Congrats OP! I'm trying to choose my words carefully, because I don't want to give the wrong impression:
1. I think it's great that OP got the visa, and it's clear (at least to me) that we should be attracting entrepreneurial types like OP to start businesses in the US. I also understand that our immigration system is hopelessly broken, and oftentimes the best one can hope to do is "hack" the system. So I commend you for not just hacking the system, but posting this to Hacker News!
2. It seems pretty apparent that while OP may be able to "check some of these boxes", he, at least to me, doesn't meet the "Extraordinary Ability" intent of this visa. I worry that with more spotlight on these types of applications that various political movements would try to tighten the loopholes for this visa.
To expand on number 2, raising 98K from family, friends and seed investors really does not strike me as a "nationally or internationally recognized award". Again, clearly it is by the letter of the law (at least the rules of the USCIS), but that surprised me as a layperson. The section on "Being employed in a ‘critical capacity’ at an organization with a distinguished reputation" seemed even more dubious. Path, OP's startup that is nothing more than a pitch deck and 100k in funding, is "an organization with a distinguished reputation"???
Again, to be 100% clear, I don't fault OP at all for going this route, and on the contrary, I commend him for "playing the game" correctly. I just worry about the downstream consequences of "pulling back the curtain" and showing how the game works to a larger audience.
100% agree. Someone I know received an O1 EO visa but they had worked on products that were shipping worldwide for 100s of millions of dollars, filed patents, had advanced degrees, worked at some high profile institutions, had 1000s of citations for their papers, papers published in high profile conferences and journals, and recommendation letters from CEOs, CTOs of high profile organizations from US and abroad. And they were employed in a domain which is identified as a critical technology. Their case was still far from being a high confidence case. The lawyers kept the regular process going, including NIV path.
No offense to OP and still a nice achievement but OP's listed criteria are not even close to what would qualify for O1 and would not hold up under scrutiny if the letter and spirit of the criteria is applied. It is possible that USCIS is instructed to encourage issuance for start up founders, which is totally fine and is necessary to keep the innovation going.
On a related note, the moment OP resigned from their L1B job, I am fairly certain they needed to leave the country in 60 days or so. It may or may not affect them when they pursue citizenship.
But if I were OP, I would not advertise this and count my blessings in private.
> On a related note, the moment OP resigned from their L1B job, I am fairly certain they needed to leave the country in 60 days or so. It may or may not affect them when they pursue citizenship.
Just a technical note that it won’t affect them at all. When you apply for an employment based green card you can actually have arbitrary amounts of “unlawful presence” before your most recent admission to the US. The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly allows it. The challenge is generally recentering the US after being here unlawfully, but it seems OP already did this on their new O-1.
And now they can't anymore.
Pretty strange move to go from L1 to O1 since L1 allows relatively straightforward upgrade to green card but O1 is a non-immigrant visa.
Correction: they can. Looks like "non-immigrant" can still have dual intent of immigrating.
I'm not sure I'd agree it's a fluke. Someone I worked with at a previous company did something very similar to this, and I recall reading an account on HN a couple years back about someone who did it using different criteria than OP, but still in a way that surprised me.
> and oftentimes the best one can hope to do is "hack" the system
None of this is "hacking". This is how it works and supposed to work in the law. The manuals given to USCIS agents who handle this are at best low grade pen pushers. They have zero understanding of the work they are doing and are not qualified to make these decisions in any way. The way they work is through checklists and unless you pass this checklist your intent and what you are has zero relevance.
When you go deep into why these laws were created and why these specific regulations exist, you will find out that the lawmakers totally intended this. For example, it is ridiculously easy for a model who has even occasionally walked the ramp to "hack" the system. This was created so escorts, supermodels and side chicks of rich and powerful could be brought in easily on O1. One such lady even ended up in white house.
> It seems pretty apparent that while OP may be able to "check some of these boxes", he, at least to me, doesn't meet the "Extraordinary Ability" intent of this visa. I worry that with more spotlight on these types of applications that various political movements would try to tighten the loopholes for this visa.
You are not in charge of deciding who is extra ordinary, USCIS agent is. I bet if you were in charge of making such decisions you would do a better job and actually let in 10x more people. But that is not the way it is. USCIS agent makes the decision based on a relatively very objective criteria.
> To expand on number 2, raising 98K from family, friends and seed investors really does not strike me as a "nationally or internationally recognized award".
It does not "strike to you" is irrelevant. What matters is is it will within the USCIS's defition.
Congrats to OP for writign this piece and I hope more and more people use these sort of systematic approach.
And there is a specific criteria to meet to qualify for this visa. Actors also have their own list of requirements. Not every model or actor will qualify.
That's a O-1B visa. Slightly different (and more relaxed) criteria. O-1A requires "a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor". O-1B merely requires "a high level of achievement in the field of arts, as evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered".
H1Bs are limited in number only 64K and they are assinged by lottery as around 300K people apply for them. Also you need to start applying in January and you can come only in October. Escorts often need much faster recruitment and short contracts.
H1Bs are used by people from what establishment sees as "undesirable" people such as Indians and Chinese and hence there is far too much red tape and confusion there. Senators and Us Reps aren't going to take their route for their side chicks.
I really hope more people can use this loophole as much as possible. The lack of immigrants is lowering the standards of this country, so perhaps if the trend continues, this will no longer be a loophole but a by-the-book exhibition of extraordinary ability.
The root of that issue is that they can't work. Not legally. For all the complaints anti-immigration people make about immigrants not working, they seem to do everything they can to make it impossible to work here legally, regardless of whether you came here by foot or boat or a sponsorship.
Protectionist policies breed stagnation. Being wholesale anti-immigration in the name of protecting "our jobs" is a cover-up for preferring the comfort of not having to compete with the more skilled, more wanting, and more willing and ambitious.
The process has been broken forever and needs to be reformed. I don't blame any workers either, but just right/left infighting. I have no idea about solving the problem, but if I had to say without giving it thought, I think the US needs a salary/wage database for industry workers that is based on US Citizens and US dollars, and companies shouldn't be allowed to pay less to foreign workers, regardless of if they work here or elsewhere. In exchange, said company should be allowed to hire as many foreign workers as they want and ship them over here.
At least then it becomes about talent rather than money, which also helps with the shitshow IT security at many companies that we have now.
...most politicians would never vote for it even though it'd be one of the most competitive laws in the world. Don't want your citizen to leave? get good.
You say this because you are not familiar with Wave (formerly known as Sendwave). It's one of the biggest startups in Africa. Working there is a big deal
>I also understand that our immigration system is hopelessly broken, and oftentimes the best one can hope to do is "hack" the system.
Just because something is difficult/time-consuming != "hopelessly broken". (No, kids, the Reason magazine "What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand?" flowchart is not ipso facto proof of this, either.)
There is no obligation for the US, or any country, to turn something as important as determining whether someone is eligible to enter the country into a one-click online process. One might say that the country would benefit by making the process easier, and that may or may not be correct, but that is not the same argument.
When I read "the immigration system is broken," I don't think of the arduous process of filing paperwork. I highly doubt GP was whining about the difficult and time-consuming process of filling out reams of paperwork, especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. Context is important! No matter how high your horse is.
In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
>especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system.
I didn't read the original post that way. If the poster stayed within the rules and—more importantly—immigration officials agreed with his interpretation of the rules, who am I to gainsay their decisions? To put another way, this is why my response was to hn_throwaway_99's comment, not to the original post itself.
>Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that something like DACA must exist, and therefore ought to be improved/eased/etc. The a priori argument that a country must accept refugees, and the only answer to the question of "How many?" is "As many as possible". This is the same entitled line of thinking as hn_throwaway_99's declaration that a complex system with many moving parts that operate over a long period of time must therefore be "broken", with the implication that the "fix" must be to make it as close to a one-button process as possible.
1. They didn't say ANY refugees in the country is entitled thinking. They meant as MANY as possible is entitled. Wich is a reasonable take.
2. Also, just because a UNHCR convention says it, doesn't mean it isn't entitled. (I would say the UN is an exemplar of entitlement. The US provides the largest budget while countries like China get an equal vote in vetoing.)
3. Everyone coming illegally is either a) a refugee, b) an economic migrant or c) a threat. Every country has the right to a reasonable process to determine which bucket someone falls into. Even the 1951 convention you linked allows for that. The US's process is actually less onereous than the EU's. The EU won't grant you asylum if you come through a safe country. The US has no such concept. You can be a single military aged male from China but you will still be validly considered for asylum just like a child or 80 year old from Afghanistan.
The entitled line of thinking is that everyone who comes from a country where things are shitty is a "refugee". That's the problem with the way this discussion is framed.
> In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be.
DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.
> Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.
Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives. For people who legitimately need it, it's ok if the process is slow or unclear as long as it's safe (frankly, the process of granting refugee status should be slow and cautious; if the system allows economic migrants to gain an advantage by claiming a refugee status that they're not entitled to, that makes the whole system worse for everyone). The system would only be broken if legitimate refugees were getting sent back into places where their lives were in danger.
> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no?
Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
While I agree that DACA isn't representative of common situations US immigrants (legal and illegal) end up in, I think it's a fine illustration of how our immigration system is broken. If we can't even find a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for people in that situation (not to mention the constant threat of DACA being scrapped entirely if political winds change), who have only ever known the US as a home... well, it's pretty easy to question the rest of the system then.
> Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives
I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.
But really, we don't need to limit ourselves to DACA or refugees to find serious issues with the US immigration system. The H1-B visa is broken; it's gamed by "consulting" companies to mint modern-day indentured servants. The green card process is ridiculous; imagine applying for permanent residency and being told that the wait time meant you'd get it after you were dead, just because you were born in a particular country, not because of anything else about you that actually matters.
> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
Yes. You can blame their parents for giving them an upbringing unsuited to their citizenship, but that doesn't make their position any more legitimate. It's no different from a child raised in a mafia family, who was brought up to break the law before they even knew they were doing so, for whom criminality is the only way they know to live - we don't hold them responsible for their crimes from back when they were too young to know what they were doing, but we do expect them to stop.
> I think you underestimate the quantity of political persecution outside the US. Remember that this isn't just prominent public figures who have tried to stand up against an oppressive regime and failed. Any average citizen in a situation like that could end up in a precarious situation like that. And political persecution is just one reason someone might fear for their lives to the point where they believe they need to leave their country.
I don't see how any of that changes what I wrote? Yes, there may be any number of reasons someone might end up in legitimate fear for their lives. But either they are genuinely fleeing for their lives (for whatever reason) or they are not refugees.
> Are you really going to try to tell me that a 2-year-old who was brought to the US by their parents and then stayed here into adulthood was "in violation of the law"?
> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken.
Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.
Setting aside the fact that DACA status is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, namely, people brought to this country as children at a time in their lives when they could not have known what was happening let alone had the agency to say, "hey wait, have you tried the normal way to immigrate into this country, mom and / or dad?"
The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?
The machine doesn't work unless the parts do. Or to quote Solomon Burke, if "one of us are chained, none of us are free."
It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"
But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.
Not even going to touch the "economic migrant" bit. Sounds a little too close to a dog whistle to me. Not even sure why I felt the need to engage this much.
> "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!" But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own.
This is the thing that really gets me. There's all this hand-wringing about how people in the country illegally should just accept that they did it "the wrong way", and oops, well, I guess that means they're not worthy of being treated as a human with wants and needs and dreams anymore. Because what, they crossed an imaginary line on the ground someone drew, in a way that didn't match up with the rules a bunch of out-of-touch people decided on? Not just out-of-touch, but people who actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.
It's so easy for someone (such as myself) who was born in the US, whose family has been in the US for generations, to just not get what a big deal all this is. I will likely never have to worry about feeling unsafe in my own country, feeling like I have absolutely no opportunity to house, clothe, and feed myself. And if I did, I'd still have options! I know it can be hard for some of us to try on the shoes of someone who believes that the only way for them (and their family) to have a future is to pack up whatever they can carry and risk their lives to "sneak" into another country where they will have better chances. But I really wish people would show more sympathy and empathy toward people in that situation.
>actively use immigration reform (or the lack thereof) as a political weapon.
You criticize this but then do the exact same thing. You try to manipulate the reader by stating that if you don't agree with your view point they lack sympathy. This is exactly what politicians do.
Read the reply above yours that states facts and law, there is no politics, manipulation or appeals for sympathy.
> Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons.
Not "at some point in their lives". DACA is for people who are remaining in the country in continual violation of the law. Short of human rights violations like torture, it's acceptable for any system that permits them to remain in the country despite the illegality of their presence to be "broken", because the very existence of any such system is supererogatory.
> The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it?
What I would call "broken" is a system where you can do an end run around all our immigration laws by breaking them a day before your (claimed) 16th birthday. Yes, bad parents can place their children in an arbitrarily awful position, but there are any number of other ways they can do that; it's not the state's responsibility to pick up the pieces (and making it so creates perverse incentives) outside exceptional circumstances like orphans/foundlings (who I believe do have a path to citizenship).
> It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!"
> But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum.
I'd say that applies double to the wealthy PMC who promote illegal immigration because it doesn't hurt them.
I think the hopelessly broken is referring to things like a 50-70 year waits for qualified people to get a green card if they're born in india, or stuff like it taking 1-2 years for someone married to a us citizen to be allowed to join their spouse in the country (and there's a decent chance they'll be denied a visitor visa to see their spouse during the wait) and the situation is even worse if you have a green card and marry a non-us citizen.
Everything to do with immigration (outside the happy path) is going to feel "hopelessly broken" if it isn't fast and efficient. US Citizenship for many in the world is basically a life lottery ticket.
Our immigration system is indeed hopelessly broken. While there's a lot here about O-1 being fairly objective and checklist-based (no idea if that's actually true, just taking some comments here at face value), other visa situations can be arbitrary and opaque. And don't get me started on the ridiculous, arbitrary, capricious green card process.
> There is no obligation for the US, or any country, to turn something as important as determining whether someone is eligible to enter the country
I have the opposite opinion. Borders should be much more open, and people should stop whining so much about immigration. Nearly everyone -- aside from the relatively small number of Native peoples -- in the US is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants. We are all here because our ancestors forced their way here, killing and destroying wherever they went.
The idea that we have some natural right to decide who comes and goes is entirely laughable to me. I get that we should have some controls in place for at least logistical and security reasons. But our immigration restrictions go far beyond that. And again, let's not pretend it's some natural right of ours to do. We get to do it because we've had more guns than other people who wanted to be here and "own" the land.
Also remember that this is not the normal or common state of things. The internationally-recognized passport system we take for granted has existed for barely a century[0]. Before that it was a patchwork of various systems (sometimes just the honor system) and much of what we'd call "illegal immigration" today was the status quo. On top of that, the US's restrictive immigration system has existed for an even shorter time; when my great-grandparents immigrated about 115 years ago, all that was required was they enter through an official port of entry and truthfully declare who they were and where they were from. They didn't have to have a visa, or apply for permanent residency. My great-grandfather became a citizen about 15 years later shortly after applying and providing a record of his original arrival in the country.
Meanwhile, today, adults who were brought here by their parents as toddlers ("illegally" -- like a 2 year old has the capacity to do something illegal) can't even get legal residency or citizenship. If that's not hopelessly broken, I don't know what is.
The funny thing is that we're talking about this in the context of someone suggesting that OP "hacked" a broken system to get a visa. But it sounds like the O-1 system is pretty functional and is working as designed. There's a list of criteria, and a lot of explanation as to what is and isn't covered under those criteria. You document, make your case for why you fit the criteria, and apply. USCIS makes a decision (and pretty quickly, at least in this case!), probably based on a checklist, by people who likely don't really understand the nuances of any particular industry or profession or academic discipline to make any sort of value judgment on the application, beyond the checklist and the case being made. That... seems exactly how it should be? A transparent process with well-defined criteria for acceptance? (You may disagree with the criteria, or the list of things that qualify, but that's a different matter.)
[0] (The idea of passports have existed at least for a couple thousand years, of course, but in the earliest days they were more like a hand-written letter asking, "please allow my subject, Bob, to pass safely through your lands, signed, King Larry".)
I don't disagree! I think the US ought to have open borders with Canada, for example, with immediate work rights for anyone who has been a citizen for, say, 18 years.
In an ideal world we would be able to institute the Wall Street Journal's longtime mantra of "We shall have open borders". But that cannot happen without corresponding changes to domestic welfare policies, among other things.
>I have the opposite opinion. Borders should be much more open, and people should stop whining so much about immigration. Nearly everyone -- aside from the relatively small number of Native peoples -- in the US is an immigrant, or the descendant of immigrants. We are all here because our ancestors forced their way here, killing and destroying wherever they went.
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than this sort of "We live in a society"-level rhetoric. If Burundi tomorrow invades the US with superior military forces and every Burundian moves here, I may not like it but that's how things have worked for the entirety of human history minus the last few decades.
>On top of that, the US's restrictive immigration system has existed for an even shorter time; when my great-grandparents immigrated about 115 years ago, all that was required was they enter through an official port of entry and truthfully declare who they were and where they were from.
Those stories always omit the details. Every single person who came through Ellis Island
* had passed a medical inspection
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
PS - One more thing: Every single person who came through Ellis Island was coming to a country with an enormous demand for unskilled labor. This is no longer true.
>Meanwhile, today, adults who were brought here by their parents as toddlers ("illegally" -- like a 2 year old has the capacity to do something illegal) can't even get legal residency or citizenship. If that's not hopelessly broken, I don't know what is.
The parents of those toddlers broke the law, for themselves and for children they brought along. That does not mean that the toddlers themselves are criminals. That also does not mean that they are entitled to the legal and financial rewards of US residency, either. Or that a president can with the stroke of a pen but without the concurrence of Congress create an entire legal infrastructure permitting their legal residency, one which the subsequent president somehow cannot dismantle in the same way. I hope that some process can be devised to grant such people legal US residency, but it has to occur through a law duly passed by Congress, and in the context of other changes; especially, but not only, a strengthening of the southern border and crackdowns on visa overstays.
>The funny thing is that we're talking about this in the context of someone suggesting that OP "hacked" a broken system to get a visa. But it sounds like the O-1 system is pretty functional and is working as designed.
As I said elsewhere, I don't disagree with this either! My disagreement was and is with the reply by hn_throwaway_99 to the original post stating that someone being able to use the O-1 system in this way is proof that the US immigration system is "hopelessly broken", by which of course he means "Requiring such steps is outrageous and unfair". I would love a system in which everyone entering the US had to comply with the O-1 or some equivalent thereof.
> tip: Government must spread its legs and accept the fate willingly otherwise it just gets harder for the government. In the context of government this is a good thing.
This is an off-putting analogy. It sounds like the rape of a woman.
It accomplishes the opposite of what they're trying to say. "You may as well let it happen" isn't what you should say to someone worried about getting raped.
Glad you made it OP, congrats! As an immigrant in the US I went through the "Extraordinary Ability" path and the process was a journey of pain and anxiety. Many roundabouts with a lawyer that promised me expertise in the process and it ended up with a NOID (Notice of Intention to Deny - something like that) from USCIS. My wife and I had to study the USCIS manual page by page and re-wrote almost all documentation from the lawyer. It wasn't easy but we made it.
At the same time, the political climate and even the person you get reviewing your application could make a difference. I was denied the first time I applied for PERM after the officer combed through the supporting paperwork to find problems. Was it my lawyer's fault? Did my employer make a mistake in the job search? Was it because it happened in the Trump years? Who knows.
My application for EB2-NIW was recently denied for totally inappropriate reasons. The process has a randomness component to it, what you can do is to maximize your chance of success but it’s still a chance.
OP here: Sorry that you had a bad experience, but glad that you made it through in the end! I would love to talk more about your experience if you're up for it. My email is in my bio.
Thanks for talking publicly about this. Thousands of interesting people take this route (also, me) but not many blog about it.
My lawyers originally described this category as "for internationally recognized people such as Nobel prize winners". That seemed a bit out of my league. But they issue 13k O-1 visas per year, so it's really the top (in some sense) 13k people who want to immigrate to the US each year. So I applied and got it.
The annoying part is that it demands legible recognitions: awards the immigration officers have heard of, and recommendation letters from people with Titles in Organizations they've heard of. But they seem to know something about the STEM world. They know about the International Math/Physics/Chemistry Olympiads, and the ACM Programming Contest, good universities, and reputable tech investors.
If I can offer a tip, it's the following. You know what's impressive in the STEM field. The immigration officer also has some experience of what's impressive. Your lawyer has the least idea of the 3 of you. So don't be diffident or self-deprecating with your lawyer! You have to tell them what you've accomplished and how notable each thing is.
I find it insane that people think it's a good idea to flaunt how they got these things.
Good for OP that he gamed the system, I have no ill-will for him. But the smart thing to do would be to keep quiet and enjoy the legal status, not write a blogpost showing how flimsily it was obtained.
If I were the USCIS I'd see this as a sign that this whole visa application was made in bad faith.
There's a difference in flaunting and explaining or sharing. They've just laid out the steps they took in a clear manner and provided information about it all, assuming it might help other people in the same situation. They're not saying something like "I cheated the system and here's how" or "Look at how smart I am because of what I did".
I would liken it to tax evasion. It's not illegal, and I absolutely don't mind people doing it. But I'd not publicize it or write a whitepaper on how I am doing it.
'outstanding' is a judgement. seems the criteria people in this HN comment section have is not aligned with the arbiter of the visa (us gov, described by OP). Its not shady for the OP to publish exactly what he did and what result he got, and I don't see any shady actions in his write up
What's insane to me is that from my experience, most legal immigrants had to either game the system, or depend on the pure luck of lottery systems. Then once they are citizens, they turn around and say that everyone must go through that same process, instead of advocating for a fairer process
Speaking personally an American, any smart person building useful stuff is welcome in my country. That alone _is_ extraordinary ability, in my opinion (can’t speak to the intent behind the law).
You're reading the term too literally. USCIS has set the terms for what it means and the same USCIS has determined that op meets the criteria regardless of what you think it should mean.
Since Melania Trump was a reasonably successful model, it's actually not difficult for her since she could probably easily satisfy 3 of the following —
Evidence of published material about you in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Evidence that you have been asked to judge the work of others, either individually or on a panel
Evidence that your work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Evidence of your performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations
Evidence that you command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
Evidence of your commercial successes in the performing arts
> Good for OP that he gamed the system, I have no ill-will for him. But the smart thing to do would be to keep quiet and enjoy the legal status, not write a blogpost showing how flimsily it was obtained.
So, really we should hate OP and probably ensure that his current visa gets voided through all legal means, hand him the NOIR he deserves, and then someone who actually deserves it can live in the US.
> So, really we should hate OP and probably ensure that his current visa gets voided through all legal means, hand him the NOIR he deserves, and then someone who actually deserves it can live in the US.
Yes.
After all, when companies or rich people _legally_ avoid paying taxes, everyone says “no they still need to pay, it’s not fair”.
Yet when it’s about someone “trying to improve their life” (in other words, poor), all of a sudden we should let it slide? Okay
Huh? Are you suggesting that OP is a net negative to US experience? The whole system is basically one big yea or nay on whether someone can stay in the US. OP looks like a pretty easy yea for any country.
Maybe he didn't get that yea through a black letter reading of the law, so what? The visa-issuers think it is fine. The outcome is good. So in this case the system could be said to be working.
Although the US visa system overall looks a bit silly.
> Huh? Are you suggesting that OP is a net negative to US experience?
This is what you are suggesting.
Further, "net negative" means nothing when talking about O-1 visa, which is quite literally a game to get very impactful people into the US. Being "net positive" is not enough.
> Maybe he didn't get that yea through a black letter reading of the law, so what? The visa-issuers think it is fine. The outcome is good. So in this case the system could be said to be working.
Investigators can make redeterminations. That is why a bunch of people do get booted out of these visa programs, and should. You do not stop being judged upon receiving a visa. A system that rubber stamps "yes" to a problem in 100% of cases where 99% is cost efficient, but it is not a system that works. That system needs to account for bad data, and should issue "no" when it matters.
I have a dumb question but how often do tourist visa overstayers get deported while running their own business under an incorporated ITIN? There's not even an I-9 check for non-employee income. There's got to be millions of people doing something like this or as 'independent contractors' considering how trivial it is and the obvious completely broken immigration system that demands these kinds of hacks.
I have an informal waiver from ICE right now, and I'm running a tech business, but I'm deportable and would ordinarily be in immigration jail except I'm in a sanctuary state.
I don't think it was a blanket statement. He's claiming that the millions of people GP is talking about are doing low-skill work – suggesting that there might be tech workers, too, but that there are less than millions of them.
I'm trying to get my immigration status fixed. I was on a green card via a K-1 visa, then I sat in jail for 10 years on false criminal charges waiting for trial. I have since been released and the charges dismissed, but my green card got put into a weird state. There's more to it, but I'm hoping to have my legal status back again by the end of the year.
Not currently. The press stories got recently taken down after the court dismissed the charges. I hope to write it all up after my immigration status is fixed.
I'm hoping so. I fucked up because I'd been here way long enough to apply before the issue came up. I was ducking the issue for tax reasons (earning income in the UK and USA at the same time).
Please, tell me how to do this. My (SW dev) business so far relies heavily on personal relationships built over long periods of time. I wasn't able to find any other way. I don't have much disposable income for online marketing professionals and ads (I had but it all went to waste).
LinkedIn is great. You'd be surprised how many welcoming people you'll find if you communicate like a real person. But be prepared and don't take personally when someone ignores you or give a bad response. Just move on.
Do extensive research first and make sure there is a real potential that what you offer can be valuable to them. And communicate that. Smaller businesses are much easier to sell to. Startups are even easier, but you have to be sharp, deliver very quickly, and be prepared for a more dynamic environment.
I've sold SWE services as a solopreneur to customers in the US, UK, even Hong Kong. All through direct messages on LinkedIn.
Did you have any issues regarding your timezone? I had some good leads there (and some success too, but always with local people) but the timezone thing killed it every time.
Why would you go through the trouble? Most people I worked with in restaurants would just find someone’s name/ssn to use, put they had 10 children, and never ever file taxes.
I think there was a shady underground way to match illegal immigrants with SSNs. Or they just networked heavily in their communities.
I can imagine this being true but at the same time it's so weird. I tried to open an account with Chase and Bank of America and they ask me for SSN, and I can't get one because I am from outside the US (I just want to get one to have my freelance money in an actual bank and not Paypal/Payoneer/an app).
There are companies that provide a LLC with a SSN for just a fix payment of $400, but I am sure it comes with a lot of taxes issues that I don't want to care for now.
So, how can the financial system rely on SSN if they can be sold for inmigrants?
Legal immigrants get an SSN. I have an SSN it is just suspended or something. If I try to use it online it causes 500 errors everywhere as whatever status is attached to it isn't handled by any financial site.
Why wouldn't they? They'd probably just use the business tin as the taxable account owner and then their real foreign passport as the UBO for KYC. If they can't do that it would surely break the wheels of industry as foreign owned US businesses need US bank accounts.
IIRC banks need a ITIN or SSN + passport or ID of the UBO
Undocumented immigrants can get an ITIN, and many do. A lot of the time the ITIN will be used where it's allowed (opening bank accounts) and a counterfeit social security card where it's not (applying for employment).
I guess in a pedantic manner, but then they were always documented, since their country of origin knew who they are.
In terms of immigration, undocumented typically means you don't currently have a valid visa or residency permit. In that case no, they would still be undocumented, since the ITIN doesn't grant them either.
Yes but my question was not about how they open a Chase account, but why Chase requires a SSN if SSN are sold in a black market (according to the previous comment)
Chase requires more than just the SSN. Chase requires you to prove your identity matches the person whose SSN you submit. They require it as part of a larger picture, not in isolation.
(Employers are supposed to verify ID too, but they're not scrutinized as heavily as a major bank like Chase.)
BofA happily opens accounts for those with no SSN as long as they show up with somebody who has. And a person with a driver's license and SSN must confirm that the customer resides with them.
As an illegal, the biggest problem is.. how would I get ID with matching photo that I can use to sign up for web sites? A huge amount of web sites now want to ID verify with government ID and selfie. I have to get other people to do this for me.
California does not require proof of legal status to get a driving license.
I think the license is just eligible in California afterwards.
I had one for a while while I was waiting for my visa to be processed.
Many 'illegal immigrants' also entered legally with a visa that allows them to get a real SSN, like most J1 exchange scholars or students. These cards usually show a line saying not for work except for permission, but there is probably an underground network for faking a normal one.
It's short-sighted nonsense that undocumented immigrants can't get SSNs. They should be issued SSNs and pay taxes as usual. They are working, and the IRS should be collecting taxes, nothing more, nothing less. If they aren't paying taxes, someone else has to make up the difference.
Likewise I want them to get licenses if they can pass the driving laws test, and should be able to get insurance. I don't want to be hit (or hit and run) by an uninsured driver.
They and their kids should be getting the same vaccines someone with a legal right to live here does, under the same terms. This is basic public health that helps everybody.
This is 100% orthogonal to whether ICE should be pursuing and deporting this or that person. They current system makes the rest of us less safe -- and that's not even getting into the massive impingement on the human rights of law abiding folks due to the misincented immigration (and other) laws and their enforcement).
Undocumented immigrants can get an ITIN, and many do use them to pay taxes. The IRS really doesn't care where you got your money from, so long as they get their cut.
Where undocumented immigrants won't be able to file their taxes is if they used a counterfeit SSN to be employed, but even in those cases they pay anyways through standard withholding. Most Americans don't know you can adjust withholding, nevermind undocumented immigrants.
Do you think that might have to do with relative demand, because most Asians would prefer to emigrate elsewhere, and most Europeans would not? If you combine with that the relative population differences, it creates a striking demand curve.
Relative demand is a factor. But a larger factor is that many of the immigration categories that are numerically limited have the same limit for all countries, and India and China have a lot larger population than any of the many countries in Europe.
Unfortunately a lot of people show VC funds for their startup to clear that bullet point for O-1 or EB-1a I think the USCIS will wisen up to it pretty soon and plug that hole.
I suspect USCIS is consciously allowing it. They have large amounts of discretion and the President can generally get USCIS to exercise this discretion to fit some policy goal. Under Trump it was making it harder to be an immigrant; under Biden it’s making it easier to be an entrepreneur specifically.
> May 2022 - Left my SWE job at Wave and incorporated my own startup called Path (a Delaware C corp)
I was permitted to remain in the USA, since I was not employed by Path yet. My understanding is that it is permissible to do exploratory work on a new startup as long as you are not employed by that startup, and your previous visa has not expired.
It was during this time that my cofounder and I raised money for Path.
Note: If I had left the USA during this time, I would not have been permitted to re-enter on my old L1-B visa.
This sounds iffy. I'm in the US on a L1-B visa as well, and my company went through rounds of layoffs, which concerned me. All information I've read, including the immigration team from my company (Big Tech), points out that if I lost my job, I would have had a short time to leave the country with no chance to find other jobs.
Unless I'm reading too much into it, it sounds like OP spent some time in the US in an illegal status, until that gap was bridged with the new visa.
You are allowed to remain in the country for up to 60 days after your employment ends. The author doesn't mention how long they stayed, but it is possible that the "exploratory work" was done within that period.
A lot of people do questionable things like this with some hand-waved legal reasoning. Most are lucky that it doesn't bite them in the ass. But I know of cases where it did.
For eg. someone I know of was banned from entering the US for 10 or so years because he worked on his startup under a B1 visa.
Appreciate sharing this specific immigration journey so far. The biggest positive factor seems to be that the poster was already in the US on an L-1B which also counted towards one out of four of the O-1 eligibility criteria (specialized knowledge).
Unless I’ve misunderstood something, a phd holder who has published papers and worked in tech/banking/etc with a high salary can get that kind of visa ?
The high salary is benchmarked against other people doing the same job, in the same geographic area. So you would have to by at a high-tier tech/banking job.
Why not just start a business, be 'firable' using the article's strategy, then hire yourself out as a contract company thus be able to work for anyone while technically only working for your own sponsor company.
This applies to many different visas. The point is to ensure you are actually employed and not just here to subsist off of social services or working for illegal enterprises (i.e. organized crime). You can change jobs but the new employer must agree to sponsor you. Visas are not permanent residencies or citizenship. If you just want to tour the country or take university classes, get a tourist or student visa. If you did all the work to prove your "extraordinary abilities", you should be putting them to use. And yes, perhaps freelance work should be eligible for employment status but I feel that can be accomplished through some creative structuring of a tiny contracting firm.
I can easily compare an O-1 visa to being accepted to a prestigious university. You proved you are smart and talented enough to be there but if you don't actually put in the work (get good grades/stay employed), you get kicked out so that someone else just as smart and talented can take your place.
> Nice, just like in the good old days with serfs and feudal lords.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Serfs were largely agricultural workers bound under the feudal system to work on their lord's estate. Foreign workers aren't serfs. They're not bound to a particular estate, nor do they typically execute agricultural work. They have the right to collectively bargain their salary, working conditions, and benefits. They are free to resign their position and leave the country.
The O-1 visa is a temporary worker visa. The expectation is that folks on a temporary work visa work temporarily. That is, there is no intent to immigrate.
You are also not bound to a particular employer. You're only bound to that employer on that visa instance. You can, if you like, apply for another O-1 visa sponsored by a different employer.
There are, in some cases, restrictions on work even for folks that have the right to work and live in the US. For example, if company A contracts out work to company B, it is often not permitted for company A to offer workers at company B full-time positions at company A because of the existence of the contract. If someone freelances for company A they often can't also hold full-time positions at a competitor to company A. Is this feudalism? Of course not.
TL;DR: Freedom to work does not imply or mean, "I can do whatever work I want for whoever I want." There are rules, regulations and laws present for a reason. We can debate whether or not those reasons exist in good faith, but equating "I can only work for one specific employer on a temporary work visa" to serfdom is awfully disingenuous, in my opinion.
Slightly off-topic, but I am curious how difficult it is in general to receive an entrepreneurial visa to the US? I chatted with a potential co-founder, here now for a masters, who would seek out this visa if we were to start a company together.
It is a system with a feedback time of months-years. At these time horizons, you can’t do rapid iterations, and you have to be extremely risk-averse. The system is also indeterministic so not conducive to hacking.
A friend of mine is an actor, not famous at all but was given this visa. Not and engineer at all but has some type of hacker mind: really stubborn and being resourceful in some scenarios.
You are very much mistaken. I have seen someone go through this and it is very hard. You need to prove your contributions to an area of interest to the US, and that it meets the extraordinary qualification. It is ok to not know but maybe dont make such statements.
Well I do know, and I have close associates with very mundane qualifications, masters from non T50 school in a CS related but not CS field, working for non-FAANG large corporation as "senior" (think 2-3 yr exp) IC with good legal of course that obtained an O-1.
I also know those with T30 masters degree, much more impressive on paper but working for at the time some dumb startup that were denied. They are now doing something extraordinary outside the country.
Sorry but the definition of extraordinary qualification is very capricious to make the claim about it being "hard" a bit meaningless. There are a lot of factors, but it isn't necessarily hard to obtain.
I mean you are literally commenting on a thread about a blog post where someone got it despite having any "extraordinary ability" in the generally understood sense of the term.
To me it's extraordinary because it's above what I'd consider ordinary. Let's say most people have Bachelor's and can't (or won't) start their own business. If you have someone with a Master's and also a startup owner they are extraordinary by that definition.
The USCIS has a much more concrete definition with different parameters. Is it an ideal one? No. But I guess any new improved definition still won't be universally accepted, especially by other talented people.
When I worked at a digital agency in 2007-2012 they hired MANY Brazilian art directors all who obtained O-1 visas. Literally just designers/creatives with portfolios online. I remember thinking how great they must be. Flash forward to 2024 I can't think of a single person in my network with one.
Did the criteria change? Is it easier in certain fields? Easier from certain origin countries?
Makes no difference. It's a temporary status, not permanent residency.
It potentially helps you slightly for EB-1 (permanent residency for "extraordinary people") since it has similar requirements, and EB-1 has slightly better quotas than EB-2 (because fewer folks qualify ; EB-2 is for skilled workers like your typical tech employee).
If you're from India it's still a very long way out.
The O-1 is a nonimmigrant visa[1], but my understanding is that it's also one of the few nonimmigrant visas that USCIS allows for dual-intent consideration.
Eventually, you have to go through additional steps to convert to an immigrant visa (e.g. be sponsored by your (own) company, or marrying an American, etc.).
Right. The O-1, the "extraordinary ability" visa, is easily confused with the EB-1, sometimes called the "Einstein visa." The latter is for those seeking permanent residency, and the former is not. The EB-1 became notorious a few years back in some circles when it was pointed out that the first lady had gotten one for modeling, but like this article points out, the criteria to get one is not as insurmountable as it might seem from the official examples, which will suggest things like Olympic medals, Pulitzer prizes, etc. Being on magazine covers and making a lot of money makes for a pretty solid case to acquire one.
You may be eligible for an employment-based, first-preference visa if you are a noncitizen of extraordinary ability, are an outstanding professor or researcher, or are a certain multinational executive or manager.
It wouldn't be the first government website with confusing wording. They call it visa, but practically "EB-1 visa" = green card. There's no intermediate stage between the two. There's no sticker on your passport that says EB-1. You can't use your EB-1 status to enter the country or work or anything else.
EB-1 simply means that you jump to the front of the line to get a green card.
even more. there is no difference in the process (as far as how the process works, not time spent waiting) between EB1, EB2, EB3.
Also, calling it a visa is misleading. The Green Card gives you the right to reside here permanently and you don't need any visa once you have it. So it's not a visa, and even if it was a visa it would be the Green Card that would be called out, not the bucket through which you get it.
There is a difference between what USCIS calls a Visa and what the rest of the world actually means when they say a Visa.
For eg. Green Cards (== aka Permanent Residency, which no one in their sane minds calls a Visa), are actually issued against what USCIS calls a "visa number".
So OP is correct that O-1 is a visa (as that word is understood generally in the world), and EB-1A is a category of Employment Based Permanent Residence filing.
I don't want to fight in the semantics dome, but they do not.
> You may be eligible for an employment-based, first-preference visa if you are a noncitizen of extraordinary ability, are an outstanding professor or researcher, or are a certain multinational executive or manager.
the employment-based, first-preference visa they are talking about is the green card. they were also lazy and did not update the wording
What makes it not a visa? It's permission to enter the U.S., that's what a visa is, isn't it? Also, I that's it's pretty common to call it that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-1_visa
But yes, the majority of recipients get them because they're managers at big companies.
In the U.S. system, no visa (including a green card==permanent residency) constitutes permission to enter the country. A visa only enables the holder to travel to a port of entry and request permission to enter the country. That permission may be granted or denied regardless of the specific visa category. Even if you have a gold-plated, von-Neumann-league visa... if the employee at the bottom of the CIS/CBP/* org chart who takes your passport is having a bad day, you'll be on the next outbound flight.
Only U.S. citizenship implies a right to enter the country.
No, LPRs are sort of an intermediate category. CBP can't take away your LPR status, only an immigration judge or court can. So CBP has to let you in although you may be given a notice to appear in an immigration court. Trump discovered this when his administration tried to bar green card holders from muslim majority countries from re-entering the US.
That's a dangerous oversimplification. Say you are a US lawful permanent resident. CBP has the power to deem your LPR status as having been abandoned (e.g., if you've been spending too much of your time outside the US, or established sufficient ties==primary residence in another country) or revoked (e.g., if you've committed one of a variety of crimes, which include any conceivable threat to national security). That determination depends only on the CBP officer having reason to believe that's the case; there's no need for any judge to get involved. Incidentally, many [0] believe that refusing to give CBP full access to the data stored on your personal computing device(s) can constitute sufficient grounds.
Once that happens, CBP can initiate expedited removal proceedings: you are forced into some cell in the airport, without access to legal counsel or any possibility of communicating with the outside world, in some cases without access to the medications you need to take... until it's time for the next flight to the country that issued your passport. Since you've effectively been deported, you can get hit with a 5-yr ban on reentering the US. And you'll have a lot of explaining to do every time you apply for a visa for any country for the rest of your life, because the "Have you ever been deported?" little question is everywhere.
All this could happen, and has happened. (Not going into the side issues of what it takes for visas in various categories to be revoked, or why Trump's travel ban got watered down: which actually happened for a different reason)
Do you have an references for expedited removal being applied to LPRs? That link you included has this:
"Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders or LPRs): You only have to answer questions establishing your identity and permanent residency (in addition to customs-related questions). Refusal to answer other questions will likely cause delay, but officials may not deny you entry into the U.S. for failure to answer other questions. LPR status may be revoked only by an immigration judge. Do not give up your green card voluntarily!"
Which strongly implies that CBP can't use expedited removal or consider you inadmissable when you apply for entry. You could certainly be detained until you are seen by a judge though (probably not much better) and I've heard of people being pressured by CBP to fill out a I407 (surrendering your LPR status) and then being removed.
EB-1 does NOT grant permission to enter the U.S. You can have an approved I-140 in the EB-1 category but it is useless unless you also file an I‑485/DS-260 and get a green card.
> It's permission to enter the U.S., that's what a visa is, isn't it?
I don't think so.
You can't get EB-1 status unless you are already on some visa (H-1, O-1, etc). Once you start the green card process, at some point, you'll get paperwork letting you travel even though the green card has not yet been approved. Prior to that, you cannot unless your existing visa (H-1, etc) is still valid.
EB-1/2/3 are categories under which you apply for a green card - they are not visas.
That’s false. You can apply for EB visas from outside the US. After the approval of the I-140 (application for employment-based visa), instead of “adjustment” of your visa status in the US, you perform immigrant visa processing at your local consulate to get your green card.
You can still travel after filing the I-140 but not after filing the I-485 (adjustment) without advance parole.
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. It's exactly right: you can apply for EB visas (or any other permanent resident classification you're eligible for) without any prior connection to the US and get an "immigrant visa" in your passport to travel to the US.
While your greencard is processed you can indefinitely renew your current visa (eg HB1 you get it for 3 years and can renew only once, with application pending you can keep renewing it).
Also, Green Card has different stages with their own limitations PERM -> I140 -> I485 -> green card.
Okay, let's try this another way. 8 US Code § 1153, "Allocation of immigrant visas," has the section for EB (employment-based) immigrants. (b) (1) begins: "Visas shall first be made available...to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): (A) Aliens with extraordinary ability, (B) Outstanding professors and researchers, (C) Certain multinational executives and managers".
Is this section of the U.S. code talking about EB-1s when it says "Visas shall be made available," and, if not, what is it talking about?
It's not common for people with no prior connection to the US get one of these, but it is 100% possible. You can look up statistics on the number of employment green card visas issued here: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v... In the PDF you need to search for E1, E2, etc.
you're missing the point. the immigration "visa" is actually the green card. while your greencard, under EB-X category is processing, you still need a "proper" dual-intent visa like HB1.
You don’t need to be the US while applying for a green card. You can be living in, like, France, and apply for an EB1 green card with USCIS and then when it’s approved go to the US Embassy for a EB1 visa stamp and move to the US. This is what I meant.
In this case you don’t need a non immigrant visa because you don’t live in the US while it’s processing.
U.S. permanent residency is a visa. It's an immigrant visa, obviously, like several other categories; meaning that it's permissible to state that the applicant has immigrant intent.
Most lawyers I've spoken to disagree with this. The O-1 and EB-1 have similar criteria as written, but the EB-1 is adjudicated to a much higher standard than the O-1.
They locked down on this in the last few years, but I had friends come in through the EB-1. One didn't even get picked in the H-1B lottery and so had to work in India and that gave him the foreign manager experience. This is ~2018.
But I agree, I didn't mean it has the same true requirements, just that it is the "corresponding" category. So yes, not "equivalent", "corresponding".
It's not that simple. You need to have been a manager outside of the US for 1 year, apply and get approved for L1C visa, enter the country on that and then once in the US apply under EB1C. All the time maintaining legal status.
You should try immigrating to one of the EU countries... I tried helping a senior programmer friend. No amount of experience, proof or whatever else could change the government's stance - they don't have an employer so they surely must be looking to exploit the social system - bye.
Friendly advice: You got it ? Good. please keep quiet and don't tom tom it. There are indeed America First types out there who will report you to USCIS. These people are vicious and will DOXX you. I know this has happened in past.
I mean well done to the OP for getting their visa, but the whole thing reads like they gamed the system, which is clearly intended for people at the top of their fields, talented researchers, innovators, etc. And the 'outstanding ability' in this case is being put towards an 'immigration software' startup, ie helping others game, uh, navigate, the system, so the whole thing seems quite ironic.
1. I think it's great that OP got the visa, and it's clear (at least to me) that we should be attracting entrepreneurial types like OP to start businesses in the US. I also understand that our immigration system is hopelessly broken, and oftentimes the best one can hope to do is "hack" the system. So I commend you for not just hacking the system, but posting this to Hacker News!
2. It seems pretty apparent that while OP may be able to "check some of these boxes", he, at least to me, doesn't meet the "Extraordinary Ability" intent of this visa. I worry that with more spotlight on these types of applications that various political movements would try to tighten the loopholes for this visa.
To expand on number 2, raising 98K from family, friends and seed investors really does not strike me as a "nationally or internationally recognized award". Again, clearly it is by the letter of the law (at least the rules of the USCIS), but that surprised me as a layperson. The section on "Being employed in a ‘critical capacity’ at an organization with a distinguished reputation" seemed even more dubious. Path, OP's startup that is nothing more than a pitch deck and 100k in funding, is "an organization with a distinguished reputation"???
Again, to be 100% clear, I don't fault OP at all for going this route, and on the contrary, I commend him for "playing the game" correctly. I just worry about the downstream consequences of "pulling back the curtain" and showing how the game works to a larger audience.