O-1 Visa for Extraordinary Ability or Achievement
O-1 Visa for Extraordinary Ability or Achievement
The O-1 visa is used by professionals whose careers meet one of the extraordinary ability or achievement standards established for O nonimmigrant classification. O-1A covers science, education, business, and athletics. O-1B applies to extraordinary ability in the arts and, under a separate standard, extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television productions.
Eligibility depends on documented recognition, not simply professional seniority or a strong résumé. USCIS evaluates the applicable evidentiary criteria and then considers the record as a whole. The petition must also establish a qualifying U.S. petitioner, genuine U.S. work or engagements, required contractual documentation, and a clear connection between the beneficiary’s recognized field and the activities described in the petition.
O-1 Visa Requirements: Who Can Qualify?
O-1 eligibility is based on documented professional recognition and the legal standard assigned to the beneficiary’s field. USCIS does not require a particular academic degree, a fixed number of years of experience, or a predetermined salary simply to enter the O-1 framework. The petitioner must establish that the beneficiary meets the applicable extraordinary ability or extraordinary achievement standard and will continue working in that area in the United States.
O-1A
O-1A applies to extraordinary ability in science, education, business, or athletics. The beneficiary must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and a level of expertise placing the person among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field.
O-1B Arts
O-1B Arts applies to extraordinary ability in the arts. The beneficiary must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and distinction in the artistic field—a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered.
O-1B Motion Picture or Television
O-1B MPTV uses a separate extraordinary achievement standard. The beneficiary must have a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television productions and a very high level of accomplishment evidenced by skill and recognition significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the industry.
Correct classification matters. A technology founder may be evaluated under O-1A business, a visual artist may qualify under O-1B Arts, while work in motion picture or television can trigger the separate MPTV framework and its distinct evidentiary and consultation rules.
How USCIS Evaluates an O-1 Petition
O-1 adjudication is not a simple exhibit count. USCIS first considers whether the petitioner has submitted evidence satisfying the applicable regulatory evidentiary requirements. When that threshold is met, the agency evaluates the evidence in the record as a whole to determine whether the beneficiary actually meets the relevant extraordinary ability or extraordinary achievement standard.
Step 1: Evidentiary Threshold
For O-1A, the petitioner may establish the initial threshold through evidence of a qualifying major internationally recognized award or by documenting at least three of the regulatory criteria. O-1B uses its own evidentiary framework.
Step 2: Totality of the Evidence
Meeting the threshold does not automatically establish eligibility. USCIS considers the quality, relevance, significance, and context of the evidence to determine whether the record proves the required level of acclaim or achievement.
O-1A Evidentiary Criteria
A petition may satisfy three O-1A criteria and still fail if the complete record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and the required extraordinary level. The significance of the achievements matters, not merely the number of regulatory boxes that can be identified.
Comparable Evidence and O-1B Consultation Requirements
Comparable Evidence
For O-1A and O-1B Arts, comparable evidence may be submitted when the listed evidentiary criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary’s occupation. The petitioner should explain why the relevant regulatory criterion does not readily apply and why the alternative evidence is genuinely comparable.
Comparable evidence is not a substitute for a criterion merely because the available proof is weak. It must address an occupational mismatch between the regulatory criterion and the beneficiary’s field.
O-1B MPTV Is Different
The comparable-evidence provision used for O-1B Arts does not apply to the separate O-1B motion picture or television evidentiary framework. An MPTV petition must therefore be developed under the criteria specifically applicable to extraordinary achievement in that industry.
This distinction can materially affect case strategy for directors, producers, cinematographers, actors, editors, and other professionals whose intended U.S. work is tied to motion picture or television productions.
Consultation Requirements
O petitions generally require a written advisory opinion from the appropriate consulting entity unless a regulatory exception applies. The correct consulting body depends on the classification and occupation.
For an O-1B petition based on extraordinary achievement in motion picture or television, the filing generally requires separate consultations from the relevant labor organization and management organization. A favorable consultation is part of the filing record, but it does not independently establish O-1 eligibility.
What Makes O-1 Evidence Persuasive?
An exhibit becomes useful when it proves a fact that matters under the applicable O-1 standard. Résumés, company biographies, press mentions, recommendation letters, and award certificates often require additional context before they demonstrate the significance USCIS must evaluate.
Independent Recognition
Third-party publications, competitive awards, professional organizations, judging invitations, government recognition, established institutions, clients, or independent experts can show recognition beyond the beneficiary’s own company or immediate professional circle.
Measurable Impact
Revenue, market adoption, citations, investment results, audience figures, patents, product usage, research influence, competitive selection rates, or other field-specific measurements may establish the significance of an achievement when supported by reliable records.
Individual Contribution
A successful company, production, research group, or startup does not automatically establish extraordinary ability for every participant. The record should identify what the beneficiary personally created, led, developed, discovered, directed, or materially influenced.
Professional Context
An award becomes more persuasive when the record explains eligibility, selection methodology, judges, competition, and reputation. A critical-role claim is stronger when the petition establishes both the beneficiary’s duties and the distinguished reputation of the organization.
Recommendation or expert letters are most useful when the writer identifies specific achievements, explains the basis of personal knowledge, and describes why the documented work matters in the field. Repetitive letters that simply describe a beneficiary as “exceptional” or “extraordinary” add limited value without supporting facts.
Who Can File an O-1 Petition?
An O-1 beneficiary does not personally self-petition. Form I-129 is filed by a qualifying U.S. employer or U.S. agent. The petitioner structure should reflect the actual U.S. work arrangement and the events or activities described in the filing.
U.S. Employer
A U.S. employer may petition for an O-1 beneficiary whose qualifying work is described in the petition. The filing should document the employment or engagement terms, duties, relevant projects or activities, and the period for which services are required.
U.S. Agent
A qualifying U.S. agent may file in arrangements involving professionals who traditionally work through agents or who will provide services for multiple employers. The filing must properly document the engagements and, where relevant, the agent’s authority to act for the participating employers.
O-1 for Startup Founders and Business Owners
Ownership of a U.S. company does not automatically prevent an O-1 filing. A corporation, limited liability company, or other separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary may file an O petition if the entity and petition otherwise satisfy the applicable requirements. This is legally different from the beneficiary personally filing a self-petition.
Founder cases still require a genuine petitioning entity, real proposed U.S. activities, and evidence establishing the founder’s individual eligibility. Depending on the facts, relevant records may include corporate documents, investment history, revenue, product adoption, intellectual property, awards, media recognition, executive responsibilities, partnerships, or other evidence linking company achievements to the founder’s own work.
Documents Commonly Included in an O-1 Petition
- Form I-129 and the applicable O classification supplement.
- Petition support letter explaining the legal basis for classification and connecting the evidence to the applicable requirements.
- Written contract between the petitioner and beneficiary or evidence describing the terms of an oral agreement where permitted.
- Events or activities documentation, including relevant dates and an itinerary when required by the circumstances of the case.
- Consultation or advisory opinion from the appropriate entity or entities unless an applicable exception exists.
- Eligibility evidence supporting both the applicable evidentiary criteria and the overall O-1 standard.
The petition should also document the proposed U.S. work and show that the beneficiary will continue working in the area of extraordinary ability or achievement. An O petition generally may not be filed more than one year before the petitioner’s actual need for the beneficiary’s services, although evidence development can begin considerably earlier.
O-1 Petition and Visa Process
USCIS petition approval, O-1 nonimmigrant status, and issuance of an O-1 visa are related but legally distinct. The sequence depends on whether the beneficiary is outside the United States or is eligible to request a change of status from within the country.
Eligibility Assessment
Determine whether O-1A, O-1B Arts, or O-1B MPTV applies, identify the strongest evidentiary criteria, and evaluate whether the overall record supports the required level of acclaim or achievement.
Petitioner Structure
Establish the actual U.S. work arrangement through a direct employer, qualifying U.S. agent, multiple engagements, or a separate beneficiary-owned entity when the facts support that structure.
Evidence Development
Build the record around verifiable achievements, professional context, organizational reputation, individual contribution, compensation, media, awards, judging, impact, or other evidence relevant to the classification.
Consultation and Filing
Obtain the required advisory opinion or opinions, complete the contractual and itinerary record, and file Form I-129 with the appropriate supporting evidence and government fees.
USCIS Adjudication
USCIS determines whether the petitioner has established eligibility at filing. The agency may approve or deny the petition, request additional evidence, issue a Notice of Intent to Deny where appropriate, or take another permitted adjudicative action.
Visa or Change of Status
A beneficiary abroad generally proceeds to the separate Department of State visa process after petition approval. An eligible beneficiary already in the United States may request a change to O status through the USCIS filing.
A petitioner should not assume that an incomplete filing will automatically produce an RFE before a denial. USCIS guidance effective August 5, 2026 restored officer discretion to deny a benefit request without first issuing a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny when the request fails to establish eligibility or required initial evidence is missing. A complete filing at the time of submission is therefore particularly important.
O-1 Premium Processing and Length of Stay
For eligible O-1 Form I-129 premium-processing requests postmarked on or after March 1, 2026. Premium processing is requested through Form I-907.
USCIS must take qualifying adjudicative action within the applicable premium-processing period. Premium processing accelerates adjudication; it does not guarantee approval.
The initial validity period is based on the time USCIS determines is necessary to accomplish the qualifying event or activity, subject to the three-year maximum.
An extension of stay may be authorized in increments of up to one year when additional time is required to continue or complete the same event or activity.
A request for a multi-year validity period should be supported by the contracts, itinerary, projects, events, or other U.S. activities establishing the period for which the beneficiary’s services are actually required.
Changing Employers, Multiple Engagements and Dependents
Employment Changes
O-1 employment authorization is tied to the approved petition and the activities covered by that filing. An O-1 approval does not create unrestricted permission to work for any U.S. company.
A change to a new employer generally requires an appropriate petition by the new employer. A material change in the terms and conditions of approved employment may also require an amended petition.
Multiple Employers
Professionals who expect to perform for multiple employers or on several qualifying engagements may be able to use a properly structured U.S. agent petition.
The approved filing must adequately document the employers, contracts or engagement terms, events or activities, dates, locations, and the agent relationship applicable to the case.
O-2 Essential Support
O-2 is available in specified circumstances for personnel who accompany and assist certain O-1 artists or athletes. It is not a general classification for any assistant or employee. The support services must satisfy the specific O-2 requirements.
O-3 Dependents
A spouse and qualifying unmarried children under 21 of an O-1 or O-2 beneficiary may obtain O-3 classification. O-3 status does not itself authorize employment in the United States.
O-1 Status and a Future Green Card Strategy
O-1 is a temporary nonimmigrant classification. Approval of an O-1 petition does not itself provide permanent residence. Some O-1 professionals, however, pursue a separate employment-based immigrant strategy while continuing to work in valid O-1 status.
O-1 and Immigrant Intent
USCIS policy provides that an O-1 petition should not be denied merely because a permanent labor certification has been approved or an immigrant preference petition has been filed for the beneficiary.
A permanent-residence strategy therefore does not by itself make an otherwise approvable O-1 petition ineligible.
EB-1A, NIW and Other Options
Depending on the professional record and immigration objective, a beneficiary may separately evaluate EB-1A extraordinary ability, EB-2 National Interest Waiver, or another employment-based immigrant classification.
Evidence may overlap, but the legal standards are not identical. An O-1 approval does not automatically establish eligibility for EB-1A or another green card category.
Common Problems in O-1 Petitions
Criteria Without Overall Acclaim
A petition may identify several criteria but still fail to demonstrate the extraordinary level required when the underlying achievements have limited significance or recognition.
Media Without Proper Context
A publication may require evidence showing its audience, standing, authorship, subject matter, and whether the coverage is genuinely about the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s work.
Awards Without Competitive Evidence
An award certificate alone may not establish its national or international recognition. Selection criteria, competitors, judges, issuing organization, and reputation can be material.
Memberships Based on Ordinary Credentials
For the O-1A membership criterion, the relevant association must require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts—not merely payment of dues or ordinary professional qualifications.
Original Work Without Major Significance
Creating a product, research result, methodology, technology, or business initiative is different from proving that the contribution had major significance in the field.
Prestigious Employer, Unclear Personal Role
The distinguished reputation of a company or institution does not prove that the beneficiary personally performed in a critical or essential capacity.
Weak Compensation Comparisons
Compensation evidence is more persuasive when the comparison reflects the beneficiary’s actual profession and relevant market instead of relying on a broad or unrelated salary average.
Incomplete Filing Strategy
A petitioner should not treat an RFE as a planned second stage of evidence development. Required initial evidence and a viable eligibility record should be submitted with the petition.
O-1 Visa Legal Services
An O-1 case should begin with the legal standard and the actual professional record—not with a target number of recommendation letters or exhibits. The first task is to determine the correct classification, define the relevant field, identify the strongest evidentiary criteria, and assess whether the existing record supports the required overall level of recognition.
Eligibility and Evidence Review
We examine awards, media coverage, judging, publications, major contributions, organizational roles, remuneration, commercial results, professional recognition, and other available evidence to identify both strengths and evidentiary gaps.
Petitioner and Work Structure
The review addresses whether the filing should use an employer, qualifying U.S. agent, multiple-engagement structure, or separate beneficiary-owned entity and whether the proposed U.S. activities support the requested period.
Evidence Development
Where documentation is incomplete, the focus is on facts USCIS can evaluate: award selectivity, actual judging participation, organizational reputation, measurable impact, individual contribution, compensation comparisons, or the professional importance of documented work.
Petition Consistency
Contracts, dates, titles, compensation, media coverage, expert letters, itinerary, company records, and immigration forms should describe a coherent professional history and a credible U.S. work plan.
Request an O-1 Case Review
A case assessment can identify the appropriate O-1 classification, the strongest available evidence, weaknesses that should be addressed before filing, and whether an employer, U.S. agent, or qualifying beneficiary-owned entity fits the proposed U.S. work.
O-1 Visa FAQ
Does the O-1 visa have an annual lottery or H-1B-style cap?
O-1 classification is not allocated through the annual H-1B registration lottery. A qualifying petitioner may file an O petition when the beneficiary and proposed U.S. work satisfy the applicable requirements.
Do I need to be internationally famous to qualify for O-1?
Public celebrity is not a universal O-1 requirement. Recognition is evaluated within the beneficiary’s relevant field and under the legal standard applicable to O-1A, O-1B Arts, or O-1B MPTV.
Is meeting three O-1A criteria enough for approval?
No. Meeting at least three qualifying criteria may satisfy the initial evidentiary threshold, but USCIS also evaluates the record as a whole to determine whether the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and meets the extraordinary-ability standard.
Can comparable evidence be used in every O-1 case?
No. Comparable evidence may be available in O-1A and O-1B Arts cases when the listed evidentiary criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary’s occupation. The comparable-evidence provision does not apply to the separate O-1B motion picture or television evidentiary framework.
Can a startup founder use a company they own as the O-1 petitioner?
Potentially. An O-1 beneficiary cannot personally self-petition, but a separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary may file an O petition if the entity, proposed employment, and petition satisfy the applicable requirements.
Can an O-1 beneficiary work for several companies?
Multiple engagements can be covered through appropriate petition structures, including separate petitions or, where the requirements are met, a qualifying U.S. agent petition covering multiple employers. The approved filing must properly document the covered work.
How long can an initial O-1 petition be approved?
USCIS may approve the initial petition for the period necessary to accomplish the qualifying event or activity, up to a maximum of three years.
How long can an O-1 extension be granted for the same event or activity?
When additional time is needed to continue or complete the same event or activity, an extension of stay may be authorized in increments of up to one year.
Does premium processing guarantee O-1 approval?
No. Premium processing provides expedited adjudicative action within the applicable USCIS period. It does not change the legal eligibility standard and does not guarantee approval.
Will USCIS always issue an RFE before denying an O-1 petition?
No. Under USCIS guidance effective August 5, 2026, officers have discretion to deny a benefit request without first issuing an RFE or NOID when eligibility has not been established or required initial evidence is missing. The petition should therefore be developed as a complete filing rather than relying on a future RFE to supply essential evidence.
Does an approved O-1 petition automatically issue an O-1 visa?
No. A beneficiary applying from abroad generally proceeds to a separate nonimmigrant visa application with the U.S. Department of State after USCIS approves Form I-129. Petition approval and visa issuance are separate determinations.
Can an O-3 spouse work in the United States?
O-3 status does not itself provide employment authorization. A spouse who intends to work must have a separate lawful basis for U.S. employment authorization.
Is O-1 the same as the EB-1A green card category?
No. O-1 is a temporary nonimmigrant classification, while EB-1A is an immigrant classification that may lead to permanent residence. Some evidence can overlap, but the legal requirements are different and an O-1 approval does not automatically establish EB-1A eligibility.
Testimonials about our services
Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Спасибо Arvian Law Firm за помощь в получении грин карты по EB1a. Подавалась с ними и i140 петицию (получила одобрение) и 485 форму. Адвокат проконсультировал по поводу интервью по 485 форме, какие могут быть вопросы и мы получили одобрение и свои грин карты!Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Мы хотим от всей нашей семьи выразить огромную благодарность нашему адвокату Виталию Малюку и всей его команде. Наверное, ни одна семья не может заранее подготовиться к тому, что ей придется в один момент оставить свой дом и начать жизнь заново в другой стране. Когда мы приехали в США, мы искали не просто адвоката, а человека, который честно оценит наш кейс и будет готов бороться за нас, не предлагая придумывать или добавлять то, чего на самом деле не было. До встречи с Виталием Малюком мы общались с несколькими юристами, и некоторые из них советовали изменить или дополнить нашу историю. Но на первой же встрече Виталий честно сказал нам: «У вас не самый простой и не самый сильный кейс. Но я верю, что он заслуживает того, чтобы за него бороться, и я готов это делать». Именно тогда мы поняли, что нашли своего адвоката. Отдельно хочется отметить, что Виталий Малюк и вся его команда сами родом из Украины, а мы — семья из России. Несмотря на это, они с первой минуты отнеслись к нам с уважением, пониманием и без каких-либо предубеждений. Они сразу взялись помогать нам, потому что для них были важны правда, закон и человеческое отношение. Это дало нам понять, что все наши старания, наша честность и наша позиция были не напрасны. Мы еще раз убедились, что находимся на правильной стороне и что есть люди, которые готовы поддержать тех, кто действительно нуждается в помощи, независимо от того, из какой страны он приехал. На протяжении всего процесса мы чувствовали огромную поддержку не только со стороны Виталия Малюка, но и всей его команды. Отдельные слова благодарности хочется сказать его помощнице Кристине. Она всегда была на связи, терпеливо отвечала на наши вопросы, помогала разобраться в каждом этапе процесса и никогда не оставляла нас без внимания. Такое отношение придавало нам уверенности и спокойствия в очень непростое для нашей семьи время. Мы ни разу не пожалели, что доверили вам наше дело. Более того, мы уже рекомендовали вас многим своим друзьям и знакомым, и знаем, что вы помогаете им с таким же профессионализмом, вниманием и искренним желанием добиться справедливости. От всей души желаем Виталию Малюку, Кристине и всей вашей команде крепкого здоровья, благополучия, профессиональных успехов и всего самого доброго. Спасибо за вашу честность, человечность и огромный труд. Мы никогда не забудем вашу помощь. С глубоким уважением и огромной благодарностью, Семья Колбасиных.Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Хочу поблагодарить Виталия и его команду от всей души. Мы выиграли кейс на политическое убежище на этапе интервью USCIS. Когда начинали процесс, мы даже подумать не могли, что это возможно! Но оказалось, что если вложить душу в этот процесс, работая с человеком, который знает свое дело - чудеса случаются! И даже в самые сложные иммиграционные времена. Также хочу отменить, что весь процесс от подачи заявления до получения одобрения занял 8 месяцев. Я знаю, что это скорее удача, нежели тенденция, но этим я хочу еще больше подчеркнуть, какую радость мы испытываем от этого события. И вдобавок скажу, что пока другие адвокаты поголовно твердили, что у украинцев нет оснований для прошения убежища, команда Виталия не только взялась за наше дело, а еще и собрала железный кейс. Рекомендую Виталия всем, кто хочет знать, что за его спиной стоит действительно адвокат-профессионал из Американских фильмов :) особенно рекомендую обращаться украинцам: в команде Arvian Group много людей, которые знают специфику вопроса, а это очень важно. Благодарим за исполнение нашей самой заветной мечты 🇺🇸 Желаем Виталию и всей его команде дальнейших успехов, процветания и множества побед!Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Всем здравствуйте! Не реклама, а реально честный отзыв о команде «Arvian Law Firm LLC». Наша история. Семья приехала 2 апреля 2022г. Через мексиканскую границу. Получили гум.пароль. Затем перешли на TPS. Я приехал (прилетел в Нью Йорк) в марте 2023 года по U4U. Затем подался на TPS. Почти год ждал разрешительных документов, чтобы в законном порядке выехать из Украины. Ввиду того, что реально некуда возвращаться, решили на законных основаниях остаться в США. Обращались ко многим адвокатам. Оплачивали за консультации. Ушло реально много денег на порой совершенно пустые разговоры, как говорится ни о чем. Помнится ждали апоймента на консультацию с одной очень известной адвокатшей (имени не буду говорить, ибо не буду делать ей антирекламу). И какое же было разочарование, что, уплатив 450 долларов, мы не получили ничего. Ну совсем ничего. Порой казалось, что я знаю больше, чем она. Она просто (прошу прощения за высказывание) ну просто «распедаливала» нас на еще не один десяток долларов. Я, сидя там понимал, что меня «разводят» на деньги и нагло врут. Потом было еще с пять- восемь (точно уже и не помню) так называемых консультаций. За это время, изучил не мало сам законов и правил. И вот когда уже совсем потеряли надежду, обратились за консультацией к Arvian Law Firm LLC. Честно говоря, я уже был практически уверен, что будет очередной развод на деньги, без каких-либо гарантий. Понятно, что гарантий никто не может дать, тем более в это время. НО! Каково было мое удивление, когда я консультировался с Максимом. Как-то сразу и, по существу, начался КОНКРЕТНЫЙ разговор. Я почувствовал, что мы понимаем с полу слова друг друга. Я объяснил, что мне надо абсолютно законный путь легализации. Что-то придумывать, врать и т.д. не хотелось. Не та страна, все станет явным, даже спустя многих лет. Поэтому, проанализировав все законы и шансы, я твердо был убежден, что я подхожу под визу L1A. Да, это не иммиграционная виза, да она на прямую не ведет к грин карте. Но L-1A открывает прямой путь к петиции EB-1C, а та уже может привести к постоянному виду на жительство. Как говорится есть нюанс). Так же я не понимал, что все адвокаты говорят про одни и те же пути легализации. А некоторых порой спрашивал про эту визу, так они вообще ничего не могли ответить, и я понимал, что они по моему мнению, даже не знают о чем я спрашиваю. Так вот. Я точно понимал, что по всем параметрам и законам я подхожу под эту визу. И Максим мне много чего подсказал, в плане какие документы надо собрать, какие нужны, а какие бесполезны. Далее я консультировался с Кристиной. Очень грамотная и конкретная барышня. Даже не смотря, что я с ней, можно сказать поспорил, мы все равно сделали все правильно. Да, было трудно. Порой невыносимо собрать то, что у нас в стране вообще не учитывается, а тут, это важно. Но путем консультаций, переговоров, переписок и т.д., я получил-таки визу. И через неделю пришли документы и моей семье. Огромная Благодарность Алене! Всегда отвечала на все мои письма. Всегда, по существу, были ответы. Кристина консультировала и даже уже не по нашему делу. За что отдельная Благодарность. Если бы Максим тогда, как говорится не зацепил меня своей простотой и откровенностью, то я точно бы не обращался бы ни к кому. Да, забыл сказать. Мы подали все документы. Оплатили за ускоренное рассмотрение дела и нам пришло уведомление о намерении отказать (Notice of Intent to Deny). Я вообще был в шоке. Ну как так-то!? Все документы в наличии. Ничего не придумано, все честно и все отвечает правилам. Но группа адвокатов нас не оставила и поддержала. Нам дали ограниченное время на доказательства. И мы успели собрать еще документы. Так же, когда я прочитал, в какой форме был ответ от адвокатов, офицеру, то, честно говоря, немного даже насторожило, но мне понравилось. Никто не просил офицера, а можно сказать «утыкал носом» офицера, что тот не умеет считать сроки, и у нас все вовремя. Мне понравилась форма ответа. Да, немного дерзко (это ну очень понравилось!) и по фактам. И нам пришло одобрение. Еще раз Благодарю ВСЮ команду Arvian Law Firm LLC! С Уважением!Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Arvian Law is an excellent choice for anyone who needs help with immigration. The team is very professional, patient, and clearly experienced – they explain every step of the process in simple language and always respond quickly to questions. They show real care for their clients, prepare cases thoroughly, and fight for the best possible result, which gives a lot of confidence during a very stressful time.Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Хотим поблагодарить команду за сопровождение нашего дела по категории EB-1 extraordinary ability. Работа велась профессионально: грамотная структура кейса, внимание к деталям и стабильная коммуникация на протяжении всего процесса. Команда хорошо разбирается в иммиграционном законодательстве и умеет правильно представить профессиональный опыт клиента. В итоге мы получили одобрение, и это главный результат. Рекомендуем как компетентную команду для дел по сложным иммиграционным категориям.Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Хочу выразить искреннюю благодарность Arvian Law Firm за помощь в подготовке и подаче документов на визу талантов EB-1. Работа была выполнена профессионально и качественно. Все документы были подготовлены грамотно, и в результате моя петиция была успешно подана и одобрена. Спасибо за проделанную работу, внимательное отношение и профессиональный подход. Могу смело рекомендовать Arvian Law Firm тем, кто рассматривает подачу на визу EB-1.Posted on GoogleTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Это лучшие профессионалы с которыми нам когда либо приходилось сотрудничать! Сегодня поучил approve по EB1a и до сих пор не могу поверить ! Если с кем и идти на результат то только с ними ❤️
Employment-based immigration visas
CONTACT US
If you are located in the US, please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. We look forward to helping you.
CONSULTATION
Arvian Law Firm LLC
Vitalii Maliuk,
ATTORNEY AT LAW (МО № 73573)
Copyright © Arvian Law Firm LLC 2026