard that is not in the rule. It said it was not established that the companies "have distinguished reputations in the field as a whole." The regulation asks only whether the organization has "a distinguished reputation." The words "field as a whole" are not in it. It also said "performing complex tasks" does not make a role critical, and that the record did not show where he fit in each company's hierarchy.
High remuneration: averages are not enough. It said "mean wages based on wage level within a certain locality" did not show his pay was high compared with others in his field.
appears to have met the plain language for this criterion." On the two criteria we chose to argue, here is what it said:
Critical role: a standard that is not in the rule. It said it was not established that the companies "have distinguished reputations in the field as a whole." The regulation asks only whether the organization has "a distinguished reputation." The words "field as a whole" are not in it. It also said "performing complex tasks" does not make a role critical, and that the record did not show where he fit in each company's hierarchy.
High remuneration: averages are not enough. It said "mean wages based on wage level within a certain locality" did not show his pay was high compared with others in his field.
Our Strategy
Our Strategy
Bank what was conceded. We quoted the "plain language" finding for published material and judging, pointed to the original exhibits, and added nothing.
Focus, do not scatter. Rather than re-argue every criterion, we built the response around the two strongest remaining ones: critical role and high remuneration.
Correct the standard, then close the gap. For each criterion we quoted the regulation and the Policy Manual, then supplied the documents the RFE said were missing.
Add independent voices. Recognized experts in the field, none of them from the companies involved, provided advisory opinions on his record.
Bank what was conceded. We quoted the "plain language" finding for published material and judging, pointed to the original exhibits, and added nothing.
Focus, do not scatter. Rather than re-argue every criterion, we built the response around the two strongest remaining ones: critical role and high remuneration.
Correct the standard, then close the gap. For each criterion we quoted the regulation and the Policy Manual, then supplied the documents the RFE said were missing.
Add independent voices. Recognized experts in the field, none of them from the companies involved, provided advisory opinions on his record.
How We Answered
How We Answered
Critical Role: How Startups Earn a Distinguished Reputation
Young companies do not have decades of history, and the Policy Manual accounts for that. It lists factors such as customer base, longevity, and media coverage, and for startups it says significant funding from venture capital or other investors is a positive factor. It also names a founder or co-founder of a startup with a distinguished reputation as an example of a critical role.
So we documented each company the way the guidance describes: the caliber of its investors, competitive selection into an accelerator, its customers and adoption, and its coverage in national and trade media. Then we answered the hierarchy question with certified organizational charts showing he reported directly to the CEO, alongside letters explaining what depended on his role. The point was never that his work was complex. It was that each company's product rested on him.
High Remuneration: Show the Full Picture, Against the Top of the Market
Founders rarely pay themselves large salaries. Most of what they earn comes as equity in the company they are building. The regulation covers "other remuneration for services," not just salary, and the Policy Manual recognizes that for startup founders, highly valued equity in the company can be comparable evidence for this criterion.
We presented his full remuneration, cash and founder equity together, documented through the company's own agreements and records and valued by outside investors rather than estimated for the petition. And because the RFE objected to averages, we compared it against the top end of position specific pay data, not the mean. As a safeguard, we also argued the same evidence as comparable evidence in the alternative.
Critical Role: How Startups Earn a Distinguished Reputation
Young companies do not have decades of history, and the Policy Manual accounts for that. It lists factors such as customer base, longevity, and media coverage, and for startups it says significant funding from venture capital or other investors is a positive factor. It also names a founder or co-founder of a startup with a distinguished reputation as an example of a critical role.
So we documented each company the way the guidance describes: the caliber of its investors, competitive selection into an accelerator, its customers and adoption, and its coverage in national and trade media. Then we answered the hierarchy question with certified organizational charts showing he reported directly to the CEO, alongside letters explaining what depended on his role. The point was never that his work was complex. It was that each company's product rested on him.
High Remuneration: Show the Full Picture, Against the Top of the Market
Founders rarely pay themselves large salaries. Most of what they earn comes as equity in the company they are building. The regulation covers "other remuneration for services," not just salary, and the Policy Manual recognizes that for startup founders, highly valued equity in the company can be comparable evidence for this criterion.
We presented his full remuneration, cash and founder equity together, documented through the company's own agreements and records and valued by outside investors rather than estimated for the petition. And because the RFE objected to averages, we compared it against the top end of position specific pay data, not the mean. As a safeguard, we also argued the same evidence as comparable evidence in the alternative.
The Outcome
The Outcome
Approved. The beneficiary can now continue his work in the United States through his agent.
Startup careers often look weaker on paper than they are: the companies are young and the salaries are modest. USCIS's own guidance recognizes both realities. A strong response simply shows the evidence the way the guidance asks for it.
Approved. The beneficiary can now continue his work in the United States through his agent.
Startup careers often look weaker on paper than they are: the companies are young and the salaries are modest. USCIS's own guidance recognizes both realities. A strong response simply shows the evidence the way the guidance asks for it.
What O-1A Applicants Can Take From This Case
What O-1A Applicants Can Take From This Case
Treat the USCIS regulations and Policy Manual as your source of truth, not the RFE. Read every line of the actual rule, and interpret it in the strongest way it honestly supports for your situation.
"Appears to have met the plain language for this criterion" means the criterion is met. Bank it and move on.
You do not have to fight every rejected criterion. Focus on the strongest ones.
If an RFE adds words like "the field as a whole," check them against the regulation. If they are not there, say so respectfully.
If you work at a startup, document its reputation the way the Policy Manual describes it: funding, investors, customers, and media coverage.
Show your position, not just your work. Org charts answer the hierarchy question better than adjectives in a letter.
If you are a founder with a modest salary, remember that equity can count. Document it, and compare against the top of the market, not the average.
Treat the USCIS regulations and Policy Manual as your source of truth, not the RFE. Read every line of the actual rule, and interpret it in the strongest way it honestly supports for your situation.
"Appears to have met the plain language for this criterion" means the criterion is met. Bank it and move on.
You do not have to fight every rejected criterion. Focus on the strongest ones.
If an RFE adds words like "the field as a whole," check them against the regulation. If they are not there, say so respectfully.
If you work at a startup, document its reputation the way the Policy Manual describes it: funding, investors, customers, and media coverage.
Show your position, not just your work. Org charts answer the hierarchy question better than adjectives in a letter.
If you are a founder with a modest salary, remember that equity can count. Document it, and compare against the top of the market, not the average.
Why Professionals and Employers Trust OpenSphere
Why Professionals and Employers Trust OpenSphere
OpenSphere prepares O-1A, EB-1A, and other extraordinary ability cases for founders, engineers, and professionals whose careers do not fit a single employer or a traditional path.
Experience presenting startup roles and founder compensation the way USCIS guidance actually recognizes them
RFE responses that correct the standard and close the evidence gap at the same time
Agent based petitions for professionals who work across multiple organizations
Whether you are building a case from scratch or facing an RFE that does not seem to follow the rules, 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, EB-1A, and other extraordinary ability cases for founders, engineers, and professionals whose careers do not fit a single employer or a traditional path.
Experience presenting startup roles and founder compensation the way USCIS guidance actually recognizes them
RFE responses that correct the standard and close the evidence gap at the same time
Agent based petitions for professionals who work across multiple organizations
Whether you are building a case from scratch or facing an RFE that does not seem to follow the rules, 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.