O-1A Case Study: How Manifest Law Won Approval for a Three-Role Tech Executive
Fast facts
- Matter type: O-1A
- Client profile: Technology leadership focusing on AI-driven systems and technical infrastructure
- Industry: Technology / Financial services
- Location: Filed the petition from within the United States, then completed consular processing abroad.
- Core obstacle: The petition had to make an unusual workload, three full-time roles held at the same time, look credible to a reviewing officer on a very short timeline.
- Strategy focus: Pursued six of the eight O-1A criteria and leveraged recommendation letters, documented leadership roles, salary evidence, and records of business impact to demonstrate the client sits among the top of their niche in technology.
- O-1A criteria pursued:
- Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
- High salary or remuneration
- Published material connected to the beneficiary
- Judging the work of others
- Membership in associations that require outstanding achievement
- Receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards
- Lead attorney: Avalon Paul
- RFE: Yes. The notice was non-substantive and asked only for an update to Form I-129 to name the consulate for visa processing. Avalon Paul resolved it in two business days.
- Filed date: March 19, 2026
- Approved date: May 8, 2026
Who was the client?
Avalon’s client is a technology executive who focuses on building and rebuilding AI-driven technical systems for companies in the financial sector. At the time of filing, they were present in the United States under the Visa Waiver Program and had a short authorized stay after a difficult experience at a port of entry.
The client’s goal was to obtain O-1A status, which would let them live in the United States with their long-term partner and keep building their career across their companies.
What made this case difficult?
- The client held three full-time roles at the same time. The petition had to show that the arrangement was real and that the client could realistically handle several leadership positions at once.
- He only had a small amount of time left in the U.S. On a return trip, an officer at a port of entry doubted that the client would leave the country and limited their stay to one month. That short window meant Avalon had to prepare and file the O-1A petition on a tight deadline.
Inside Avalon Paul’s O-1A case strategy
For Manifest immigration attorney Avalon Paul, proving that this client held multiple senior level roles remained the biggest challenge in this case. While many O-1A applicants juggle several freelance roles, Avalon knew it was much rarer to see an applicant juggle several full-time positions at once. Her concern was that the officer would think her client’s accomplishments were fabricated.
“It almost sounded a little too unbelievable. And I say that because [they] planned to continue working full-time for three different companies. People don’t really do that, but they had the skills and proof to show they could.”
To prove her client could fulfill those roles, Avalon documented the weekly hours tied to each of the client’s three companies. In addition, she included paystubs and employer testimonials from each of the client’s companies, to prove to the reviewing USCIS officer their role was legitimate and that they were extremely valued.
Narrowed a broad job title to one niche
At the time of filing, the client held the positions of Chief Technology Officer at their three companies. Rather than leaning on that vague title, Avalon decided to define their field more distinctively, focusing on how the client designs and builds AI-driven technical infrastructure for companies in the financial sector.
This precision let the reviewing officer compare the client against peers in their niche, rather than every person who held a CTO position. By doing this, Avalon could show her client operated at the top of a real and specific field, and lowered the risk of a substantive request for evidence.
Connected the client’s AI work to business results
Rather than just demonstrate how novel the client’s AI tools were, Avalon also included evidence that showed their benefits. For one company, she included revenue documents showing that her client’s software helped generate approximately $10 million in revenue.
For another employer, Avalon included proof that her client re-engineered their entire software system from the ground up. After extensive conversations with the client to learn about their industry, Avalon was able to position their accomplishments with context. The petition demonstrated how her client increased productivity across their companies and caused a surge in revenue.
By linking the novelty of the client’s AI tools to the results they produced, Avalon built a stronger case for their extraordinary ability. Without these measurable results, her client’s petition would struggle to show impact beyond their job title.
Key evidence that supported this case
| Evidence type | Details |
|---|---|
| Recommendation letters | Five affidavits from former supervisors and recognized experts who directly oversaw or independently reviewed the client’s work. Each one established how the client increased efficiency, cut costs, drove revenue, or turned around struggling companies. They also specified how the recommenders were a leading figure in the field, and why the USCIS officer should take their opinion seriously. |
| Remuneration evidence | Paystubs and salary documents tied to each of the client’s three roles, used to meet the high salary criterion by showing that each company paid the client at a rate much higher than the national average. |
| Proof of leadership | Supervisor letters and company records that established the client led several teams at multiple companies, including a team of approximately 15 senior engineers. Used to support the leading or critical role criterion. |
| Records of business impact | Evidence that the client’s proprietary AI tools helped a company generate approximately $10 million in revenue, along with the client’s role in helping companies raise capital and re-engineer their technical systems. Used to show the weight of their contributions. |
| Awards | Exclusive certificates and industry prizes for AI implementation, earned by the client for their work in companies where they led technical work. Used toward the awards criterion. |
| Published material | Profile of the client’s 14-year publishing history on software engineering, and how each publication addressed challenging, non-trivial engineering problems. Used toward the publications criterion. |
Outcome
Avalon filed the client’s initial O-1A application on March 19, 2026, with premium processing. Around this time, the client’s status expired and they returned to the United Kingdom to undergo consular processing.
This is the primary reason why USCIS sent an unexpected RFE in April. The notice asked for an update to I-129 petition to name the consulate where the client would interview. Avalon resolved the petition promptly, and USCIS approved the petition on May 8, 2026.
The client then completed consular processing and received an O-1A visa stamp that is valid for three years. Avalon notes that a full three-year grant has become less common in recent years, and that she’s seen clients receive shorter duration periods.
Why this result mattered
The approval lets the client return to the U.S. to continue working full time in their three roles. Their O-1A approval can also be used towards a potential EB-1A Green Card petition, as USCIS will consider it as supplementary proof of extraordinary evidence.
And beyond the immediate work benefits, the client’s O-1A approval also brings them the ability to reunite with their partner and family. With it, they can continue to live with their long-term partner. And since the O-1A also gives them travel authorization, they are now able to visit family members abroad during the summer and holidays without putting their status at risk.
Related FAQs
How did the attorney make three full-time jobs look credible to USCIS?
In this case, Avalon and her client weaved together several documents (such as paystubs and affidavits) to showcase the salary and weekly hours for each role. The client also worked weeks of 90 to 100 hours, and the documentation made that workload concrete.
What was in the Request for Evidence, and was it about the merits of the case?
Requests for evidence are not always about the strength of a case. Here, the RFE was non-substantive and only asked the petitioner to update Form I-129 with the correct consulate the client would interview in.
Why did the attorney use only five recommendation letters?
A small set of focused letters carries more weight than a large stack of vague ones, because officers can treat the latter as a negative factor. For this case, Avalon asked her client to reach out to about eight people, and submitted only the five letters from former supervisors and experts who could detail the client’s accomplishments.
About Avalon Paul, Manifest immigration attorney
Avalon L. Paul is an immigration attorney at Manifest Law with over 10 years of experience in business and family immigration. She has won Top 40 Under 40 and Top 100 from The National Black Lawyers in 2025 and 2026, respectively.
