O-1 Visa for Startup Founders: Why Co-Founder Petitions Typically Look Different

If you're part of a multi-founder startup team exploring the O-1 visa for startup founders, here's something that surprises many people: co-founders who built the same company, during the same years, with the same investors, can end up with fundamentally different O-1A petitions.

The O-1A covers extraordinary ability in sciences, business, education, or athletics. To qualify, each beneficiary (the person receiving the visa benefit) must independently demonstrate they meet at least three of eight evidentiary criteria. USCIS doesn't evaluate your founding team as a unit. Each petition stands alone, and the evidence that matters is what you contributed in your specific role.

This guide breaks down why the original contribution criterion is the clearest dividing line between co-founders, which roles have the strongest arguments for it, and how to build a winning O-1A petition even when original contribution isn't on the table.

Why Do Co-Founders on the Same Team End Up with Different O-1 Petitions?

Because USCIS evaluates individuals, not founding teams.

Each O-1A petition is adjudicated independently on its own merits. A prior approval for one co-founder does not bind USCIS when reviewing another co-founder's petition. USCIS looks at what you did, the evidence you can document, and the criteria your specific contributions satisfy.

The eight O-1A criteria reward different types of achievement (see the full evidentiary criteria on the USCIS website). Some reward technical innovation. Others reward commercial leadership, media recognition, or industry standing. The criteria that fit your CTO's profile may not fit your CRO's, and the evidence each co-founder needs to gather will differ even when it comes from the same company.

This is why petition strategy for a CTO, CEO, and CRO on the same founding team often diverges sharply, especially around one particular criterion: original contributions of major significance.

Which Co-Founders Have the Strongest Original Contribution Argument?

The technical co-founder, typically the CTO or Chief Architect, is almost always in the strongest position.

The O-1A original contributions criterion covers “original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.” That last phrase is the key. USCIS is not asking whether your work was important to your company. It's asking whether your work changed or advanced the broader field. A commercially adopted product, methodology, or technology can satisfy this criterion without any academic publications, provided the impact extends beyond the company that built it.

A CTO who designed and built a platform, tool, or algorithm adopted by external customers, integrated into other companies' workflows, or referenced by independent industry experts is well-positioned to make this argument. The strongest evidence includes:

• External adoption data: customer metrics, licensing agreements, or deployment numbers showing the technology is used outside the company that built it
• Expert letters: written by independent experts (not co-founders or investors) who articulate specifically how the contribution changed or advanced the field
• Patents with commercial deployment: a patent alone demonstrates originality, but not significance. Additional evidence of licensing, deployment, or adoption is needed
• Open-source adoption metrics: USCIS now explicitly recognizes open-source contributions with significant adoption metrics and contributions to widely used developer tools as valid O-1A evidence, per the January 2025 policy update

The CTO's advantage is that their work product is often the company's core intellectual property, and the evidence of external impact is quantifiable: users, deployments, integrations, downloads. That combination of originality and measurable field-level impact is exactly what USCIS looks for.

Does Original Contribution Work for Startup CEOs?

For early-stage startup CEOs, almost always yes.

On paper, the CEO role can look like uncertain territory for Original Contribution. A CEO at a large company whose job is purely setting strategy, hiring executives, and managing the board might struggle to show the kind of original work product USCIS looks for under this criterion. Company-building and original contribution are not the same thing.

But early-stage startup CEOs are not large-company CEOs. At a seed or Series A startup, the CEO is typically hands-on across every aspect of the business, including product development. They shape the product vision, make architecture decisions, define the core approach that differentiates the company in the market, and often write the initial product specs themselves. That deep, documented involvement in the product creates exactly the kind of original work product that supports this criterion.

At Compass Visas, Original Contribution is almost always part of the petition strategy for our startup CEO clients. Because our core clients are early-stage founders, we consistently find that CEOs have substantial, tangible evidence tying them to the development of the product and its impact on the broader field. The evidence is there. It just requires intentional gathering and framing.

What makes the argument work:

• Product involvement documentation: product specs, design documents, wireframes, or technical briefs authored or co-authored by the CEO. Early-stage founders are often the ones writing v1 of these documents.
• Evidence connecting the CEO's decisions to the product's differentiation: board decks, investor updates, or internal communications showing the CEO drove specific product features or architectural choices that led to external adoption
• Expert letters that attribute the contribution to the CEO specifically: not to “the team” or “the company,” but to the CEO's individual role in shaping the original work. Independent experts should explain how the CEO's contribution advanced the broader field.
• External adoption and impact data: the same metrics that support a CTO's case (user adoption, customer deployment, industry references) apply when the CEO played a documented role in creating the product

Could there be a CEO whose role is purely operational with zero product involvement? Technically, yes. But among early-stage startup founders, that scenario is rare. If you're a CEO at a seed or Series A company, chances are strong that you have an Original Contribution argument. If you'd like help identifying the evidence that supports it, you can get started here.

Can a CRO Claim Original Contribution?

In most cases, no. But it's not impossible.

A CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) whose role has been entirely focused on developing and scaling a sales function, executing go-to-market strategies, and growing revenue is doing valuable work. But sales execution, however successful, does not constitute an original contribution of major significance to the field. Closing a record number of deals, scaling ARR from $1M to $20M, or building a 50-person sales team are impressive commercial achievements. They demonstrate business leadership and serve as strong evidence for the Critical Role criterion, but they don't demonstrate that the CRO originated something new that advanced how the broader field operates.

There are two scenarios where a CRO can clear this bar:

1. Direct involvement in product development. If the CRO played a documented role in designing or developing the underlying product (not just selling it), that involvement could support an original contribution argument.

2. A documented sales methodology adopted industry-wide. If the CRO created a novel sales methodology, framework, or process that other companies adopted and implemented, that can qualify as a business-related original contribution. Think of the Sandler Sales Methodology as a benchmark: a codified approach to selling that was adopted across industries, with training certifications, published materials, and documented adoption by companies outside the originator's own organization. If your methodology influenced how others in the field sell, not just how your own company sells, you likely have an argument.

The second scenario requires strong third-party evidence: independent companies crediting and implementing the approach, expert letters from sales leaders outside your organization, and published references to the methodology. Without that level of external adoption, the argument will not hold.

How Do You Build an O-1 for a CRO Without Original Contribution?

By building the petition around different criteria.

The O-1A requires at least three of eight criteria. Original contribution is just one of them. For a CRO in a sales and revenue-focused role, the strongest alternative combination typically draws from the following:

Critical or essential role at a distinguished organization. This is often the CRO's anchor criterion. USCIS evaluates what you actually did in the role, not your title. If you can document the revenue outcomes you drove, the market expansion you led, and the board-level recognition of your impact, you have a strong argument. The organization must also have a “distinguished reputation,” which for startups can be established through VC funding from recognized investors, acceptance into selective accelerators (Y Combinator, Techstars), significant revenue milestones, notable partnerships, or major press coverage.

Press about you. Trade press, industry publications, podcast features, or news coverage that profiles the CRO's commercial strategy, leadership, or results. The material must name the beneficiary (not just a passing mention of the company) and appear in professional or major media outlets.

High salary or remuneration. If total compensation is demonstrably higher than others in comparable roles within your field and region, this criterion can work.

Judging others' work. CROs who serve as judges for accelerator pitch competitions, evaluate revenue-stage startups as mentors with merit-based selection, or sit on advisory boards that assess other companies' commercial viability can use this criterion.

Awards. If the CRO has won a recognized sales leadership award with national or international recognition, this criterion may also be available.

The point is not that the CRO's petition is weaker. It's that it looks different. A well-built petition using critical role, press, and high salary can be just as strong as one anchored by original contribution. The key is choosing the right criteria for the role and building the evidence around what the CRO actually accomplished.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can two co-founders use the same evidence in their O-1A petitions?

Some evidence will naturally overlap. Both co-founders may reference the same company's distinguished reputation, the same press coverage, or the same funding milestones. But each petition must connect that evidence to the individual beneficiary's contributions. A press article about the company counts for the published material criterion only if the beneficiary is featured in it. The company's distinguished reputation supports the critical role criterion only if that particular beneficiary's contributions to the organization are documented with specific outcomes.

Does USCIS compare co-founders' petitions against each other?

No. Each O-1A petition is adjudicated independently on its own merits. USCIS will not review your co-founder's approved petition when deciding yours, and an approval for one co-founder does not guarantee approval for another. This also means a denial for one co-founder doesn't negatively impact another's petition.

Should co-founders file their O-1A petitions at the same time?

There's no requirement to file together, and in many cases, staggering filings makes strategic sense. Each co-founder's evidence profile matures at a different pace. Your CTO may have strong original contribution evidence today while your CRO needs more time to accumulate press coverage and industry recognition. The right time for each person to file is when their case is strong enough for approval. If you're not sure when each co-founder is ready, a consultation can help clarify the timing.

Next Steps

Building an O-1A petition for a multi-founder team starts with understanding what each founder individually brings to the table. The criteria that fit your CTO's profile may not fit yours, and the evidence strategy that works for your CEO may need to be completely rebuilt for your CRO.

If you're part of a founding team and want to map each co-founder's contributions to the criteria where they're strongest, schedule a consultation to get started. We'll help you identify the right criteria for each role and flag any evidence gaps to address before filing.

This article provides general information about O-1A visa petitions for startup founding teams. Immigration law is complex, and every case is different. This is not legal advice for your specific situation. Please consult with an immigration attorney to evaluate your individual circumstances.