.png)
Visalaw Team
On January 8, 2025, USCIS issued Policy Alert PA-2025-02, updating its guidance on evidentiary requirements for O-1 nonimmigrant petitions. The update—rooted in a directive from the October 2023 Executive Order on AI—clarifies how the agency evaluates extraordinary ability claims, adds illustrative examples for professionals in critical and emerging technologies, and refines the framework officers use when weighing the totality of evidence.
PA-2025-02 updates the USCIS Policy Manual under existing statutory and regulatory authority. The definition of “extraordinary ability” under the INA and the regulatory framework at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) remain unchanged. What has shifted is the level of specificity and structure in how officers are instructed to evaluate the evidence. For business immigration practitioners, this is one of the most significant O-1 policy developments in years. Not because it fundamentally changes the legal standard, but because it makes the adjudicatory expectations far more explicit. That distinction matters enormously for how you build and present cases going forward.
The update revises several sections of Volume 2, Part M of the USCIS Policy Manual. The key changes fall into four categories:
Petitioner eligibility. The guidance now explicitly confirms that a separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary—such as a corporation or LLC—can file an O-1 petition on the beneficiary's behalf. This is a helpful clarification for startup founders and solo practitioners in tech and research fields. While many practitioners have successfully used beneficiary-owned entities for years, the updated guidance makes this structure more explicit in the Policy Manual and easier to navigate in practice.
Evidentiary criteria for O-1A and O-1B. USCIS has revised its supporting documentation guidance throughout, incorporating and updating content from the previous appendix on satisfying O-1A evidentiary requirements. The practical effect is that the criteria descriptions are now more detailed and include concrete examples, particularly for individuals working in critical and emerging technologies, including AI and related fields.
Totality of the evidence analysis. The updated guidance adds new language to the section on evaluating the totality of evidence, including additional footnotes and a new consideration officers should weigh. This reinforces what experienced practitioners already know: meeting three or more individual criteria is necessary but not sufficient. The officer must also be persuaded that, taken together, the evidence demonstrates the beneficiary has risen to the top of their field. The update makes this two-step analysis more explicit and provides clearer direction for consistent application.
Extensions of stay. PA-2025-02 clarifies the circumstances under which USCIS may limit an O-1 extension of stay to one year rather than granting the full requested period (up to three years). Because O-1 validity remains event-based and discretionary, practitioners should carefully document the continued need for the beneficiary’s services and ongoing extraordinary ability throughout the validity period. This has practical implications for long-term planning, particularly where O-1 status is being used as a bridge to immigrant classifications such as EB-1 or NIW.
Understanding PA-2025-02 in isolation misses the larger picture. The policy update lands in an adjudication environment that has been shifting in ways that matter for O-1 practice.
USCIS does not publish O-1-specific approval, RFE, or denial rates in its standard statistical releases, which means practitioners are often operating without category-specific benchmarks. In that context, structural clarity in the Policy Manual becomes even more significant. Immigration practitioners continue to report a pattern of Notices of Intent to Deny without first sending Requests for Evidence across business immigration categories. This posture traces back to a 2018 USCIS policy memorandum that restored officer discretion to deny applications without first issuing an RFE or NOID when initial evidence was deemed insufficient. While the Biden administration rescinded that memo in June 2021 and returned to the more applicant-favorable 2013 framework, some practitioners report that the practical effect has not fully reversed in subjective, evidence-heavy categories such as the O-1. In these cases, the line between “insufficient initial evidence” and “evidence that does not clearly establish eligibility” remains a judgment call for individual officers.
Meanwhile, adjacent nonimmigrant categories have experienced evolving interpretations and fluctuating policy proposals. The FY 2026 H-1B cap has been reached. A new proposed rule may resurrect more restrictive interpretations of the specialty occupation requirement, and resource constraints across USCIS create system-wide pressure that can affect the thoroughness and consistency of adjudication in officer-driven portfolios, such as O-1.
The net result is an environment that is simultaneously more favorable on paper (higher approval rates overall) and more demanding in practice (clearer standards, less tolerance for weak initial filings, and less likelihood of a rehabilitative RFE).
PA-2025-02 doesn't require a wholesale rethinking of O-1A strategy, but it does reward practitioners who adapt their approach to the new specificity. Here's what we'd recommend building into your workflow.
Map evidence directly to the updated criteria language. The revised Policy Manual now provides more detailed descriptions of what qualifies under each evidentiary criterion, including technology-specific examples. Your petition letters should mirror this language. If the guidance says "original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance," your evidence section should use those exact terms and demonstrate how each piece of evidence satisfies them. Don't make the officer do the mapping.
Build the totality argument into the petition, not just the cover letter. The strengthened emphasis on totality-of-the-evidence analysis means you should explicitly connect your beneficiary's achievements across criteria. An officer reviewing a strong O-1A case should see a narrative that builds: the publications led to the invitations to judge, which reflect the beneficiary's standing in the field, which is further evidenced by the high salary, and so on. The updated guidance makes clear that meeting individual criteria without demonstrating overall distinction is not enough.
Treat every filing as if there will be no RFE. The continuing NOID-without-RFE pattern means your initial submission must be substantially complete. This is especially important for emerging tech cases where officers may be less familiar with the field and therefore less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Include expert opinion letters that explain the significance of achievements in terms a generalist adjudicator can evaluate. Include comparative evidence—how does this beneficiary's publication record, citation count, or funding history compare to others in the same career stage and field?
Use the self-petitioner clarification strategically. For startup founders and independent researchers in AI and related fields, the explicit confirmation that a beneficiary-owned entity can petition is significant. If you have clients who were previously hesitant about self-sponsorship structures, PA-2025-02 makes the entity-based sponsorship framework more explicit in the Policy Manual, giving practitioners greater clarity when advising startup founders and independent researchers.
Plan extensions carefully. The clarified one-year limitation guidance means you should document continued extraordinary ability throughout the O-1 period, not just at initial filing. Build a practice of maintaining updated evidence portfolios for O-1 beneficiaries so that extension petitions are as strong as the originals.
The O-1 category occupies a unique position in the current immigration landscape. It's one of the few employment-based nonimmigrant pathways that isn't subject to a numerical cap, isn't directly targeted by the recent wave of executive actions affecting travel and immigrant visas, and has now received updated guidance that—while demanding—actually provides practitioners with a clearer roadmap than they've had in years.
The practitioners who will succeed in this environment are the ones who treat PA-2025-02 not as an obstacle but as a framework. The rules are more explicit now. That's an advantage if you know how to use it.
Visalaw AI provides AI-powered legal research, drafting assistance, and workflow tools built specifically for immigration law practice. Our Research Library and petition drafting tools are designed to help practitioners build stronger filings in less time.
View all blogs
Subscribe below to receive tips for using AI in immigration law, product updates, and relevant news in immigration.
Memphis, TN
