> 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.