My future-work section started with work already in motion

Most of my EB-1A petition looked backward.

It described roles I had held, initiatives I had built, media coverage I had received, judging I had done, and recognition already in the record.

Then I reached the section about the work I intended to continue in the United States.

That section had a different problem.

I could not treat the past as if it automatically explained the future. I also did not want to write a speculative business plan full of outcomes that had not happened.

The most credible starting point was work that was already in motion.

At the time of my petition, I had already created NoCode Drinks and organized meetups across London, Warsaw, Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon, Toronto, and Berlin. My future-work section could begin with a real initiative, a real field connection, and a real pattern of activity.

The future was still a plan.

But it was not an invention.

Past evidence and future intent have different jobs

My earlier career chapters helped establish what I had done.

Startup Dream Team ran from 2012 to 2014. Founders of the Future ran from 2016 to 2021 and included more than 80 events reaching more than 4,000 aspiring entrepreneurs. The record also included media coverage, judging roles, awards, supporting letters, and other exhibits.

Those facts could help a reader understand my track record.

They could not, by themselves, state what I intended to do next.

That distinction stopped me from writing a future-work section that was only a summary of the petition with the verbs changed from past tense to future tense.

The section needed its own answers:

• What work was current when I filed?
• What did I intend to continue?
• How did that work belong to the field described in the petition?
• Why was the United States relevant to the next chapter?
• Which statements were documented facts, and which were intentions?

The past could support credibility.

It could not turn a forecast into a fact.

Current work gave the section an anchor

NoCode Drinks gave me something concrete to describe.

It was a meetup series for people working in and around no-code. It had already operated across seven cities. The petition record included a supporting letter, a conference speaking record, and public material connected to the community.

That meant I could write about an existing initiative before discussing what I wanted to do with it next.

This order mattered.

If I had begun with a broad sentence about transforming technology entrepreneurship in the United States, the section would have opened with a conclusion it could not yet support.

Beginning with current work made the logic narrower:

1. This initiative already exists.
2. This is what it currently does.
3. This is how it connects to my field.
4. This is the work I intend to continue.

The plan became easier to understand because the reader did not have to imagine the entire project from scratch.

Continuity did not mean repeating an old project

NoCode Drinks was not Startup Dream Team with a new name.

It was not Founders of the Future moved to another country.

The initiatives had different formats, audiences, and periods.

What connected them was the field I had defined: community building in technology and entrepreneurship.

That let me argue for continuity without pretending that my career was one unbroken organization.

The future-work section could acknowledge a new chapter while showing that the underlying work was familiar:

• creating settings where people in technology and entrepreneurship could meet
• connecting people across communities and geographies
• organizing programs and events around emerging builders
• continuing a pattern that appeared in more than one prior chapter

The field supplied the bridge.

The projects did not have to be identical.

This was useful because a future plan should be specific enough to inspect without becoming so narrow that it ignores how careers actually evolve.

I used the past as evidence of capacity, not as a promise

My prior projects mattered in the future-work section, but their job changed.

They were not there to prove that NoCode Drinks would reach a particular number of people, produce a particular company, or create a particular economic result.

Those outcomes had not happened.

The earlier record could support a more limited point: I had created and sustained community-building initiatives before.

That was evidence of relevant experience.

It was not a guarantee.

This distinction changed the language I was willing to use.

A documented past fact could be written directly.

An intention needed words such as **plan**, **intend**, or **seek to continue**.

A hoped-for result needed even more care. I could explain the purpose of the work without reporting the result as if it already existed.

The section became more credible when it kept those categories separate.

The United States connection needed more than a destination

Writing that I wanted to continue my work in the United States was not enough.

The country name did not explain the work.

In my cover letter, I connected the plan to the no-code community and to the opportunity to continue building NoCode Drinks from the United States. I described the existing initiative, the professional community around it, and the intention to deepen that work.

The useful question was not simply:

Why do I want to live in the United States?

It was:

What would I continue doing there, and why does that next step make sense in the same field?

That kept the section focused on professional continuity rather than personal preference.

It also prevented the United States from becoming a vague symbol of scale or opportunity. The location had to connect to the work I actually described.

I separated three kinds of sentence

The cleanest edit was to label every sentence in the section as one of three types.

**Existing fact**

NoCode Drinks had already held meetups across named cities.

**Supported pattern**

My earlier work showed a multi-year record of building initiatives in technology and entrepreneurship communities.

**Future intention**

I intended to continue and expand that kind of work from the United States.

Problems appeared when one sentence moved between all three categories without warning.

For example, a sentence could begin with a documented event, shift into a statement about a career pattern, and end with a predicted benefit.

The source beside it might only support the event.

Splitting the sentence forced each part to stay honest.

It also improved the reading experience. The officer could see where the record ended and the plan began.

Build a past, present, future bridge

If you are drafting a section about continuing work, make three short lists before writing prose.

Under **Past**, record:

1. The earlier work most relevant to your field.
2. The dates and sources that verify it.
3. The capability or pattern it can honestly support.

Under **Present**, record:

1. What you are doing now.
2. The documents that show it already exists.
3. How it connects to the field in the petition.

Under **Future**, record:

1. What you intend to continue or begin.
2. Why the United States is relevant to that work.
3. Which outcomes remain goals rather than facts.

Then test every bridge.

Does the past explain capacity without becoming a promise?

Does the present give the plan a real starting point?

Does the future remain specific without claiming results in advance?

That was the structure I needed.

My future-work section became stronger when I stopped asking it to predict an impressive future.

Its job was simpler.

Show the work already underway, connect it to the record, and explain the next step without pretending it had already happened.