In this post, we will talk about Santiago, an engineer in physics who recently received his EB-1A approval and is now a U.S. permanent resident together with his wife.
What makes Santiago’s case especially interesting is that he started his green card journey relying on attorneys and company sponsorship, but eventually decided to take control of the process himself. After months of delays, and with his OPT expiration getting closer, he prepared his own EB-1A petition, filed it with premium processing, and received his I-140 approval in about 20 days.
This is a summary of the conversation I had with Santiago on Oscar’s Green Card’s YouTube channel.
Santiago’s Background: Physics, Materials Processing, and Fusion Energy
Santiago is an engineer in physics with around 20 years of experience in high technology companies, mostly in materials processing.
Before coming to the United States, he had his own company in Colombia, where he sold plasma detectors around the world. Later in his career, he moved into the nuclear field, and for the last several years his work has focused on fusion energy.
In the interview, Santiago explained why fusion energy is such an important field. Nuclear energy is extremely dense, and fusion is especially promising because of its potential for clean energy and the possibility of controlling the reaction. As he described it, once humanity is able to achieve this at scale, it could change how communities develop.
Santiago always wanted to pursue a PhD and live abroad. In 2016, he sold his company in Colombia and started looking for PhD opportunities. He first came to Chicago, later went to Brazil, and eventually received an offer to join Virginia Commonwealth University in 2018.
From Waiting for Sponsorship to Taking Ownership
While Santiago was doing his PhD, a colleague told him about the EB-2 NIW green card. At first, Santiago looked into it, but the process seemed too complicated and troublesome. Like many people, he thought it would be easier to wait until a company sponsored him.
After finishing his PhD, he looked for jobs and made it clear during interviews that he would need green card sponsorship. Eventually, a company agreed to sponsor him, but first asked him to wait through a probation period of around six months.
After that, the process moved very slowly. More than a year passed, and by the end of 2024 Santiago discovered that the company was having financial issues and was not paying the lawyers. This was a very stressful situation because his OPT was going to expire in August 2025.
At that point, Santiago realized he could not continue relying only on the company or the attorneys. He needed to take ownership of the process.
When he checked the cost of moving forward with attorneys on his own, the quote was very high: around $20,000 for O-1 and EB-2 work, not including adjustment of status fees. He calculated that the total cost could be around $25,000.
So Santiago and his wife decided to try something different. One weekend, while watching videos about the green card process, he asked himself: what if we try to draft the petition ourselves?
Why Santiago Switched From EB-2 NIW to EB-1A
Santiago first started drafting an EB-2 NIW petition. But while reviewing videos and information about EB-1A, he realized that maybe he could meet some of the EB-1A criteria too.
At first, EB-1A looked intimidating. This is very common. Many applicants look at this category and immediately think it is beyond their level. Santiago had the same feeling.
But he also described himself as someone used to making things happen. Instead of assuming the case was impossible, he started asking a more useful question: how can I make each part of my profile as strong as possible?
He eventually prepared his EB-1A case around seven criteria, including awards, media coverage, judging the work of others, original contributions, publications, critical roles, and high salary.
Submitting seven criteria does not mean that every criterion is equally strong. In Santiago’s case, some were much stronger than others. But because he was working under a tight deadline, he decided to use the evidence he had and present the strongest possible version of the story.
Using Awards and Media Coverage Creatively
One of Santiago’s important pieces of evidence was an award received by a company, not by him personally. This could have been a problem if he simply submitted the award without explanation.
Instead, he contacted the president of the company and asked for a letter explaining that he had led the team connected to the award and that the recognition was related to his contributions. This was important because USCIS needs to understand not only that an award exists, but also how the petitioner was connected to it.
Santiago also had some older media coverage from Colombia. In 2009, he had a small university interview, and in 2014 he had another local media interview about the company he had founded, which was selling equipment internationally.
At first, he thought this coverage might be too local or too small. But instead of stopping there, he became proactive. He contacted people, prepared a press bulletin, and looked for journalists interested in writing a follow-up story about his work.
As a result, he obtained around 10 new interviews from different media outlets in Colombia.
This is an important lesson. Applicants sometimes say, “I don’t have media coverage,” and stop there. But if the story is real and there is something interesting to report, it may be possible to reach out to journalists and create legitimate media interest. The point is not to fabricate anything. The point is to communicate real achievements in a way that others can understand.
Choosing the Right Niche for EB-1A
One of Santiago’s most interesting observations was about choosing the right field or niche.
For EB-1A, it is not enough to say that someone is generally a good scientist, engineer, or professional. The petitioner needs to define a field where their achievements make sense and where they can show they are among the top people.
Santiago’s view was that the niche should be narrow enough to show that the person is near the top, but broad enough to remain relevant to the United States.
This is a delicate balance. If the field is too broad, it may be impossible to show that the person is among the top professionals. But if the field is too narrow, the officer may not see why it matters.
In Santiago’s case, his background in physics, materials processing, nuclear technology, and fusion energy gave him a technical and specialized field where his evidence could be connected into one coherent story.
Original Contributions and Critical Role
Two of the most important EB-1A criteria in Santiago’s case were original contributions and critical role.
For these criteria, he did not rely on one type of evidence only. Instead, he combined recommendation letters, publications, patents or invention disclosures, conference presentations, and his professional roles.
This is very important. Some criteria are not proven by a single document. They require a story.
For example, a publication alone may show that you wrote an article, but it may not fully show that your work had major significance. A recommendation letter alone may sound too subjective if it is not supported by independent evidence. But when letters, papers, patents, conference presentations, and professional roles all point in the same direction, the officer can more easily understand the impact.
Santiago described this part of the process as requiring creativity. There is no perfect script. The applicant needs to sit down, analyze the evidence, and build a logical story that the officer can follow.
Strong and Weak Parts of the Petition
Santiago felt most confident about his awards, his contributions to the field, and his authorship of scholarly papers.
On the other hand, he felt less confident about the high salary criterion. He had earned a good salary in Colombia compared with peers, but in the United States he had been a PhD student, and PhD student salaries are usually low and heavily regulated.
He also felt that the judging criterion was weaker because he only had one peer review. Technically, one review may help with the plain language of the criterion, but for the final merits determination, having more evidence would usually be better.
This is another realistic lesson from Santiago’s case. Many applicants do not have perfect evidence. Sometimes the decision is between waiting to strengthen the profile or filing with the best evidence available. Santiago had only a few months before his OPT expired, so he could not wait for a perfect case.
Getting Feedback and Improving the Petition
Santiago used different tools to improve his draft, including AI and external review. He also asked me to review the petition.
In the interview, we joked that AI was more enthusiastic about his petition than I was. I tend to be more conservative when reviewing EB-1A cases. But after looking at his credentials, I agreed that Santiago had an EB-1A profile and that the case was worth trying.
After the review, Santiago improved the petition. He said that critical feedback did not discourage him because, as someone used to leading projects, he understood that feedback helps identify weak points. If someone finds an angle that does not work, that simply means the argument needs to be improved.
Premium Processing and Adjustment of Status
Santiago had several backup plans. Plan A was EB-2 NIW, plan B was EB-1A, and plan C was to find a sponsor for an O-1 visa.
But the O-1 was not ideal for him because it would tie him to a company and it is still a temporary visa. So once his EB-1A I-140 was approved, he was able to put the NIW and O-1 options aside.
He filed the EB-1A petition in early March with premium processing. About 20 days later, he received the I-140 approval notice.
After that, he moved forward with adjustment of status for himself and his wife. Looking back, he said one mistake was not filing the I-765 employment authorization and advance parole at the beginning. He expected the adjustment of status to move faster, but it eventually took around 14 months.
Later, when his OPT expiration was getting close, he filed the I-765 and received the work permit about 15 days before his OPT expired. He did not file advance parole initially because he did not expect to travel, but later a job situation required possible travel to Europe. Before that travel document arrived, the green card was approved, so the issue was resolved.
His adjustment of status was approved without an interview, and he and his wife went through the process on the same timeline.
The Feeling After Approval
Interestingly, Santiago said he felt even happier when the I-140 was approved than when the green card itself arrived.
Why? Because before that, he had been told by the company that the green card process was long and that nothing else could be done. But once he took ownership, he solved the I-140 part in about three months.
The final green card approval was more like closing a chapter. It brought relief. It meant he did not have to keep filing immigration forms for a while and could focus more on his career, family, and life in the United States.
Santiago also mentioned another positive side of the process: it forced him to analyze his own profile. Preparing the petition helped him understand his achievements, his professional brand, and what he had to offer.
Santiago’s Main Advice: Take Ownership
The biggest lesson from Santiago’s story is simple: take ownership of your process.
This does not mean everyone must file without a lawyer. For some people, hiring an attorney may be the right decision. But even with a lawyer, the petitioner must understand the process and participate actively.
As Santiago explained, the immigration process is about presenting your profile. You are the expert in your own career. A lawyer can guide you, but they cannot know every detail of your field, your achievements, or the importance of your work unless you explain it clearly.
Do not go blind. Study the category. Watch videos. Use available resources. Learn enough to have meaningful conversations with your lawyer or to prepare your own case if that is the route you choose.
Santiago’s EB-1A success story is a good example of what can happen when an applicant stops waiting for others to solve the problem and starts building a strategy around the evidence they already have.
His case was not perfect. He had time pressure, uneven criteria, and uncertainty. But he also had a strong technical background, a real record of achievements, and the determination to present his story clearly.
In the end, that was enough to obtain the EB-1A approval and complete the green card process for himself and his wife.
Want to be like Santiago? Join our EB-1A course!
Our EB-1A course is an excellent resource for DIY petitioners. It teaches a method to write the cover letter step by step, assemble the package, and submit to USCIS. Learn the process and write your own petition without a lawyer!
