An entrepreneur can get a green card through EB-1A, but must prove an individual, not a collective, contribution to the company’s success — the criteria for this visa were originally built around athletes and artists, not business founders.

In short

  • EB-1A requires meeting at least 3 of 10 criteria, or presenting one major international achievement.
  • Proving personal contribution is harder for entrepreneurs than for artists: company awards rarely name the founder legally.
  • USCIS counts only salary toward the income criterion — dividends and bonuses don’t count.
  • Salary should exceed the country’s average by at least 50% for the income criterion to avoid raising questions.
  • Company investment strengthens a case only depending on who the investor is and on what terms they got their stake.

Why EB-1A Is Harder for Entrepreneurs Than for Artists or Athletes

Formally, EB-1A criteria are identical for science, business, education, arts, and athletics — the regulation doesn’t single out any one field. But in practice, the visa is more often associated with athletes, coaches, dancers, and other performing artists — for them it’s simpler to satisfy the standard criteria directly with a prize, a title, or a press article about a performance. Filing it as an entrepreneur is, in practice, often harder than for a singer or an athlete: the standard criterion wording — publications, awards, contribution to the field — gets satisfied directly for creative professions, while business requires a much more elaborate body of evidence.

Filing it as an entrepreneur is, in practice, often harder than for a singer or an athlete: the standard criterion wording — publications, awards, contribution to the field — gets satisfied directly for creative professions, while business requires a much more elaborate body of evidence.

Formally, EB-1A requires meeting at least three of ten established evidentiary criteria, or presenting one major, one-time international achievement. But even meeting three criteria doesn’t guarantee approval: USCIS additionally assesses whether the applicant genuinely ranks among the best in their field. Another feature of this category is that the applicant files the petition on their own, without a job offer from an employer.

USCIS asks about published material, the candidate’s authority in the field, contribution to the industry, and awards received. For an artist or athlete, these boxes get checked directly — a prize, a title, an article about a performance. For an entrepreneur, these same categories don’t always line up neatly with what they actually do: contribution to the industry and authority have to be proven through other evidence, not the standard toolkit that works for creative professions.

That said, EB-1A remains a workable path for business people too — the issue is that the case has to be built around the applicant’s specific situation rather than assembled from a template.

The core problem

EB-1A criteria are formally the same across all fields, but artists and athletes can satisfy them directly with a prize or title. Entrepreneurs have to prove contribution to the field through indirect evidence tailored to their specific situation.

How to Prove the Company’s Success Is the Founder’s Own Achievement

The main difficulty in this kind of case is proving that the company’s achievements were the applicant-founder’s own doing, not the team’s. A business isn’t built by one person alone — it needs skilled specialists, and that’s exactly why USCIS finds it hard to accept that the founder matters more than the other people at the company.

The problem gets worse when the company wins market awards and prizes. The award is usually worded as an “award to the company” — the founder’s name is rarely mentioned in it, so the award reads as a collective, not a personal, achievement.

This is where details in the award’s own documentation help:

  • if the charter or bylaws of the organization that presented the award name the founder specifically, that wording can be used as an argument;
  • if the applicant is named individually among the winners or recipients of the award, that also supports their personal role, even if the award was formally given to the team led by them;
  • if neither the charter nor the list of winners names anyone individually, it’s possible to approach the award organizers afterward and request a letter or statement explicitly identifying the applicant as the company’s driving force.

The same principle applies to support letters and commissioned articles: if the authors refer to the company’s achievements and products as a whole rather than to the specific founder’s role, the argument gets diluted. Every document in the case needs to place the emphasis on the applicant, not on the company or its product — otherwise even widely known products won’t save a letter from being disregarded.

Every document in the case needs to place the emphasis on the applicant, not on the company or its product — otherwise even widely known products won’t save a letter from being disregarded.

A company founder among employees in front of a corporate award — the collective-credit problem
Strengthening an award

If the founder’s name isn’t mentioned in the charter or the list of winners, it’s possible to request a letter or statement from the organizers explicitly naming the applicant as the company’s driving force.

Salary or Dividends: What USCIS Actually Counts

Most company founders take income as dividends or bonuses rather than salary — this is tied to a different tax treatment for such payments. For the EB-1A category, that creates a problem: over the past year or two, USCIS has made it clear that only salary counts toward the income criterion.

The reason is the lack of a comparison baseline. Salary can be measured against the average salary for the industry or the country, but no statistics are kept for dividends, bonuses, or similar payments. So even a large dividend income won’t be accepted by USCIS as evidence for this criterion — there’s no way to cover it with payments of that kind.

even a large dividend income won’t be accepted by USCIS as evidence for this criterion — there’s no way to cover it with payments of that kind

The case should be prepared in advance: switch to a salary, or increase its share by reducing dividends, before document preparation even begins. The benchmark is that the salary should exceed the average salary in the applicant’s country by at least 50%. At that level, the income criterion typically doesn’t raise questions with USCIS.

Salary Threshold for the EB-1A Income Criterion

USCIS looks only at salary, not at dividends or bonuses.

  • Excess over the country’s average salaryat least 50%
  • Type of income countedsalary only
  • Dividends and bonusesnot countedno comparison statistics available
Dividends don’t count

USCIS accepts only salary toward the income criterion — dividends and bonuses aren’t counted, since there’s no comparison data available for them.

Salary benchmark

Salary should exceed the average for the applicant’s country by at least 50% — at that level, the income criterion typically doesn’t raise questions.

Company Investment as an Argument in the Applicant’s Favor

Investments from clients, venture funds, or angel investors sometimes count as evidence of the founder’s personal role and contribution. But the mere fact of an investment proves nothing on its own — what matters is how the investor got their stake, how much money they put in, and who they actually are. A well-known venture fund and a private acquaintance who invested as a favor are two arguments of very different weight for the case, and the gap between them is substantial.

EB-1A can work for startup and new-company founders, but the visa is built for an applicant with extraordinary achievements, not for any entrepreneur who happens to have investors on the cap table. This category has limitations and nuances that have to be navigated carefully when assembling the document package, and it’s difficult to work through them alone without an experienced immigration attorney.

An investor and a startup founder discuss equity and terms for a company investment

Frequently asked questions

Can I file EB-1A with only two of the ten criteria met?

No, at least three of the ten criteria must formally be met, or one major international achievement presented — a petition isn’t filed with only two criteria. But even three criteria don’t guarantee approval: USCIS additionally assesses whether the applicant genuinely ranks among the best in their field. So meeting the formal count is just a starting point, not a finished case.

Can patents or intellectual property owned by the company be used as an argument for EB-1A?

There’s no direct answer for this specific case, but the same principle applies as with awards and articles: what matters isn’t who owns the asset, but whether the applicant is named individually. If a patent is registered to the company without naming a specific person, the argument gets diluted the same way a collective award does — every document needs to emphasize the applicant’s role, not the company.

What if the company doesn’t yet have awards or notable press coverage?

At an early stage, EB-1A isn’t a fit for just any entrepreneur — it’s built for an applicant with extraordinary achievements, and the visa isn’t designed for a startup with no results yet. But a case can be built through channels other than awards: venture fund investments, support letters that emphasize the founder’s role, and other evidence of personal contribution can also work if assembled correctly.