EB-1A Case Study: Cryptocurrency Founder Approved after RFE
Fast facts
- Matter type: EB-1A Green Card
- Client profile: Technology entrepreneur and cryptocurrency founder
- Industry: Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology
- Location: Applying from within the United States
- Core obstacle: Technically complex body of work that was difficult to translate to an immigration officer; unexpected RFE despite a strong, multi-criteria profile
- Strategy focus: Pursued seven EB-1A criteria by leveraging recommendation letters, press coverage, investment documentation, authored articles, and compensation evidence into a cohesive narrative that demonstrated a decade-long trajectory of sustained acclaim in cryptocurrency and technology entrepreneurship.
- EB-1A criteria pursued:
- Critical and leading role at distinguished organizations
- Original contributions of major significance
- Receipt of awards
- Membership in distinguished associations
- Subject of major media coverage
- Authorship of published material
- High remuneration
- Lead attorney: Siel Timperman
- RFE: Yes
- Filed date: February 13, 2026
- Approved date: May 18, 2026
Who was the client?
The client is a technology entrepreneur who founded multiple companies in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space. They began their career over a decade ago and, since then, have become widely recognized in their field.
At the time they reached out to Manifest Law, they were already working in the U.S. on an O-1A visa, which is given to people who can demonstrate “extraordinary ability.” The client’s goal was to obtain an EB-1A Green Card, which would allow them to remain in the country and continue growing their cryptocurrency companies. And as a national from a country subject to a Visa Bulletin backlog, the EB-1A was also their fastest path towards permanent residence.
The problem: What made this case challenging?
- The client’s industry (cryptocurrency and blockchain entrepreneurship) was highly technical, making it difficult to explain the significance of their contributions to a non-specialist reviewing officer.
- A previous law firm had already defined the client’s field of extraordinary ability. It was a definition Siel didn’t fully agree with, but couldn’t change without risking scrutiny of their existing O-1A status.
- Despite meeting seven criteria with strong, organic evidence, the case received an unexpected RFE — a sign of the current adjudication environment, not a weakness in the profile.
EB-1A criteria pursued
- Critical and leading role: Founder and executive positions at multiple distinguished cryptocurrency and blockchain companies
- Original contributions of major significance: Industry-defining products and technologies developed across more than a decade of work
- Receipt of awards: Venture capital funding received across multiple companies, argued as founder-directed recognition in a field where fewer than 1% of founders receive institutional investment
- Membership in distinguished associations: Founding membership in a global blockchain industry coalition, selected by peer recognition as one of 12 individuals at inception
- Subject of major media coverage: Press coverage spanning multiple years documenting the client’s work and recognition
- Authorship of published material: Articles authored by the client in the field
- High remuneration: Compensation and equity value significantly above typical benchmarks in the field
Siel Timperman’s EB-1A strategy
For Siel, communicating the client’s extraordinary work in cryptocurrency and blockchain entrepreneurship was the central challenge in this case. Presenting their accomplishments too literally could lose the reviewing officer, but oversimplifying would make the client seem generic.
That strategy led not only the initial filing but also the response that came after, when the client received an unexpected RFE:
“I could tell the officer had engaged with the material, and when I see that, that’s honestly the best case scenario. You can really use that to further build out your response. I knew I had to make it even more clear why this work was significant, and we succeeded.”
Below is a more detailed breakdown of how Siel approached this EB-1A case.
Maintained continuity with the client’s O-1A approval
When the client filed for their O-1A visa through a different law firm, the attorney defined their field as “technology entrepreneurship and cryptocurrency.” Siel felt this definition did not fully encompass her client’s work, but she made the deliberate choice to use it for the EB-1A filing.
The reason? Changing their field of extraordinary ability could have invited scrutiny to their O-1A visa approval, and risked creating inconsistencies in the record. In fact, it could put their current status at risk.
By maintaining the established framing, the petition could build on an already-accepted finding of extraordinary ability rather than reopening it. While she didn’t fully agree with this definition of her client’s field, the alternative seemed riskier and she chose to work around the constraint.
Use granted RFE criteria to reinforce unapproved ones
When the client received their RFE, Siel knew this wasn’t the end. In fact, it represented an opportunity to strengthen the client’s case.
The RFE conceded two EB-1A criteria: critical and leading role at distinguished organizations, and published material about the beneficiary. To Siel, this showed that USCIS understood the client’s potential, but not necessarily their qualifications, at least as far as the law required. Siel’s RFE response used the reviewing officer’s conclusions strategically, arguing that they were further proof that her client met the EB-1A standard.
For example, the RFE claimed the client’s VC funding did not count as an award because the money went to their companies and not to them personally. But Siel argued that by acknowledging that the client held a foundational, critical role at those same ventures, the officer couldn’t claim the financial recognition those ventures received had nothing to do with her client.
The officer also objected to the client’s use of the EB-1A membership criterion. The RFE noted that the professional organization the client was associated with appears to admit organizations rather than people. Siel’s response gave USCIS the context: Her client was one of only 12 founding members who constituted the alliance at inception. They didn’t join the organization. They helped create it.
Key evidence that supported this case
| Criterion | Evidence Submitted |
|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | Funding round agreements and press coverage for the client’s companies Background materials on the investing firms Articles covering their VC and startup fundraising |
| Membership in associations | Printed materials about their blockchain industry coalition Third-party news release describing the coalition’s mission |
| Published material about the beneficiary | Coverage in professional and major media relating to the client’s work in the field |
| Original contributions of major significance | Support letter citing product launches, protocol design, and market infrastructure work Five recommendation letters, including independent expert letters Funding agreements and press releases from the client’s ventures |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | Two articles authored by the client — one on a crypto-focused website, one in a major general interest publication Two additional referenced articles not included in the filing |
| Leading or critical role | Evidence of senior and founding roles at distinguished organizations in the field |
| High salary or remuneration | W-2 from a major crypto exchange showing seven-figure gross wages Salary data from three online sources (average senior PM base pay) Cap tables showing equity ownership in two ventures SAFE/investment agreements reflecting multi-million-dollar valuations General press coverage on equity compensation and VCA restricted token purchase agreement |
Outcome
USCIS approved the client’s EB-1A petition on May 18, 2026, following a successful RFE response filed on April 27.
Why this result mattered for the client
By pursuing permanent residence, the client could continue working in the U.S. and build companies in the cryptocurrency space without the constraints of their nonimmigrant status.
As a national from a country subject to Visa Bulletin backlogs, securing the I-140 EB-1A approval also unlocked the fastest available path to an adjustment of status.
Related FAQs
Why did this EB-1A case receive an RFE, even though the client had a strong profile?
RFEs on EB-1A petitions have become more common in recent years, even for well-documented cases. An RFE does not necessarily indicate that a petition is weak, but it often reflects increased scrutiny across the board rather than a specific deficiency in the filing.
How did a prior O-1A approval affect the EB-1A strategy?
An approved O-1A is a documented finding of extraordinary ability, which USCIS can consider as evidence for an EB-1A petition.
Can an EB-1A beneficiary petition without an employer?
Yes. The EB-1A allows self-petitions, meaning the client does not need a sponsoring employer. This is one of the features that makes the category well-suited for founders and entrepreneurs.
About Siel Timperman, immigration attorney at Manifest Law
Originally from Belgium, Siel Timperman has worked in immigration law for nearly a decade, and completed her legal education in Europe before earning an LLM from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her client work spans technology executives, entrepreneurs, software engineers, and founders across a wide range of industries.
Disclaimer: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
