What this kit is
A local second review of an EB-1A I-140 draft. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive client files. Counsel keeps every legal judgment.
- Map the record to INA 203(b)(1)(A) and 8 CFR 204.5(h).
- Separate facts, exhibits, issues, questions for counsel, and counsel’s legal decisions.
- Flag gaps, overclaims, and RFE-prone drafting problems without predicting USCIS action.
- Optional language pass after facts are grounded.
What this kit is not
- Legal advice or a substitute for an attorney’s legal conclusion
- A filing service, portal, or document-upload product
- A petitioner self-help kit
- An O-1A kit or an EB-2 NIW kit — do not import their standards
- A promise that three criteria, a one-time award, or a prior O-1 approval will result in approval
What is in the kit
Run the files in this order on the draft you already wrote.
| Order | File | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | privacy.md | Confirm firm-approved data handling |
| 1 | sources.md | Confirm the live statute, regulation, and Policy Manual before filing |
| 2 | workflow.md | Run the review sequence |
| 3 | criteria-or-prongs.md | Checklist against statute, regulation, and Policy Manual Chapter 2 |
| 4 | evidence-gap-audit.md | Exhibit-by-exhibit gaps |
| 5 | source-to-claim.md | Every petition sentence needs a source (F / L / C / U tags) |
| 6 | rfe-risk-review.md | Issues only; no outcome prediction |
| 7 | final-merits-or-totality.md | Step-2 final merits worksheet |
| 8 | pre-filing-qa.md | Counsel/staff QA before file |
| 9 | voice-system.md | Optional language pass after facts are grounded |
| 10 | results-template.md | Memo sections: Facts; Evidence; Issues; Suggested questions; Counsel legal decisions |
| — | examples.md | Fictional/sanitized illustrations only. Do not copy into a live petition. |
A fictional memo sample
This shows one issue in the five-part counsel memo. The person, project, and exhibits are invented. An actual review depends on the firm's draft and source records.
Claim and exhibit check
- FactsThe draft says a researcher designed a screening method that two departments at her employer later adopted.
- EvidenceA fictional supervisor letter describes her role. Two internal rollout notes name the departments, but neither note shows use outside the employer.
- IssuesThe draft says the method changed practice across the field. The cited exhibits support internal adoption; the sample record does not identify independent corroboration of wider use.
- Suggested questionsWhich dated source supports each adoption claim? Is there a permitted independent record of use beyond the employer? Should the draft narrow the claim if no such record exists?
- Counsel legal decisionsDecide what claim the evidence supports, whether more records should be requested, and how to address the issue in the petition and final merits analysis.
The kit organizes a second review. It does not decide eligibility, predict an outcome, or replace counsel's judgment.
The standard this kit reviews against
INA 203(b)(1)(A) describes the classification if the person has extraordinary ability demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, seeks to continue work in that area, and entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.
8 CFR 204.5(h)(2) defines extraordinary ability as a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 instructs a two-step analysis: (1) regulatory criteria (one-time major internationally recognized award, or at least three of ten, or qualifying comparable evidence), then (2) a final merits determination on the petition in its entirety.
Confirm the live statute and Policy Manual before filing. Applying the two-step analysis to a particular record is counsel’s legal work.
Reviewer posture
- Use only a firm-approved AI setup for petition and evidence files.
- No invented facts, citations, quotations, or confidence.
- Meeting three criteria does not complete the classification analysis.
- If a fact is missing, write “not in the record.”
- Drafting is not a legal conclusion. Voice-system output is language for counsel to accept, edit, or discard.
- Stop if the reviewer is asked for approval odds or a “readiness score.”
FAQ
The bound that matters before you buy.
Who receives client files?
ExtraordinaryOS does not receive the petition or evidence. Your firm chooses the AI setup. Cloud tools may process client material under their own terms; counsel must approve the handling and keeps every legal judgment. More FAQ.
ExtraordinaryOS sells a downloadable workflow and does not receive the petition or evidence. Your firm chooses and approves its AI setup. A cloud AI provider may receive client material under its own terms, even when the kit files stay on a firm machine. Counsel must check that provider's data handling before use and retains every legal decision.
Get the EB-1A kit
$199 special offer. One-time. No subscription.
Not a law firm
ExtraordinaryOS is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. These kits are a local second review of a draft the firm already wrote. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive client files. Counsel stays counsel.
ExtraordinaryOS sells a downloadable workflow and does not receive the petition or evidence. Your firm chooses and approves its AI setup. A cloud AI provider may receive client material under its own terms, even when the kit files stay on a firm machine. Counsel must check that provider's data handling before use and retains every legal decision.
Because this is a downloadable digital product, sales are final after delivery. If a file arrives broken, you cannot access the kit, or Gumroad charges you twice, contact us and we will make it right.
Support: [email protected]