BLOG

The distinction between an O-1 extension and an O-1 renewal often causes confusion, but it is critical for planning continued employment in the United States under O-1 status.

An O-1 extension applies when the beneficiary needs additional time to continue or complete the same activities or events outlined in the original, approved petition. This could be due to a project delay, a longer production timeline, or similar reasons.

Extensions under this category are limited to a maximum of one year per filing, but there is no limit on how many times you may apply for such extensions, as long as the underlying activities remain the same.

In contrast, an O-1 renewal is treated as a new filing and applies when the beneficiary has completed the activities or events in the original petition and is now seeking approval for new activities or a new employment agreement. This might involve a new contract, a new project, or even the same position with the same petitioner but with a new itinerary and updated terms.

A renewal petition may qualify for the full three-year maximum validity period, provided it clearly demonstrates that the beneficiary will be engaged in a new set of activities and events that are materially distinct from the previous petition.

One common point of confusion is when the beneficiary continues in the same role with the same employer, but beyond the original three-year validity period. If the petition is supported by a new employment agreement and itinerary reflecting new or ongoing engagements, USCIS generally treats this not as an extension, but as a new petition. That said, in practice, USCIS does not always grant the full three years in such cases. Some petitions are only approved for one year, even when framed as renewals.

It is important to note that USCIS policies regarding O-1 extensions have shifted significantly. As of October 23, 2017, USCIS no longer grants deference to prior approvals when adjudicating extension requests. Under this revised approach, officers must apply the same level of scrutiny as they would to an initial petition, prior approval does not establish a presumption of continued eligibility, and the burden of proof remains entirely on the petitioner in all cases. This policy change has effectively transformed extension requests into de novo reviews, requiring petitioners to present comprehensive evidence of extraordinary ability regardless of their approval history.