What this kit is
A local second review of an O-1A I-129 draft. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive client files. Counsel keeps every legal judgment.
- Map the record to the O-1A standard in USCIS Policy Manual Volume 2, Part M, Chapter 4.
- Keep consultation, contract, and itinerary issues visible.
- Separate facts from counsel’s legal decisions.
What this kit is not
- An O-1B (Arts) or O-1B (MPTV) kit
- An EB-1A immigrant kit (different statute, ten criteria, no consultation, self-petition allowed, “substantially benefit prospectively” element)
- An EB-2 NIW kit
- Legal advice, a filing portal, or a beneficiary self-petition product
What is in the kit
Run these files on the draft you already wrote.
| Order | File | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | privacy.md | Confirm firm-approved data handling |
| 1 | START-HERE.md | Audience, scope, and suggested order of work |
| 2 | sources.md | Confirm the live statute, regulation, and Policy Manual before filing |
| 3 | workflow.md | Run the review sequence |
| 4 | criteria-or-prongs.md | O-1A eight criteria, comparable evidence, area of ability, petition extras |
| 5 | evidence-gap-audit.md | Exhibit-by-exhibit gaps |
| 6 | source-to-claim.md | Every petition sentence needs a source |
| 7 | rfe-risk-review.md | Issues only; no outcome prediction |
| 8 | final-merits-or-totality.md | Totality worksheet |
| 9 | pre-filing-qa.md | Counsel/staff QA before file |
| 10 | voice-system.md | Optional language pass after facts are grounded |
| 11 | 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 the shape of one issue in the 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 software engineer led an internal fraud detection project and that three teams adopted it.
- EvidenceA fictional employer letter describes her role. A deployment summary lists three teams, but the source for that count is not attached.
- IssuesThe draft calls the work influential beyond the employer. The listed exhibits show internal use; the sample record does not identify independent evidence of wider use.
- Suggested questionsWhich dated records support the adoption count? Is there independent evidence of use outside the employer? Do the cited exhibits support each sentence as written?
- Counsel legal decisionsDecide whether to claim this work under an O-1A criterion, what additional records to request, and whether the current draft is ready to file.
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
O-1A beneficiary must (PM Ch. 4 § C): have extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics, demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim; have achievements recognized in the field through extensive documentation; and be coming to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability (the particular U.S. duties need not require someone of such extraordinary ability).
Supporting documentation: a major internationally recognized award (example given: Nobel Prize) or at least three of eight evidentiary criteria, or comparable evidence where a listed criterion does not readily apply. Satisfying three criteria is not the classification standard. Officers then evaluate totality.
Petitioner: U.S. employer, U.S. agent, or foreign employer through a U.S. agent. PA-2025-02: a separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary (corporation or LLC) may file on the beneficiary’s behalf. The beneficiary may not petition for himself or herself.
Confirm 8 CFR 214.2(o) and the live Policy Manual before filing.
Reviewer posture
- Do not send client files to ExtraordinaryOS. Approve the AI tool and its data handling before using the I-129 or exhibits.
- Evidentiary criteria are the mechanism, not the standard (PM Ch. 4).
- If the draft uses “distinction,” arts/MPTV criteria, ten EB-1A criteria, or Dhanasar prongs, flag the mix. Do not import those standards.
- Prior or future EB-1A is a separate petition.
- Stop if the reviewer is asked for approval odds.
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 O-1A kit
$199 special offer. One-time per lawyer. 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]