Open Source and the O-1A: When GitHub Work Counts as Evidence, and When It Doesn't
USCIS guidance does not name GitHub or set a star count for the O-1A. Here is how open-source work maps to the eight criteria and which proof of adoption carries weight.
Part of our guide to the O-1 visa.
Open-source work can support an O-1A petition, but GitHub stars do not qualify you for anything on their own. As of November 1, 2026, no USCIS guidance names GitHub or sets a star or download threshold. The closest text, in the USCIS Policy Manual's O-1 chapter, lists "contributions to repositories of software" as original-contributions evidence only with proof of significant impact in the field. For an O-1 visa, open source counts when you can prove that others rely on your work.
Status line (2026-11-01): Policy Alert PA-2025-02 (in effect since 2025-01-08) is still the main O-1 evidence guidance; USCIS issued no O-1 alert from 2026-07-01 to 2026-10-27. PA-2026-05, which lets officers deny without a Request for Evidence (RFE) when required initial evidence is missing, is in effect (since 2026-08-05) and challenged in AAUP v. Mullin (no court has blocked it). From 2026-11-09 USCIS accepts only the 09/09/26 edition of Form I-129 (scheduled). Two proposed rules touching O-1 workers close for comment on 2026-11-10 and 2026-11-13; neither is law.
O-1 visa and open source: the short answer
Open-source work can count toward an O-1A, most naturally under the criterion for original contributions of major significance. USCIS guidance does not mention GitHub or set any star threshold. Officers look for evidence of significant impact in the field, so proof that other engineers and organizations rely on your code outweighs popularity metrics.
The review runs in two steps: a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the eight criteria in 8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii), then a weighing of the whole record. The USCIS Policy Manual's O-1 chapter is blunt: "Providing required evidence does not, in itself, establish that the beneficiary meets the standard for classification." That standard is being "one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Our walkthrough of each O-1 criterion with early-career engineer examples covers all eight; this guide covers how open-source evidence fits them.
Does USCIS guidance mention GitHub?
No. Neither PA-2025-02 nor the Policy Manual chapter it revised (current as of 2026-10-27) mentions GitHub or sets a star, fork, download or contributor number.
Common misconception: USCIS's January 2025 update names GitHub contributions, and a set star count qualifies a software engineer. Some vendor pages say this, sometimes with a specific threshold attached.
Correction: The PA-2025-02 policy alert says it clarifies evidence "including adding examples of evidence for individuals in critical and emerging technologies." It never mentions GitHub. The closest example, in the Policy Manual under the original-contributions criterion, reads: "Contributions to repositories of software, data, designs, protocols, or other technical resources with evidence of significant scientific, scholarly, or business-related impact in the field."
The second half of that sentence does the work. A repository becomes evidence only when the record shows that impact, through proof the Policy Manual lists for this criterion: published material about the work's significance, citations showing major significance, commercial use and detailed expert letters.
Which O-1A criteria can open-source work support?
Open-source work fits original contributions best, and it can also support published material about you, judging, a critical role and scholarly authorship. It rarely helps with awards or membership. The table reflects our reading of the Policy Manual text; your attorney decides how a record is framed.
Open-source evidence mapped to the O-1A criteria (Policy Manual read 2026-11-01)
| Criterion | How open-source work can fit | Fit, in our reading | What the Policy Manual looks for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original contributions of major significance | A library, tool, protocol or dataset others build on | Strongest | "Significant" impact; commercial use; expert letters backed by corroboration |
| Published material about you | Trade-press or major-media coverage of the project and your role | Possible | Title, date and author; a "passing reference" is not material "about" you |
| Judging the work of others | Reviewing talk proposals or papers for a recognized conference | Possible | Proof you completed the review, not only an invitation |
| Critical or essential capacity | Core maintainer of a project run by a distinguished foundation or company | Possible | Duties, not titles; "The organization need not have directly employed the beneficiary" |
| Scholarly articles | Technical papers; published talks at recognized conferences | Possible | A listed author; citations are not required for this criterion |
| Awards | Nationally or internationally recognized prizes for the work | Rare | Award criteria, number of awardees, who could compete |
| Membership | Committer or member status in a software foundation | Usually weak | Membership must require outstanding achievement judged by recognized experts |
| High salary | Your pay, not the project | Separate from open source | Wage evidence for your field and location |
Two edge cases come up often. Reviewing pull requests on your own project is part of the job; the Policy Manual's judging examples are peer review for scholarly conferences and publications, dissertation committees and government research funding programs (see real judging opportunities for engineers). And committer status usually reflects work on one project, not outstanding achievement "judged by recognized national or international experts," the membership test.
Do GitHub stars count for the O-1 visa? The evidence-quality ladder
Stars count only as background. They show that people noticed a repository, not that anyone depends on it, and they are easy to inflate. Each rung below is harder to fake and closer to what the Policy Manual calls "impact in the field."
Open-source evidence, weakest to strongest (our framework, as of 2026-11)
| Rung | Typical evidence | What it shows | Where it falls short |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Stars, forks, followers | Repository counters | Attention | Says nothing about use; easy to inflate |
| 2. Downloads and dependents | Package-registry download statistics; GitHub's dependency graph | Installs; packages that declare your project as a dependency | Counts include automated CI builds, mirrors and bots; needs dated exports and a stated method |
| 3. Named adoption | Adopters' own engineering blogs, documentation, talks or public manifests naming the project | Reliance by identifiable organizations | Must come from the adopter, not from you |
| 4. Independent expert letters | Detailed letters from people in the field who did not work with you | Expert judgment of significance | Weak if generic or not backed by rungs 2 and 3 |
The order matters because the Policy Manual says expert letters "may also provide valuable context," "particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed significance." A letter calling your library "widely used" lands harder when the download data and named adopters are already in the exhibits. Our guide to O-1 recommendation letters covers who should write them.
Keep your metrics honest
- Date and source every number, and say what each counter includes, such as automated builds.
- Separate your work from the project's. If you are one of hundreds of contributors to a large project, its stars are not yours; your merged work and what it changed are.
- Never round up. The petitioner signs Form I-129 certifying that its contents are true, so one inflated figure can undermine the whole record.
How do I prove my open-source work is a major contribution?
Prove reliance, not popularity. A strong record shows what you built, who depends on it and what independent experts say about its significance, each item dated and traceable. These steps assemble that record for the petitioner's attorney.
- Export your contribution record from GitHub or GitLab: merged pull requests, releases you cut, design documents and your maintainer role, each dated.
- Pull download and dependent counts from the package registry (PyPI, npm, Maven Central or crates.io) and GitHub's dependency graph, noting the export date and what each counter includes.
- Document named adoption from the adopters' own engineering blogs, documentation and talks, and save archived copies.
- Collect published material about the project and your role, with the title, date and author the Policy Manual requires.
- List independent experts who use or have evaluated your work, for the attorney, who decides how letters are requested.
- Confirm the petitioner (a US employer, a US agent, or under PA-2025-02 an entity you own) and the written advisory opinion that the USCIS O-1 page says the petitioner "must provide."
- Expect the petitioner to file the 09/09/26 edition of Form I-129 (the only one accepted from 2026-11-09), on paper or by PDF upload, with Form I-907 for premium processing.
Can open-source work replace publications for an O-1?
Not one for one, but you may not need publications at all. Scholarly articles are one criterion of eight, and a strong open-source record can meet three others. Where that criterion does not readily apply to an industry engineer, the petitioner can use comparable evidence, and the explanation has to be specific. The Policy Manual warns that "A general unsupported assertion that the listed criterion does not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation is not probative." Its own example fits industry engineers: for a beneficiary outside academia, a petitioner might show that "presentation of work at a major trade show is of comparable significance to that criterion." Our guide to how comparable evidence works in STEM O-1A cases covers that framework.
Comparable evidence is not a lower bar: it "does not change the standard for the classification." Check the plain criterion first. "Published conference presentations at nationally or internationally recognized conferences" is a listed example, so a published talk about your project may count directly.
Can open-source maintainers qualify for an O-1A?
Nothing in the rules excludes maintainers, and their records often touch several criteria at once. The standard does not bend, though: the whole record must show sustained national or international acclaim.
Maintainers have two openings people miss. For the critical-role criterion, "The organization need not have directly employed the beneficiary," so a core role in a project run by a distinguished foundation or company can be argued, backed by a detailed letter from someone who knows the role. And in the final weighing of the record, the Policy Manual says unsolicited invitations to speak or present at nationally or internationally recognized conferences are "generally indicative of a person's high standing." Keep every invitation email.
If your employer will not file, PA-2025-02 confirms that "a separate legal entity owned by the beneficiary" may file the petition, and the USCIS O-1 page also lists a US agent. Which route fits is an attorney's call.
Worked example: a STEM OPT engineer who co-maintains a library
Take a hypothetical engineer on STEM OPT whose EAD ends 2027-07-31. They co-maintain a Python data-validation library and want to know where they stand on 2026-11-01.
- Rung 1: thousands of stars. Background only.
- Rung 2: strong registry downloads, many from automated builds; they export dated figures and note the method.
- Rung 3: two companies' engineering blogs and a cloud vendor's documentation name the library, their strongest original-contributions evidence so far.
- Rung 4: no letters yet; downstream maintainers who never worked with them are candidates.
- Other criteria: one trade-press article discusses the library at length (possible published material); reviewing talks for a regional meetup is unlikely to match the listed judging examples.
The dates around that plan:
| Date | What happens | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-09 | Only the 09/09/26 edition of the I-129 accepted | Scheduled |
| 2026-11-10 | Comments close on ending the 60-day worker grace period, which would cover O-1; today's 60 days still apply | Proposed |
| 2026-11-13 | Comments close on removing deference to prior approvals for I-129 extensions; current deference applies | Proposed |
| March 2027 | FY2028 H-1B registration (an expectation only) | Not announced |
| 2027-07-31 | EAD ends; no cap-gap for an O-1 | Your EAD card governs |
A closed comment period does not make a proposal final, so check the Federal Register after those dates.
Processing time shapes the plan. On 2026-11-01 the USCIS tool showed 80% of I-129 O cases completed within 14.5 months, so a regular-processed petition filed on 2027-02-01 would reach that mark around mid-April 2028, about eight and a half months after this EAD ends (our arithmetic on a snapshot that changes monthly). Premium processing commits USCIS to act within 15 business days, but that action can be an RFE, and the evidence has to be ready first. Involve the attorney (petition) and the DSO (EAD and SEVIS record) early; our guide to moving from OPT to an O-1 covers the timing.
Where an O-1 plan fits for OPT, STEM OPT and H-1B engineers
USCIS's I-129 data for FY2026 Q1-Q3 shows a 91.0% approval rate for O petitions (all O classifications, not only O-1A) and a 24.2% RFE rate, against 97.0% and 8.5% for H-1B (approvals over approvals plus denials; initial and extension petitions). The O RFE rate is nearly three times H-1B's (our arithmetic). The data ends in June 2026, before PA-2026-05, so it says nothing about decisions under it.
- On OPT or STEM OPT: there is no lottery, but no cap-gap either, and the petition does not extend your EAD. Ask your DSO about your EAD dates, and your attorney about the petition and about any international trip while a change of status is pending.
- On H-1B: H-1B portability does not carry over to an O-1 petition, so ask your attorney when O-1 work can begin. Proclamation 11069, the $100,000 entry restriction, is in effect on paper, but courts have blocked the agency policies that implement the fee and it is not being collected; it covers only H-1B and never names O-1. The 60-day worker grace period still applies; ending it is only proposed.
- For the job search: open source helps you get hired whatever the visa; see how open-source contributions help international job seekers.
What changed for O-1 filings in 2026: old rule, new rule
| Area | Before | Now (as of 2026-11-01) | What it changes for an open-source record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing initial evidence | Officers were instructed to issue an RFE or NOID first | PA-2026-05 (in effect since 2026-08-05, challenged): officers may deny without one | Download data and letters may get no second chance after filing |
| RFE response time | Generally the full 12 weeks, plus 14 days if mailed abroad | Up to 12 weeks and possibly less; only 3 days added for mail | Keep exports and adopter evidence current |
| How the petition is filed | 02/27/26 edition of Form I-129 accepted; O-1A not on the PDF-upload list | O-1A added to PDF upload on 2026-10-07; only the 09/09/26 edition from 2026-11-09 (scheduled) | The attorney picks the method; the evidence standard is unchanged |
O-1 fees and timelines (as of 2026-11)
| Item | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| I-129 O filing fee | $1,055 paper, $1,005 online ($530 small employer or nonprofit), plus the Asylum Program Fee of $600 ($300 small employer, $0 nonprofit) | Form G-1055, edition 10/26/26 |
| Premium processing (I-907) | $2,965; USCIS acts within 15 business days | G-1055; USCIS premium processing |
| Regular processing, I-129 O | 80% within 14.5 months (read 2026-11-01; changes monthly) | USCIS processing times |
Common mistakes
- Leading with stars. That puts the weakest evidence first.
- Claiming a project's metrics as your own. Show your contributions and what they changed.
- Treating collaborators as independent experts. Co-maintainers can describe your role; independent users show significance.
- Calling routine code review "judging." Check it against the listed examples first.
- Filing thin and expecting an RFE. Under PA-2026-05, missing initial evidence can mean a denial with no RFE.
- Letting the EAD clock run. With no cap-gap for an O-1, evidence gathering eats into OPT time.
Frequently asked questions
Do GitHub stars count for the O-1 visa?
Not on their own. Stars are not an O-1A criterion, and as of November 1, 2026 USCIS has set no star threshold. They show attention rather than reliance, so they carry little weight without download, adoption and expert evidence behind them.
Does USCIS guidance mention GitHub?
No. Neither Policy Alert PA-2025-02 (in effect since January 8, 2025) nor the O-1 chapter of the USCIS Policy Manual (current as of October 27, 2026) mentions GitHub, stars or download counts. The closest example is contributions to software repositories, and only with evidence of significant impact in the field.
Can open-source maintainers qualify for an O-1A?
Nothing in the O-1A rules excludes maintainers, and their work can support original contributions, published material and a critical role. The standard does not change for them, and whether a specific record shows sustained national or international acclaim is a question for a licensed immigration attorney.
How do I prove my open-source work is a major contribution?
Show that others rely on it, not just that it is popular. Dated, sourced download and dependency data, named organizations that use the project, published material about it and detailed letters from independent experts outweigh star counts. The Policy Manual says expert letters help most when other documents corroborate the claimed significance.
Can open-source work replace publications for an O-1?
Not one for one, but you may not need publications. Scholarly articles are one of eight O-1A criteria, and a petition without a major international award needs at least three, so open-source work can carry others. If the criterion does not readily apply to an industry job, the petitioner can offer comparable evidence and must explain why.
Sources
- USCIS Policy Alert PA-2025-02, O-1 evidentiary requirements (2025-01-08)
- USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 2, Part M, Ch. 4, O-1 Beneficiaries
- USCIS O-1 visa page
- USCIS I-129 approval and RFE data, FY2026 Q1-Q3
- USCIS PA-2026-05, evidence, RFEs and NOIDs (2026-08-05)
- Form G-1055 fee schedule, edition 10/26/26 and Form I-129 page
- USCIS premium processing and processing times
- Federal Register proposals on the 60-day grace period and deference to prior approvals
- Proclamation 11069 (2026-09-23)
How we checked this: on 2026-11-01 we read PA-2025-02, PA-2026-05, the Policy Manual O-1 chapter (current as of 2026-10-27), the USCIS O-1, I-129 and online-filing pages, Form G-1055 (edition 10/26/26), the processing-times tool, the two Federal Register proposals and USCIS's FY2026 Q1-Q3 I-129 data.
This is general information, not legal or tax advice. Your own I-20, I-94 and USCIS notices govern, along with your DSO for anything F-1, OPT or SEVIS and a licensed immigration attorney for the petition itself.
If you are an engineer on OPT, STEM OPT or H-1B and want a job search aimed at employers that sponsor, F1Jobs can help with that side of the plan while your attorney handles the petition.
Frequently asked questions
Do GitHub stars count for the O-1 visa?
Not on their own. Stars are not an O-1A criterion, and as of November 1, 2026 USCIS has set no star threshold. They show attention rather than reliance, so they carry little weight without download, adoption and expert evidence behind them.
Does USCIS guidance mention GitHub?
No. Neither Policy Alert PA-2025-02 (in effect since January 8, 2025) nor the O-1 chapter of the USCIS Policy Manual (current as of October 27, 2026) mentions GitHub, stars or download counts. The closest example is contributions to software repositories, and only with evidence of significant impact in the field.
Can open-source maintainers qualify for an O-1A?
Nothing in the O-1A rules excludes maintainers, and their work can support original contributions, published material and a critical role. The standard does not change for them, and whether a specific record shows sustained national or international acclaim is a question for a licensed immigration attorney.
How do I prove my open-source work is a major contribution?
Show that others rely on it, not just that it is popular. Dated, sourced download and dependency data, named organizations that use the project, published material about it and detailed letters from independent experts outweigh star counts. The Policy Manual says expert letters help most when other documents corroborate the claimed significance.
Can open-source work replace publications for an O-1?
Not one for one, but you may not need publications. Scholarly articles are one of eight O-1A criteria, and a petition without a major international award needs at least three, so open-source work can carry others. If the criterion does not readily apply to an industry job, the petitioner can offer comparable evidence and must explain why.