Off the Beaten Path: Making the Case for O-1 Status with Comparable Evidence

For many extraordinary professionals seeking status in the United States, the O-1 visa seems like an attractive pathway. However, the O-1 evidentiary criteria can pose challenges for those whose work and accomplishments do not fit within the listed statutory eligibility requirements. Designed with a traditional view of achievement in mind, the O-1 requirements often assume a professional trajectory rooted in awards, publications, and elite memberships. But what happens when you don’t fit that mold?

The O-1 Visa: A Quick Primer

The O-1 is a nonimmigrant visa reserved for individuals who possess “extraordinary ability” in their field, which includes sciences, education, business, and athletics (O-1A), or the arts (O-1B). To qualify, applicants must prove “sustained national or international acclaim,” that is, they must demonstrate a level of achievement that places them among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field.

For those in science, education, business, or athletics (O-1A), USCIS outlines a list of criteria that includes major awards, high salary, critical roles for distinguished organizations, and published material about the applicant. In order to qualify in this category, applicants need to meet at least three of the listed criteria or provide evidence of a major, internationally recognized award (such as the Nobel Prize).

For those in the arts (O-1B), USCIS provides a slightly different set of criteria more tailored to artistic achievement. These include evidence of having performed as a lead or starring participant in productions or events with distinguished reputations, national or international recognition for achievements, records of major commercial or critically acclaimed success, and significant recognition from organizations, critics, or experts in the field. Like the O-1A, applicants in the O-1B category must meet at least three of these criteria or show evidence of a major, highly regarded award (such as an Oscar, Emmy, or Grammy).

But this list, while detailed, is not comprehensive. It doesn’t always reflect how success is measured in every profession, especially in cross-disciplinary or emerging fields. That’s where comparable evidence becomes a powerful option.

Understanding the Criteria

USCIS allows petitioners to submit comparable evidence if they can demonstrate that a particular criterion isn’t readily applicable to the beneficiary’s occupation. Unfortunately, this isn’t a shortcut. As the policy manual notes, “a petitioner relying on evidence that is comparable…must still meet at least three separate evidentiary criteria to satisfy the evidence requirements.”

While it may not be the most straightforward route, USCIS provides clear guidance on how to demonstrate that a criterion does not apply to you. Namely, “for comparable evidence to be considered, the petitioner must explain why a particular evidentiary criterion listed in the regulations is not readily applicable to the beneficiary’s occupation as well as why the submitted evidence is ‘comparable’ to that criterion.”

The key is to offer a specific and credible explanation of why a standard criterion isn’t a meaningful fit, and to propose an alternative that is.

For example, a tech specialist in the private sector may never publish academic articles, but could show that they have presented at high-profile industry summits or been recognized internally as a technical lead on groundbreaking products.

An entrepreneur might not earn a traditional salary, but could demonstrate that their equity stake in a high-growth company reflects their market value.

A multidisciplinary artist might not have solo exhibitions, but could point to high-impact collaborative work featured in major institutions or national campaigns.

The Art (and Strategy) of Comparison

To use comparable evidence effectively, the petitioner must do two things:

1. Explain why the traditional criterion does not apply to the profession.

2. Show how the alternative evidence is of equal weight in terms of demonstrating sustained acclaim or recognition.

It’s not enough to say a criterion is hard to meet; you must show it’s not the right measuring stick. One petitioner in 2025, for example, was not able to meet Criterion 1 (Documentation of the beneficiary’s receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor). The petitioner argued that this criterion “does not readily apply to the Beneficiary’s occupation and ‘business-related filings are different from other industries’ because ‘the critical capacities of a business professional are largely team-oriented and limited to the confines of the workplace, the opportunity to market one’s own individuality is quite different.’” In order to justify that the criteria was not the right measure, the petitioner “conducted Google searches on the topics of ‘Automative Manufacturing Executive of the Year’

and ‘Manufacturing Executive of the Year Criteria’ with no results.” This was not sufficient to conclude that the criterion is not applicable.

The substitute evidence should be just as probative. It needs to clearly demonstrate that the applicant is at the top of their field, even if their profession doesn’t define success through traditional awards or press coverage. For a senior manufacturing executive, persuasive substitutes might include keynote invitations at premier conferences such as the World Manufacturing Forum, where speakers are competitively chosen and publicly announced.

Also, remember that you still have to meet at least three evidentiary criteria (some or all of which may involve comparable evidence), and the standard for “extraordinary ability” remains the same.

Build the Narrative, Meet the Standard

For professionals in emerging fields, cross-functional roles, or careers that don’t follow a traditional model of recognition, the comparable evidence route is often essential. It’s not a workaround, but rather a policy-based invitation to reframe what professional excellence looks like in your industry.

If you navigate this process thoughtfully, it allows you to tell a story that is authentic, tailored, and credible. Success depends not just on the evidence itself, but on how clearly the narrative connects your unique trajectory to the O-1 standard.

The O-1 is about extraordinary ability, and there’s more than one way to be extraordinary.

N.B. For more specific information about the O-1 Visa, please refer directly to the USCIS website linked here and also refer to our service here.