So what does extraordinary ability mean? Are we talking PhD level ability here, or Turning award level ability, or somewhere in between?
A successful petition tells the adjudicator the STORY of your rise to success. It's basically a narrated guide to the high-quality evidence you've provided in at least 3, preferably 4 or 5, categories: contributions, awards, media coverage, judging, authorship, etc.
The adjudication is subjective, but there's definitely a formula you can follow to maximize your chances of approval.
1. Continue seeking media coverage, the more prestigious the better.
2. Document the specific impacts your product has in making the world a better place. How has it made a dent in the universe? Factual evidence of specific, industry-wide impacts can really skyrocket your chances of success.
These impacts are hard for many applicants to explain and document, so if you can do it, it will really make your petition stand out.
3. Enter some competitions and win some awards (including, but not limited to, funding, admission to prestigious accelerators, etc.).
4. Judge some competitions or submissions: Hackathons, pitch competitions, applications for funding, peer review, anything in your industry.
5. Write and publish some articles, either on technical topics in your industry (better), or general-interest media articles and blog posts (good).
6. If you're making money, think about how to frame your compensation as higher than the norm in your industry. You have to prove, not only that you have high compensation, but that others similarly placed have lower compensation. There are a number of ways to present this, so it's good to start thinking about how to show a "pyramid."
HTH.
Interestingly, the O-1 and EB-11 categories don't consider US labor issues at all, the way that other categories do. For example, the number of US jobs you create isn't relevant, except as evidence of your success. Neither is the question of whether you're in a shortage occupation, or whether an American is available to fill the position.
I know of several people who went the O1 route and basically the process was this:
- A job offer with a "high" salary (basically it seemed anything over 100k would do the trick)
- Judged a hackathon
- "News" coverage of the hackathon
Then a big check to the immigration attorney who wrap it up in a bunch of legalese and send it off to the immigration officials who don't have enough knowledge or insight to question any of it.
From my point of view the goal is to essentially beat the immigration officials over the head with information until they just pull out their stamp and move on to then next application.
Not to say it is a loophole (though the folks I know that did go through it sure have the smug attitude that they beat the system), I think the Evidentiary Criteria is purposefully broad to leave it open for interpretation.
Adjudicators see these cases all day long. They aren't fooled, and they won't approve them.
You can really make your adjudicator's day - and secure a quick approval - with an organized, nicely presented, high-quality evidence package, that's tied together with a compelling narrative.
I'd focus on showing how your work is new and cool, how it makes an impact on the world, and what acclaim you've gotten (media coverage, awards) for doing it.
HTH
Basically if you have something like a Nobel price or a Turing award, you don't need anything else to get the O1 (and probably the green card). If you're like most people and don't have this kind of award, you still have a shot but you need to gather as much evidence as possible. From what my attorney told me at the time, weight matters.
That includes, for science:
- publications
- recommendation letters (preferably a blend from business, research and politicians)
- awards (even things like "the best paper" of a small conference with only 30 papers from local researchers)
- interviews
- be a member of an association only open to certain persons (for example with a Ph.D. you qualify for IEEE membership, and they will deliver a good-looking membership certificate)
So having a Ph.D is not enough, but if are a decently successful researcher and have a good network for the recommendation letters (or your future employer), you can get it without being of Turing award level.
The "extraordinary ability" is applicable also for athletics or business, but I don't know much about those.
Unless something has changed very recently, you do not have to have a Ph.D. to be an IEEE member.
Source: long-time IEEE member without a Ph.D.
Preface: The "membership in associations that require outstanding achievement" category is, interestingly, one of the hardest to satisfy. Adjudicators are trained to focus on minute details of the organization's criteria for membership, and the extent to which they're governed by "recognized experts" in the field.
This has resulted in some incredible nit-picking by USCIS about how "outstanding" you have to be, to qualify for membership, and who chooses you.
In general, organizations that require only a degree (even an advanced degree), or the payment of dues, don't meet the criterion.
However, the IEEE is an interesting case study, because it has multiple levels of membership. http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/qualifica...
The highest tier, "Fellow," "recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and is conferred only by invitation of the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of IEEE’s designated fields of interest."
THAT is exactly what USCIS is looking for, and it definitely meets the criterion.
The second tier, "Senior Member," "is the highest for which application may be made and requires experience reflecting professional maturity." This level requires that "the candidate shall have been in professional practice for at least ten years and shall have shown significant performance over a period of at least five of those years, such performance including one or more of the following: [list of major professional accomplishments]."
I'd argue that this "Senior Member" tier is also an "exclusive membership," because of all the ways it requires "outstanding achievement" of its members at this level.
All the other levels of IEEE membership are non-exclusive, and I wouldn't bother including them, as they would weaken your case.
Listening to him talk about it really did feel like he was cheating the system.
I see it as independent from the studies level, but I see both of them as important points. So I'll include this competition (and others), my degree in Spain+Japan and the community I founded at my University ( http://makersupv.com/ ).
The NASA award is definitely strong enough to build a case around, if you file in the next year or two, so that the evidence is not stale.
The Makers UPV website is very cool. With proper documentation it could be counted as an "original contribution of major significance." It would be good to start collecting specific examples of its impact on the field, how it's helped people, and what it has created, that was not there before.
In general, other student-level accomplishments aren't considered O-1 caliber. Phi Beta Kappa, academic awards, student papers, etc. are considered by USCIS to be at a preparatory or entry level. They are best omitted, as they will weaken your case and make you look small.
Instead, I would focus on your substantive accomplishments - things that you have made, and how they have helped people, or made an impact on the world.
Also consider seeking some media coverage for your stuff in tech publications or general-interest media.
Write some papers, or do some podcasts or videos, that showcase your work and show its practical applications.
BY FAR the biggest O-1 challenge faced by makers, engineers, and developers, is explaining what you did, and why it's cool, in language that a 7-year-old can grasp and understand right away.
When your O-1 application hits the adjudicator's desk, you will have 5 to 15 minutes to make your case. He doesn't have a clue about JS or Angular. It's very difficult to explain why your work is new and different and cutting-edge, when you have such a limited window to explain it. Yet that - plus your evidence - is THE key to O-1 success.
My best advice: Practice on your grandma. Or your artist friend. Or your GF. Explain it, and explain it, and explain it again. Just bore the crap out of them, until they finally say, OH, I get it! That's so cool!
TL;DR, but hope you can use this in the future. Best of luck.