O-1A Case Study: Venezuelan Founder on TPS Approved After a Change-of-Status RFE

Fast facts

• Matter type: O-1A
• Client profile: An AI and machine learning engineer who spent their career at large automotive manufacturers and then co-founded their own company. They held Temporary Protected Status at the time of filing.
• Industry: Artificial intelligence.
• Country of birth: Venezuela.
• Location: Change of status within the U.S.
• Core obstacle: To transition from TPS to the O-1A, the client had to prove lawful admission into the U.S.
• Strategy focus: Anchor the change of status to the client's original student visa entry, then structure the new company so the petition would not read as self-employment.
• O-1A criteria the petition addressed:
  • Original contributions of major significance in the field
  • Employment in a critical or essential capacity for organizations with a distinguished reputation
  • Membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement of its members
  • Awards and recognition for excellence in the field
  • Published material about the beneficiary relating to their work in the field
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others
• Premium processing: Yes. However, USCIS did not adjudicate within the 15-business-day timeframe and later refunded the fee.
• RFE: Yes, but it did not question the client’s O-1A petition. Instead, it challenged their ability to change status within the U.S.
• Filed date: November 4, 2025
• Approved date: September 1, 2026

Who was the client?

The client, a Venezuelan national living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), spent most of their career building machine learning systems for two large automotive companies. When they reached out to immigration attorney Rami Lee, they had already co-founded a company with a business partner, secured investors, and lined up commercial contracts.

Because they did not want their status to be reliant on a single employer, they initially told Lee they wanted to pursue the EB-1A Green Card. They reasoned that this would allow them to file on their own. However, after their initial consultation, Lee steered them toward the O-1A visa because it fit their profile better, and their startup could sponsor them.

What challenges did this case have?

• TPS made the change of status harder to prove. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, TPS holders can be treated as maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status for purposes of changing status. However, TPS itself is not an admission to the U.S. Because the client had originally entered as an F-1 student, they also had to document that lawful admission as part of the change-of-status request.
• A USCIS hold stalled the case after filing. Because Venezuela was one of the affected countries, the client’s case stalled for months. And because returning to their home country was not an option they were willing to consider, they had to find a way to remain in the U.S. while their case remained paused.
• Founders cannot file for themselves. A U.S. employer or U.S. agent must file an O-1 petition. A startup founder can have their own company sponsor them, but the company must be a separate legal entity and the petition must establish a qualifying employment relationship.

Inside Rami Lee's strategy in this O-1A founder case

Before she could begin working on this case, immigration attorney Rami Lee first had to clarify whether this client could even apply for a change of status within the U.S. “If you can’t demonstrate the lawful admission, then you're not guaranteed that you'd be able to change status, even with a TPS approval.”

In their initial consultation, the client clarified that they first entered the country as an international student under an F-1 visa, then transitioned to TPS. That meant they had a lawful admission on the record and were therefore not barred from pursuing a nonimmigrant visa.

With the ability to move forward, here’s how Lee approached this O-1A founder case:

Built the O-1A petition with evidence that carried hard data

To help demonstrate their extraordinary ability, the client’s petition included an O-1 letter of recommendation from an executive at a major automotive company. But instead of relying on the recommender’s title, the submitted testimonial described the work that earned the client prestige in their industry: building an anomaly detection system that saved the company roughly half a million dollars.

Lee says this decision stems from the fact that effective recommendation letters often describe the applicant’s measurable outcomes. “When you work in a field such as AI or IT, not everyone can get a patent or have some type of specific framework that they can really prove,” she says. “But if you can get a strong letter that demonstrates measurable outcomes, then it really does elevate the filing.”

The letter’s documented dollar figure supported original contributions of major significance. In addition, since the recommender’s affidavit described the client’s participation in the project, Lee also included an organizational chart that showed her client’s standing at each company they worked for. This helped support the argument for critical or essential capacity.

The client also had signed investor and commercial contracts for a company built around what they had spent their career doing. Lee included it in the O-1A case as proof of external interest in and adoption of the work, documented by third parties who put money behind their company at the time of filing, rather than as a projection.

Structured the O-1 petition so the company was not self-employment

Many founders rely on an O-1 visa agent to file on their behalf. Lee did not go that route, and instead chose to have the client’s company act as a traditional U.S. employer sponsor.

To accomplish this, Lee documented the startup as a separate legal entity and showed how the company would oversee the client’s employment. They rebuilt the startup’s corporate structure, submitting bylaws, articles of incorporation, and a named person to handle their employment terms.

"Even if their name was listed as co-founder," Lee says, “it still came across as if they were in an executive or managerial position and not just running everything by themselves day to day."

Key evidence that supported this case

How did the travel ban affect this client?

Lee filed the petition on November 4, 2025, with premium processing, which normally guarantees a decision within 15 business days. Instead, the case stood still for months, as it had nothing to do with the actual merits of the applicant.

Earlier that year, a presidential proclamation introduced a new travel ban that restricted entry for nationals of a list of countries that included Venezuela. Those executive orders only affect people applying from abroad, but what actually stopped this petition was a related policy: beginning in December 2025 and expanded on January 1, 2026, USCIS placed an adjudicative hold on pending immigration benefit requests filed by nationals of the covered countries, including people already living in the United States.

To keep her client in the country while their case remained pending, Lee made sure they had a fallback if the change of status failed. The client separately filed for a B-1/B-2 status on their own to buy time, then waited.

Once the federal courts overturned the USCIS policies that kept her client’s case at a standstill, USCIS refunded the premium processing fee. A month later, the agency approved the case.

Why did this case receive an RFE?

On November 21, 2025, USCIS issued an O-1 Request for Evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the adjudicating officer did not question the client’s extraordinary ability, but requested additional proof that they could change status within the U.S. as a TPS holder.

Lee expected the possibility of an RFE due to her client’s underlying status, and had already argued change-of-status eligibility in the original Form I-129 filing. Her rebuttal did not introduce a new argument; instead, it laid out the client’s documented timeline in the U.S., covering roughly eight years.

That submitted response included:

• The original passport and entry record from the F-1 admission
• Form I-20 records from their time as an international student, requested again from the school if the originals could not be found
• Every TPS approval and reregistration notice
• Every employment authorization document
• Tax filings showing that whenever the client held work authorization, they worked within it and paid taxes on the income

This was enough to answer the officer’s questions, and the case was approved on September 1, 2026.

Why did this approval matter for the client and their company?

Unlike a nonimmigrant visa, the government can terminate a TPS program if it finds a country no longer fits its requirements. The O-1A does not work that way, and Lee says this transition gave her client greater control over their immigration status.

For the company, the O-1A approval meant they could begin working as a co-founder again. The client could begin leading their team, work with investors, and deliver on projects they couldn’t touch while they had a tourist visa and waited for their case to be adjudicated.

Lee also says that this O-1A approval opens a door towards permanent residence. In the future, the client could file for an EB-1A Green Card, which the client expressed interest in. Like the O-1A, it asks applicants to prove extraordinary ability, but its eligibility bar is significantly higher.

About immigration attorney Rami Lee

Rami Lee is an immigration attorney who focuses on employment-based cases. Inspired by her family's immigration journey, she chose to practice immigration law and help others build a life in the U.S. Over her 20-year tenure in immigration law, she has handled a wide range of cases, including PERM, H-1B, and EB-2 NIW petitions.

Related FAQs

Can someone with TPS change status to an O-1A from inside the United States?

It depends on how they originally entered. INA 244(f)(4) treats a TPS holder as maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status for purposes of changing status, but INA 248 still requires a prior lawful admission. Generally, someone admitted on a nonimmigrant visa before receiving TPS has that admission on the record.

Does a founder need an agent to file an O-1 petition?

Not always. An O-1 petition must be filed by a U.S. employer or U.S. agent. A company the beneficiary co-founded can sponsor them, as long as it is a separate legal entity and can show a valid employer relationship.

What happens to a premium processing request that USCIS does not decide in time?

If USCIS does not adjudicate a case within the premium processing window, it will refund the fee and continue processing the case. In this case, the client received a refund because their case stalled for months after filing.

How long is an O-1A valid, and what comes after it?

An O-1 beneficiary may be admitted for up to three years, with extensions available in increments of up to one year and no cap on the number of extensions. Many O-1A holders use the time to build toward an employment-based Green Card, such as the EB-1A or EB-2 NIW.