There's a difference in flaunting and explaining or sharing. They've just laid out the steps they took in a clear manner and provided information about it all, assuming it might help other people in the same situation. They're not saying something like "I cheated the system and here's how" or "Look at how smart I am because of what I did".

I would liken it to tax evasion. It's not illegal, and I absolutely don't mind people doing it. But I'd not publicize it or write a whitepaper on how I am doing it.

Tax evasion is most definitely illegal. Tax avoidance is probably what you mean. While the two sound similar, they are very different.

You're right, I meant tax avoidance.

'outstanding' is a judgement. seems the criteria people in this HN comment section have is not aligned with the arbiter of the visa (us gov, described by OP). Its not shady for the OP to publish exactly what he did and what result he got, and I don't see any shady actions in his write up

What's insane to me is that from my experience, most legal immigrants had to either game the system, or depend on the pure luck of lottery systems. Then once they are citizens, they turn around and say that everyone must go through that same process, instead of advocating for a fairer process

USCIS is the one that approved it? Surely they know more about the situation than a blog post.

What seems illegitimate about this application?

probably the lack of extraordinary ability

Speaking personally an American, any smart person building useful stuff is welcome in my country. That alone _is_ extraordinary ability, in my opinion (can’t speak to the intent behind the law).

You're reading the term too literally. USCIS has set the terms for what it means and the same USCIS has determined that op meets the criteria regardless of what you think it should mean.

the judge of 'extraordinary ability' for O1 visa is not some person writing HN comments, its the people who run the visa approval process

I've sincerely wondered how Melania Trump secured one, for the same reason.

Since Melania Trump was a reasonably successful model, it's actually not difficult for her since she could probably easily satisfy 3 of the following —

Evidence of published material about you in professional or major trade publications or other major media

Evidence that you have been asked to judge the work of others, either individually or on a panel

Evidence that your work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases

Evidence of your performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations

Evidence that you command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field

Evidence of your commercial successes in the performing arts

> Good for OP that he gamed the system, I have no ill-will for him. But the smart thing to do would be to keep quiet and enjoy the legal status, not write a blogpost showing how flimsily it was obtained.

So, really we should hate OP and probably ensure that his current visa gets voided through all legal means, hand him the NOIR he deserves, and then someone who actually deserves it can live in the US.

> So, really we should hate OP and probably ensure that his current visa gets voided through all legal means, hand him the NOIR he deserves, and then someone who actually deserves it can live in the US.

Yes.

After all, when companies or rich people _legally_ avoid paying taxes, everyone says “no they still need to pay, it’s not fair”.

Yet when it’s about someone “trying to improve their life” (in other words, poor), all of a sudden we should let it slide? Okay

Huh? Are you suggesting that OP is a net negative to US experience? The whole system is basically one big yea or nay on whether someone can stay in the US. OP looks like a pretty easy yea for any country.

Maybe he didn't get that yea through a black letter reading of the law, so what? The visa-issuers think it is fine. The outcome is good. So in this case the system could be said to be working.

Although the US visa system overall looks a bit silly.

> Huh? Are you suggesting that OP is a net negative to US experience?

This is what you are suggesting.

Further, "net negative" means nothing when talking about O-1 visa, which is quite literally a game to get very impactful people into the US. Being "net positive" is not enough.

> Maybe he didn't get that yea through a black letter reading of the law, so what? The visa-issuers think it is fine. The outcome is good. So in this case the system could be said to be working.

Investigators can make redeterminations. That is why a bunch of people do get booted out of these visa programs, and should. You do not stop being judged upon receiving a visa. A system that rubber stamps "yes" to a problem in 100% of cases where 99% is cost efficient, but it is not a system that works. That system needs to account for bad data, and should issue "no" when it matters.