I disagree with the comment above. Massive amounts of materials without much to them often don't work in fact. It's more than that. It's really conveying - supported by evidence - what is really interesting and significant about the work and achievements of the applicant and conveying the applicant's passion. And most talented founders who are truly passionate about what they are doing have a good faith basis for proceeding with an O1 (although sometimes there's just not enough there to get it over the line).
+1. Many denials come from throwing together a bunch of low-quality evidence that vaguely looks like it might meet the criteria. These cases also tend to be poorly organized, poorly presented, and lacking any narrative.
Adjudicators see these cases all day long. They aren't fooled, and they won't approve them.
You can really make your adjudicator's day - and secure a quick approval - with an organized, nicely presented, high-quality evidence package, that's tied together with a compelling narrative.
Hi there, "high salary" is only 1 of the 8 O-1 criteria, so it's not mandatory. Lots of O-1s get approved without the "high salary" evidence. You have to show a minimum of 3, and preferably 4 or 5, categories, but not necessarily money.
I'd focus on showing how your work is new and cool, how it makes an impact on the world, and what acclaim you've gotten (media coverage, awards) for doing it.
