BLOG

One of the most unique and misunderstood features of the O-1 visa is the option to submit comparable evidence when the standard evidentiary criteria don’t fully apply. Often referred to as the “catch-all clause,” this provision allows applicants to offer alternative forms of documentation to demonstrate extraordinary ability, especially when their occupation does not neatly align with the traditional standards. But while this option appears flexible on the surface, the reality is far more constrained.

The concept of comparable evidence isn’t new. In fact, USCIS proposed guidance on its scope as early as 2016, though those proposals were never finalized. It wasn’t until 2023 that the agency formally incorporated a policy on comparable evidence into its policy manual. This update clarified both the narrow circumstances under which such evidence may be submitted and the strict burden placed on applicants to justify its use.

To understand when comparable evidence can be submitted, it’s crucial to start with how the O-1 classification works. The O-1 regulations list specific criteria for demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim. Applicants must satisfy at least three criteria unless they have received a one-time major award. If an applicant cannot meet three of the listed criteria, they may request to submit alternative forms of evidence, but only under very specific conditions.

First, the applicant must demonstrate that the standard criteria do not readily apply to their occupation, not simply their personal background or current stage of career development. This is a key distinction. The comparable evidence option cannot be used simply because an applicant lacks press coverage or hasn’t yet commanded a high salary. Instead, the applicant must show that the nature of their profession (not their résumé) makes it difficult to meet the default standards. A common example is the case of digital creators or influencers. When the O-1 framework was written, social media and influencer marketing did not exist in its current form. As a result, traditional evidence such as peer-reviewed publications or mainstream media articles may not align with how success is measured in these new industries.

USCIS takes this “occupation-based” limitation seriously. In its policy manual, the agency even cites the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “occupation” in a footnote to stress that the barrier must arise from the structure of the profession, not the individual’s personal circumstances.

Second, submitting comparable evidence does not alter the underlying structure of the O-1 petition. The applicant must still meet at least three criteria, even if those criteria are supported by alternative documentation. In other words, comparable evidence does not lower the evidentiary threshold but merely changes how that threshold can be met in limited cases.

Third, applicants must explain in detail why the standard criterion does not apply and why the alternative evidence should be considered valid under that criterion. A vague or unsupported statement that “this criterion doesn’t apply to my industry” is insufficient. USCIS has made it clear that general assertions without reasoning carry no weight. The applicant must articulate both why the default requirement is a poor fit and how the proposed evidence provides an equivalent demonstration of extraordinary ability.

Finally, there is one provision that offers some relief: the applicant does not need to prove that the standard criterion is completely inapplicable—only that it is “not easily applicable.” This subtle distinction lowers the threshold somewhat, acknowledging that rigid rules may not reflect the realities of emerging fields and hybrid professions.