Official USCIS Requirements
This breakdown is about the published material in media criterion. For other criteria - the full guide.
Official USCIS requirements (original + translation)
Criterion 3: Published material about the person in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the person’s work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence must include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation.
First, USCIS determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person’s specific work in the field for which classification is sought.
Examples of qualifying media may include, but are not limited to:
- Professional or major print publications (newspaper articles, popular and academic journal articles, books, textbooks, or similar publications) regarding the person and the person’s work;
- Professional or major online publications regarding the person and the person’s work; and
- Transcripts of professional or major audio or video coverage of the person and the person’s work.
Considerations:
The published material should be about the person, relating to the person’s work in the field, and not just about the person’s employer and the employer’s work or about another organization and that organization’s work. Marketing materials created for the purpose of selling the person’s products or promoting the person’s services are not generally considered to be published material about the person (this includes seemingly objective content about the person in major print publications that the person or the person’s employer paid for).
However, the person and the person’s work need not be the only subject of the material; published material that covers a broader topic but includes a substantial discussion of the person’s work in the field and mentions the person in connection to the work may be considered material about the person relating to the person’s work.
Moreover, officers may consider material that focuses solely or primarily on work or research being undertaken by a team of which the person is a member, provided that the material mentions the person in connection with the work or other evidence in the record documents the person’s significant role in the work or research.
Evidence may include documentation such as print or online newspaper or magazine articles, popular or academic journal articles, books, textbooks, similar publications, or a transcript of professional or major audio or video coverage of the person and the person’s work.
Second, USCIS determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media publication.
In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media).
Criterion 3: Published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade publications, or in other major media, relating to the petitioner’s work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence must include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation.
First, USCIS determines whether the published material relates to the petitioner and the petitioner’s specific work in the field for which classification is sought.
Examples of qualifying media include, but are not limited to:
- Professional or major print publications (newspaper articles, popular and academic journal articles, books, textbooks, or similar publications) about the petitioner and the petitioner’s work;
- Professional or major online publications about the petitioner and the petitioner’s work;
- Transcripts of professional or major audio or video coverage of the petitioner and the petitioner’s work.
Important clarifications:
The published material must be about the petitioner and the petitioner’s work in the field, not merely about the petitioner’s employer and the employer’s work, or about another organization and that organization’s work. Marketing materials created to sell the petitioner’s products or promote the petitioner’s services are generally not considered publications about the petitioner (this includes seemingly objective content about the petitioner in major print publications if the petitioner or the petitioner’s employer paid for it).
However, the petitioner and the petitioner’s work need not be the sole subject of the material; a publication covering a broader topic but including substantial discussion of the petitioner’s work in the field and mentioning the petitioner in connection with that work may be considered material about the petitioner relating to the petitioner’s work.
Further, officers may consider material that focuses solely or primarily on work or research being undertaken by a team of which the petitioner is a member, provided the material mentions the petitioner in connection with the work or other evidence in the file documents the petitioner’s significant role in the work or research.
Evidence may include documentation such as print or online newspaper or magazine articles, popular or academic journal articles, books, textbooks, similar publications, or a transcript of professional or major audio or video coverage of the petitioner and the petitioner’s work.
Second, USCIS determines whether the publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media.
When evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media).
What does USCIS require?
The publications in major media criterion (Criterion 3) is counted in about 35–40% of EB-1A petitions. USCIS requires at least 2–3 publications in outlets with circulation of 100,000+ or equivalent online audience, with the article’s author, date, and title specified.
For EB-1A (8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)):
"Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation."
For O-1 (8 CFR 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2)):
"Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary's work in the field for which classification is sought."
4 mandatory elements of the criterion
Officers check ALL 4 elements:
"The plain language of this criterion requires evidence (1) of published material, (2) that the published material contains the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation, (3) that the published material is about the petitioner relating to the petitioner's work in the field, and (4) that the published material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media."
Published material (not a draft, not a post)
Title + Date + Author (all three!)
About YOU and your work (not about the company/project)
In professional/major trade/major media (with evidence)
Important
Failure of any element = "criterion not met". This is one of the criteria that most often trigger RFEs. Media also pairs well with the Awards criterion — if your award was covered by the press, cite it.
Detailed requirements for publications
What must be in the publication:
- Title of the material (article headline)
- Publication date (exact date, not just year)
- Author (full name of the journalist, NOT the publisher name)
- Proof of publication (screenshot, PDF, link)
| Acceptable | Not acceptable |
|---|---|
| An article stating “By John Smith, Technology Reporter” | An article with no author listed |
| Material with a clear date “Published: March 15, 2024” | Material where the petitioner is the author |
| Publication on the outlet’s official site with URL | Company press release |
| Print version (then URL not required) | Advertising material (Sponsored, Ad) |
Requirements for article content
A) Focus of the material:
- The article must actually be ABOUT YOU (not just a mention)
- Related to your work in the claimed field
- Not solely about your employer/organization
B) Depth of discussion:
- Contains substantial discussion of your work
- If the article covers a broader topic — your contribution is discussed in detail
- If it’s about team work — your significant role is specified
C) Nature of the material:
- Not marketing/advertising
- Not paid content
- Objective journalistic coverage
| Acceptable | Not acceptable |
|---|---|
| A professional interview on your area of expertise | A general company article that merely mentions you |
| Your comments as an industry expert on trends | Material about hobbies or personal life |
| An analytical article where you act as an expert | A news item where you are one of many participants |
| Expert opinion on industry events | Paid PR material |
What is Major Media?
USCIS Policy Manual:
"For published material to qualify as major media, an officer looks at whether the publication or broadcast has significant national or international distribution."
How professional differs from major trade and major media?
USCIS doesn’t give strict definitions, but in practice the distinction is about AUDIENCE:
- Professional publications — academic and scientific journals for narrow specialists (doctors read JAMA, engineers — IEEE)
- Major trade publications — industry trade outlets for professionals (Billboard for musicians, Variety for film, AdAge for advertisers)
- Major media — mass media for broad audiences with national/international reach
For USCIS the key is: high circulation/traffic and significance within the category. A local newspaper will not qualify as any of these.
| Category | Audience | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Professional publications | Narrow specialists (academic, scientific) | IEEE Spectrum, JAMA, General Director, Hairbazar |
| Major trade publications | Industry professionals | Billboard, Variety, AdAge, The Hollywood Reporter |
| Major media | General public (RU) | Forbes, RBC, Kommersant, KP, MK, AiF, Pravda.ru |
| Major media | General public (UA) | Focus.ua, Meta.ua, Gazeta.ua, RBC.ua |
How many articles are needed minimum?
There is no formal minimum. Practice:
- 4–5 in major media — good
- 5+ in niche publications — may be insufficient
- Quality matters more than quantity
Article about the company where I’m CEO — counts?
Depends on content. USCIS requires “about the alien”:
- Your name in the headline/lede — yes
- Discussion of your role and achievements — yes
- Only the company name — no
Example from an RFE: article about company vs article about you
"The submitted articles were primarily about your work. The articles mention your name or include your opinion, but published material must not simply be about your work, but about you - though it may not be unrelated to your work."
Important clarification: an article about your WORK ≠ an article ABOUT YOU. The officer says: they need an article ABOUT YOU that is related to your work — not merely about the project where you were mentioned. The focus must be on the person, not the project.
Assess your chances for the media criterion
From practice: 300+ RFEs reviewed
Formally USCIS requires "published material in major media." In practice, of 300+ RFEs reviewed from 2023–2025, 78% of denials on this criterion were due to one problem: the petitioner failed to prove the outlet’s major status. Officers won’t accept "Forbes is major" on faith — they need concrete data on circulation/audience and comparisons to other outlets.
Check your publications before filing
Each "bad" answer lowers the chance of satisfying the criterion. Be honest with yourself.
1. Type of your media
| Your answer | Chances |
|---|---|
| Only Major Media (KP, RBC, Forbes) |  High |
| Major + specialized (50/50) |  Medium |
| Mostly specialized | Low |
| Only specialized |  Very low |
Hint
Specialized publications are harder to prove. Beyond the "About Us" and media kit there's often little, and officers treat those as self-serving.
2. Format of article submission
| Your answer | Chances |
|---|---|
| PDF with URL for each | Correct |
| URL only on the first one | Risk |
| Screenshots | Will be rejected |
| Cut-out snippets | Will be rejected |
3. How many sources to prove Major?
| Your answer | Chances |
|---|---|
| SimilarWeb + 5–9 sources | Excellent |
| SimilarWeb + 3–4 sources | Good |
| SimilarWeb + 1–2 sources | Minimum |
| Only SimilarWeb | Will be rejected |
| Only media kit | Will be rejected |
4. Author, Date, Title
| Your answer | Chances |
|---|---|
| All three + highlighted | Correct |
| Present but not highlighted | Risk |
| Author = “Editorial Staff” | Not accepted |
| No date | Not accepted |
| No headline | Not accepted |
5. Article content — who is it about?
| Your answer | Chances |
|---|---|
| Article entirely ABOUT YOU | Ideal |
| You are the main figure | Good |
| Substantially mentioned | Risk |
| 1–2 sentences / a quote | Not accepted |
| About company / event | Not accepted |
6. Over how many years are the publications?
| Your answer | Plain Language | Final Merits (EB-1) |
|---|---|---|
| 5+ years | Excellent |
Sustained |
| 3–4 years | Good |
May be enough |
| 2 years | Will count |
Risk of not sustained |
| 1 year | Will count |
Devalued |
| Only 2024–25 | Will count |
Devalued |
Don’t be afraid to file with 1–2 years
For Plain Language the criterion will be counted — that’s already a win. For Final Merits it may be devalued, but strengthen other criteria.
Conclusion: count your answers
| Result | What to do |
|---|---|
| All |
Criterion ready to file |
| 1–2 |
Improve the weak points |
| 3+ or any |
Seriously reconsider strategy |
Remember
An officer WILL NOT closely read your articles and search for links. They will skim, and if they don’t see an obvious "article about [Name] and their work" with author, date, and major evidence — they'll deny. Make everything obvious.
Article analysis template
Use this prompt for ChatGPT/Claude to analyze your article for USCIS compliance:
Article analysis prompt
The petitioner [NAME] is preparing an EB-1 petition to USCIS as: [SPECIALTY]
Analyze the article for compliance with USCIS requirements for EB-1 Criterion Published Material:
1. Mandatory formal elements:
- Title of the material
- Publication date
- Author
- Translation (if required)
2. Content analysis:
A) Focus of the material:
- Is the article truly ABOUT the petitioner?
- Is it related to their specific work in the claimed field?
- Is it more than just a mention/quote/photo without discussion?
- Is it not merely an article about the petitioner’s employer/organization?
B) Depth of discussion:
- Does it contain substantial discussion of the petitioner’s work?
- If it’s on a broader topic — does it discuss the petitioner’s contribution in detail?
- If about team work — does it specify the petitioner’s significant role?
C) Nature of the material:
- Is it not marketing/advertising?
- Is it not paid content?
- Is the coverage objective?
3. Publication type (choose one):
- Professional publication (for specialists in the field)
- Major trade publication (large industry trade)
- Other major media (large mainstream media)
Article for analysis:
[INSERT ARTICLE TEXT]
How to use
Copy the prompt, replace [NAME], [SPECIALTY] and paste the article text. The AI will provide an objective assessment whether the article fits the criterion.
How to prove that a media outlet is major?
How to prove that a publication is major media?
Use multiple sources:
| Source | What it shows | Where to get it |
|---|---|---|
| SimilarWeb | Traffic, country & category ranking | Free (basic data) |
| Medialogia | Russian media rankings | Via Wayback Machine |
| Rambler Top100 | Runet rankings | Archives |
| Citations by Western media | International recognition | Google News, LexisNexis |
| Media Kit of the outlet | Official audience statistics | Outlet’s website |
How to prove “major” status?
Recommended sources:
- SimilarWeb — traffic data (but a single source is not enough)
- Alexa rankings (archived via Wayback)
- Outlet Media Kit — official audience data
- Medialogia rankings — for Russian media
- Comparison with known analogues
SimilarWeb alone is insufficient!
"We note your submission of website traffic for SM.news and kp.ru from similarweb.com. Yet information from the website analysis tool similarweb.com is inconclusive. One web traffic analysis website on its own is not persuasive to establish these sources are considered major media."
An officer explicitly states: one SimilarWeb = “inconclusive.” You need additional sources.
Example from an RFE: must prove intended audience = professionals
"In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). The petitioner did not provide evidence indicating that the intended audience for any of the publications is professionals in the field of construction management, therefore the evidence does not demonstrate that they are professional or major trade publications."
The officer says: you claim this is a professional publication but didn’t prove the audience is professionals in your field. You must show the intended audience.
How to prove a professional audience:
- Media Kit describing the audience
- Subscriber data (positions, industries)
- Subscription terms (paid specialized subscription?)
- The outlet’s content (technical articles for professionals)
What matters more: articles ABOUT you or articles you authored?
These are different criteria:
| Type | Criterion | What it demonstrates |
|---|---|---|
| Articles ABOUT YOU | Published Material | Recognition |
| Articles YOU wrote | Authorship | Expertise |
Is circulation required for online media?
For online media use:
- Unique visitors per month
- Country ranking (SimilarWeb + other sources)
- Comparison with recognized major media
Reprint in another outlet — counts as two sources?
No. Officers look at the original. Reprints can be mentioned as evidence of distribution but not as separate qualifying publications.
Do you need to prove outlet importance at the time of publication?
Yes. If the article is from 2014 but SimilarWeb data is from 2024:
- Use Wayback Machine for archived data
- Show the outlet was significant at the time of publication
- Explain: “At the time of publication, [outlet] was ranked…”
Example from an RFE: data from a different year = denial
"The submitted evidence does not show that the publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. Particularly because the circulation data is not from the same year the article and/or interview were published about the Petitioner, and the statistical data was not in the same format as the publication (episodic, monthly, quarterly, etc.)."
The officer rejected evidence because circulation data was from a DIFFERENT year than the article’s date.
"The circulation statistics for the publications are to be compared against at least two separate media traffic analytics that are in the Petitioner's country, during the same timeframe of the Petitioner's publications, in the same format (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly etc.) and in the same field of endeavor."
Officer’s checklist:
- At least 2 analytics sources
- In the same country
- For the same timeframe (year of publication)
- In the same format of measurement
- In the same field
Is a certificate from the outlet saying it’s a professional publication required?
Not mandatory, but helpful if:
- The outlet is niche and little-known
- You need to confirm editorial oversight
- The officer requested it in an RFE
Which outlets to compare traffic with to prove major?
Compare with:
- Category leaders in the country
- U.S. analogues
- Other outlets the officer will recognize
How to show that an outlet is cited by authoritative sources?
Collect 3–5 citation examples and present them as a separate exhibit. No need for 50 pages — enough to show a pattern of recognition.
Do U.S. outlets also need detailed descriptions?
Yes. Even for Forbes/TechCrunch you should provide:
- Audience/traffic data
- Comparison with other major media
- Don’t rely solely on the outlet’s name recognition
Does the number of views of the article matter?
Specific article views are rarely required. More important are:
- Overall outlet traffic
- Outlet ranking in category
- But if an article went viral with millions of views — mention it
How to get archived Medialogia rankings?
Ways to obtain historical data:
- Wayback Machine — search mlg.ru for needed dates
- Press releases — outlets often publish their ratings
- Market reports — analyses with historical info
If an outlet is quoted by NY Times — is that enough?
No. Being cited by an authoritative outlet is a plus, but not proof of the outlet’s major status. You need audience data for the outlet itself.
Examples of proving major status
Where to look for proofs
Google "[outlet name] media kit", "[outlet name] audience", "[outlet name] circulation" or search the outlet on SimilarWeb, Medialogia, and national media rankings.
Important: Use Wikipedia only to find leads, but DO NOT attach Wikipedia to the petition. USCIS does not accept Wikipedia as evidence.
Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP.ru) — a model example
Documents to prove KP.ru major status (full list)
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Roskomnadzor license | Official registration |
| Scimago 2024 (world) | #37 among 5,467 media worldwide — near NYT |
| Scimago 2024 (Russia) | #3 among all Russian news media |
| Top 20 Brands | #1 in newspaper category Russia 2013–present |
| People’s Brand 2024 | #1 in print media (public vote) |
| Guinness World Records | World record circulation: 21.9 million copies (1990) |
| The Guardian | Called “the most widely read newspaper in Russia” |
| Soviet orders | Historical state awards |
| Order of Honor | State award to staff |
| Runet Prize 2020 | Award in Media category |
| LiveInternet | #1 in News & Media: 91M visitors, 87% reach |
| Medialogia 2024 | #5 among newspapers, #2 by citations in social networks |
| Partnerships | Media partner of key forums (SPIEF, etc.) |
| Reach | 89 regions + 13 countries, offices abroad |
| Traffic Report | 75.45M visits (May 2025) |
Why this is a model example:
- Global recognition: Scimago #37 worldwide
- Guinness record — indisputable historical significance
- #1 brand among newspapers for many years
- State and international recognitions
- Partnership with major forums
Examples of proofs for specific outlets
Below are real examples of documents used to prove major status. Use them as templates for your publications.
Where to search
Google "[outlet name] media kit", "[outlet name] audience", "[outlet name] circulation" or check SimilarWeb, Medialogia and national rankings.
Important: Use Wikipedia only as a lead, not as submitted evidence.
Forbes Kazakhstan — global brand
Documents to prove Forbes KZ major status
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Urker-2021 | National award “Magazine of the Year” |
| Harvard Davis Center | Recognition as “major business media platform” |
| BusinessWire | Forbes Media announcement of launch |
| SimilarWeb | 1.02M visits, #337 in Kazakhstan |
Why it works: National award + academic recognition + connection to global Forbes brand.
Express-Gazeta (eg.ru) — example of a federal Russian outlet
How to prove eg.ru major status
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Roskomnadzor license | Distribution in Russia & abroad |
| Print circulation data | Print 400k+ copies across 5 countries, 1.2M readers per issue |
| Mail.ru ranking | #12 among newspapers (May 2025) |
| Medialogia 2025 | #9 among most-cited newspapers Russia (Mar 2025) |
| Medialogia 2022 | #9 (June 2022) |
| Sales rankings | #6 in sales (2012) |
| Journalist awards | International recognition for reporters |
| Traffic Report | 2.96M visits/month (Apr 2025) |
Why it works: Medialogia rankings across years + multiple recognitions + international distribution.
Svobodnaya Pressa — example with an international award to a journalist
Documents to prove Svobodnaya Pressa major status
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Roskomnadzor registration | Official registration No FS 77-77526 |
| TOP Mail.ru Feb 2025 | #6 among newspapers |
| Medialogia June 2014 | #17 in top-30 cited resources |
| Brandanalytics June 2023 | #21 among top viral Russian media |
| Brandanalytics Jan 2025 | Top-20 viral media |
| Kommersant (2006) | Coverage of the holding’s growth; 2.3M monthly circulation claim |
| Journalist award | International prize to journalist (China award) |
| SimilarWeb | 22+M visits/month |
Why it works: International award to a journalist + historical coverage + traffic growth metrics.
Rossiyskaya Gazeta — example of a government outlet
Documents to prove RG major status
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Roskomnadzor certificate | Official registration No 302, Sep 28, 1993 |
| Medialogia Aug 2024 | #5 among Russian newspapers |
| Scimago Spring 2025 | #5 among Russian general news media; print circulation 700k+ daily |
| TASS (25th anniv.) | 5M readers/week, 3.32M circulation, operations in 27 countries |
| LiveInternet | 2.5M visitors in 31 days |
| Traffic Analysis | 31.38M visits/month; top-140 in Russia |
| Golden Pen awards | Multiple journalism awards |
Why it works: Official government publication with international reach, long history, many awards.
Pravda.ru — example with rankings over different years
How to prove Pravda.ru major status
Key facts:
- One of the oldest online Russian media (since 1999)
- International English version
- Millions of monthly readers
Tip: Use Wayback Machine to show historical traffic and establish sustained major status.
Arguments of the Week — example with international recognition
How to prove Argumenti Nedeli major status
Key facts:
- Federal weekly newspaper
- Print circulation 150,000+ copies
- Online version argumenti.ru
- Distribution in 80+ regions
There are successful approval cases with this outlet.
TAdviser — trade publication for IT
How to prove TAdviser professional/trade status
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Roskomnadzor license | Official registration No FS 77-86651 (Jan 2024) |
| Medialogia 2024 | #8 in Top-20 most-cited IT/Telecom media |
| CNews 2023 ranking | #8 in Top-20 IT/Telecom media |
| Rankings 2011–2022 | Consistent top positions |
| Digital Journalism 2024 | Award — best analytics source on digital tech |
| Digital Journalism 2023 | Similar award |
| PR in IT Award 2016 | Best IT media |
| Russoft Award 2021 | Promotion of IT industry |
| Citations in Kommersant | Analytic pieces cited by federal business press |
| Organizes industry events | TAdviser SummIT, major conferences |
| Traffic Report | 1.21M visits (Oct 2025) |
Why it works for a trade publication:
- Target audience: business/IT professionals
- Multi-year rankings — stable recognition
- Industry awards and conferences
- Cited by federal business press
"In support of this criterion, you submitted articles from: www.eg.ru; www.tadviser.ru; Cover letters citing Similarweb statistics... USCIS has reviewed the evidence submitted in support of this classification and has determined that you have established eligibility under this regulatory criterion."
Criterion counted! The combination eg.ru + tadviser.ru + SimilarWeb in cover letters worked.
International media (Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, UK)
Ukrainian media
For Ukrainian outlets it’s important to show national leadership within the country. USCIS understands Ukrainian outlets have smaller audiences than U.S. media, but will evaluate them as major media in their national context.
Dialog.ua (Ukraine) — example with Newsweek citation
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Newsweek citation | Nov 16, 2023 — Newsweek cited Dialog.ua as a reliable source |
| Semrush | #243 in Ukraine, 6.75M visits, high session duration |
| SimilarWeb | 25.21M visits for Q1 2025; international audience |
| SiteIndices | Valuation $1.8M; 114,730 daily unique visitors |
| Multi-platform presence | YouTube, Telegram, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter |
| Editorial team | Section editors (Style, Show-biz, Lifestyle) |
| Media profile | Socio-political outlet with exclusive commentary from politicians, journalists, experts |
Why it works:
- Newsweek citation — international validation
- High engagement metrics
- Multi-source verification and substantial quarterly traffic
Focus.ua (Ukraine) — example of a Ukrainian major media
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Media Profile | Founded 2006, print circulation 32,000, 87.5K readers per issue |
| ON News ranking 2023 | #10 among 1000+ Ukrainian news sites |
| Institute of Mass Information | Top-10 Ukrainian media, 15.5M views/month (Q2 2024) |
| Feedspot 2024 | #22 among Top-35 Ukrainian news sites, Domain Authority 79 |
| Feb 2023 ranking | #6 among Ukrainian news sites: 9M users, 57M views |
| Social networks | 84.2K FB, 23.4K Twitter, frequent posting |
| Semrush 2024 | 6.36M visits, growth month-over-month |
| SimilarWeb | 16.57M visits, growth, country rank |
| Audience | 85–87% Ukrainian audience |
Why it works:
- Multiple independent rankings
- Specific positions in various lists
- Comparison with peers and growth metrics
Gazeta.ua (Ukraine) — example with European recognition
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Institute of Mass Information | Recognition by IMI |
| Eurotopics | Included as a major Ukrainian news outlet |
| Media Ownership Monitor | Listed in national media ownership monitoring project |
| Media Kit | 20M pageviews/month |
| SimilarWeb | 2.3M visits, 7 min session |
| SEMrush | Authority score 55, 2.1M backlinks |
| Comparison with competitors | Higher authority than Apostrophe.ua, Vikna.tv |
| History | Founded 2005–2006 |
| Audience | 85% Ukrainian audience |
Why it works:
- European recognition + institutional acknowledgments
- High engagement and stable history
Meta.ua (Ukraine) — example with national award
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Ukrainian People’s Award 2023 | “Information portal of the year” |
| Ukrainian People’s Award 2024 | Repeated recognition alongside national TV channels |
| Ahrefs | 5.1M visits, #21 in Ukraine, strong Domain Authority |
| SimilarWeb | 10.87M visits, country rank |
| SEMrush | 4.34M visits, month growth |
| History | Founded 2000 — long presence |
| FB/Meta interest | Reported interest in domain purchase — market value evidence |
| International audience | Visitors from Poland, Germany, Kazakhstan |
Why it works:
- National awards back-to-back
- Multiple analytics systems corroborating traffic
- Long history and cross-platform reach
UAInfo.org (Ukraine) — example with international citations
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| On-News Network | Included in national ad platform for top outlets |
| PrFlare | Listed among top Ukrainian news sites with major outlets |
| PRNEWS.io | Compared with Dialog.ua, Apostrophe.ua, Espreso.tv |
| ZoomInfo | Recognized as influential online outlet |
| SimilarWeb | Monthly visits and category ranks |
| Semrush | Country & global ranks, international traffic |
| Domain Authority | Strong SEO profile |
| Partnerships | Official information partner for national awards |
| Citations | Cited by Kyiv Post and Georgian Journal |
Why it works:
- International citations and multiple independent verifications
- Partnerships and comparison with leaders
Other CIS countries
Super.kg (Super-Info, Kyrgyzstan) — example for a national outlet
Documents to prove major media:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Explanatory note | Age, reach, awards summary |
| Newspaper of the Year 2018 | National award (source: Kaktus.media) |
| Newspaper of the Year 2019 | Repeat award — sustained leadership |
| Top-25 circulation | Among top 25 by circulation in Kyrgyzstan |
| Top-5 most-read | Listed among most-read national outlets |
| LiveInternet | #3 among most visited Kyrgyz media sites |
| BBC Media Guide | BBC recognizes Super.kg as major Kyrgyz outlet |
| Soros Foundation research | Included in preferred media sources study |
Why it works:
- National awards + multiple independent rankings + international recognition (BBC)
- For country-level outlets, show national leadership within the country
Trade publications (UK)
TechBullion (UK) — example trade publication
Documents to prove major trade publication:
| Document | What it proves |
|---|---|
| Company registration | Rich Media Network Ltd, London, Companies House No 09907474 |
| Media profile | Fintech/tech/business focus |
| Newswire function | Distribution channel for breaking news |
| Recognition | Recognized by Silicon Valley Times as dynamic platform |
| Major media citations | Cited by leading outlets |
| Crunchbase | Profile corroborates publisher’s focus |
| SimilarWeb | 1.21M visits; audience across continents |
| SEMrush | Global category rank in fintech/investing |
Why it works as trade publication:
- Official UK registration + third-party recognition
- Cited by major media and demonstrates professional audience
Additional officer objections to major status evidence
"USCIS is not persuaded that international accessibility via the internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is 'major media.' And posting an article online does not transform an otherwise local media or a vendor's website into major media nationally or internationally."
The officer says: global availability alone doesn’t make a site major. Posting online does not turn a local outlet into international major media.
"You have provided no evidence that liveinternet.com and metrica.guru are websites known for providing credible information regarding the status of media sources within Russia. One web traffic analysis website on its own is not persuasive to establish a source is considered major media. There should be independent documentation from several other credible sources."
The officer says: you used liveinternet and metrica.guru but didn’t prove those are credible sources. One analytics service is not enough; you need several independent credible sources.
"Please note you have not established that liveinternet.ru and mlg.ru are credible sources for website traffic."
The officer explicitly says: you DID NOT establish that liveinternet.ru and mlg.ru are credible. It’s not enough to present their numbers — you must explain why these sources are reliable.
"We note your submission of website traffic for the sources from similarweb.com. Yet information from the website analysis tools (similarweb.com, liveinternet.ru, mlg.ru) is inconclusive. One web traffic analysis website on its own is not persuasive to establish a source is considered major media. There should be independent documentation from several other credible sources to establish a media source (print, TV, website, etc.) is considered major media. The independent credible sources documentation should include lists ranking a country's top media sources in print, television, etc., not simply web traffic numbers and rankings of websites compared to other websites."
Critically important: the officer needs not only web traffic but official lists ranking top media in the country (print, TV, etc.). Web traffic alone is insufficient.
"You have submitted vague evidence of general overviews and website traffic for the above mentioned media. With the above characteristics noted, information presented was inconclusive as web pages can be accessed both intentionally and unintentionally. We are not persuaded that accessibility, web traffic analysis, or page views by themselves a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 'major media' commensurate with the regulatory requirements."
The officer says your evidence was “vague.” Traffic includes accidental visits and is not a realistic indicator by itself.
"The mere act of posting an article online does not transform what is otherwise local media or a vendor's website into major media. The record lacks evidence that the online sites constitute major media or a professional or major trade sources."
The officer reiterates: simply posting online does not meet the criterion.
"You submitted information from website analysis tools, which is inconclusive. Websites can be blogs, vendors, search engines, news, social media or a variety of other classifications. Pages are accessed both intentionally and unintentionally. We are not persuaded that accessibility or page views by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 'major media' commensurate with the regulatory requirements. The mere act of posting an article online does not meet this criterion."
This is the clearest wording: “posting online does not meet this criterion.” The officer lists site types (blogs, vendors, search engines, social media) and says page views are not proof of major media.
"You provided material from rkn.gov.ru showing the internet media were registered with Roskomnadzor. You also provided narrative and explanations, but the record of proceeding does not contain independent evidence corroborating your narrative. Without objectivity, these explanations have little evidentiary weight."
For Russian outlets: Roskomnadzor registration shows official status, but NOT that the outlet is major. Your narrative without independent corroboration has little weight.
"We acknowledge the information/data from rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru, such as the rankings and cited information. However, the evidence does not provide circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media) of the published material to other statistics. Furthermore, you did not provide evidence to explain rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru standards of procedure and guidelines. You did not provide evidence that rkn.gov.ru, and mlg.ru methods of evaluation are accurate and fair."
The officer requires not only Medialogia data but also an explanation of Medialogia’s methodology and proof that their methods are accurate and fair.
"You provided evidence from sources such as mlg.ru that indicate rankings and/or cited newspaper information; but the evidence does not indicate the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media) of the published material (compared) to other statistics. Nor does it verify that the online source material (URL addresses) is considered professional or major trade publications or other major media."
The officer notes: Medialogia’s rankings of newspapers do not automatically prove that the online version (the URL) is considered professional or major media. You must prove the online outlet’s status separately.
"The petitioner provided material from the publications' own respective websites and analytic information from Medialogy, but this only provides rankings of other social media pharmaceutical and medicine websites based on the number of hyperlinks that were posted on other social media websites. The petitioner did not submit any objective, documentary evidence which demonstrates that either website qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media."
Rankings based on number of hyperlinks in social media are insufficient — you need objective documentary evidence that the outlet qualifies as professional or major.
"The petitioner submitted media rankings and media citation rankings. However, media rankings alone do not automatically establish that a publication is considered major media. The petitioner did not submit probative evidence to establish the publication's reputation and influence."
The officer states: rankings alone do not establish major media — provide probative evidence of reputation and influence.
"You provided evidence for Newspapers; however, online sources (URL addresses) and newspapers may be separate and distinct from one another, and one and/or both may not be considered professional or major trade publications or other major media. For example, the evidence may indicate the ranking and/or cited information of the newspaper, but not provide evidence/information for the online source material (URL address)."
Critical: an online outlet and its print newspaper are separate entities for USCIS. Proving a newspaper is major does not automatically prove the website is major.
"The information from akarussia.ru, and kp.ru is for the year 2022, and not for the year (2024) the claimed publications were printed online and/or in print edition."
The officer rejected 2022 data for a 2024 publication. Media statistics must correspond to the year of publication.
"You provided printouts from blizko.by, 4esnok.by, neg.by, et al.; however, the evidence is dated after the filing of the Form I-140 on February 28, 2023. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Subsequent developments or events in the petitioner's career cannot retroactively establish that he was eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date."
Important for RFE responses: you cannot add articles published after the I-140 filing date. Eligibility is determined as of filing, not at the time of the RFE response.
When responding to an RFE
Do not add articles published after the I-140 filing date. Eligibility is fixed at filing.
To prove major media you need
1. Several independent sources (not only SimilarWeb)
2. Country media rankings (not just website rankings)
3. Demonstrate that your data sources (liveinternet, mlg.ru) are credible
Online platforms and social networks
Hackernoon — major media or like Medium?
Hackernoon is in a gray area:
- Pros: editorial control, large traffic, tech focus
- Cons: a platform for authors, not a classic media outlet
Recommendation: Submit it as a professional/trade publication, not as major media. Show editorial process.
Hackernoon "Women in Tech" templates — officers check!
"A review of the Hackernoon article includes a link to 'Share your story today!' This leads to a page for the Women in Tech Interview with instructions to 'Sign in or create an account to fill out this template.' The template is comprised of all of the same questions in the petitioner's article, and this not only supports that the purpose of this article is for self-promotion, but it also indicates that the petitioner was the actual author of the article, rather than the individual listed as the author. USCIS will not consider these promotional articles for this criterion."
The officer found that the Hackernoon article used a template filled by the petitioner — USCIS checks such details.
How to prove significance of an award through media?
Collect publications about the award:
- Ceremony announcements
- Nominee/winner lists
- Articles about past laureates
Does Forbes Tech Council count?
No for the published-about-you criterion. Forbes Tech Council:
- Paid membership ($2000+/year)
- Articles on forbes.com/councils are your authored pieces, not articles about you
- Officers distinguish Forbes and Forbes Councils
Use it for: membership evidence or Final Merits.
Example from RFE: Forbes Council quotes not counted
"USCIS also notes the blog posts from Forbes council are included. These blog posts only briefly quote from the beneficiary. For example, 'Sharing expertise and experience is always a win-win strategy in the long term. - [Name], [COMPANY] LLC.' Published material must not simply be about your work, but about you though it may not be unrelated to your work. Therefore, these articles do not meet the plain language of this criterion."
The officer gives a concrete example: a quotation with name and company in Forbes Council is NOT “published material about the beneficiary.” The piece must be ABOUT YOU, not merely quoting you.
"User-created content, blogs, social media, web portals, or a company's website are not subject to editorial review and are not therefore commensurate with published major media or a professional or major trade publication."
Forbes Council = user-created content. No editorial gatekeeping — you publish yourself.
Does a LinkedIn article/post qualify?
No. LinkedIn is a social network, not a media outlet:
- No editorial control
- Self-published
Use for Final Merits as evidence of thought leadership.
Does Medium qualify or not?
Generally no. Medium is a self-publishing platform:
- No editorial control
Exception: curated publications on Medium with editorial selection (rare) — still a weak argument.
Example from RFE: promotional content on platforms without editorial review
"The submitted articles appear to be promotional in nature and were published on platforms that accept user-submitted content without editorial review. The publications do not qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media."
The officer noted two problems:
- Content appears promotional
- Platform accepts user-submitted content without editorial review
Examples: Medium, HackerNoon, Forbes Contributors. Even large platform traffic cannot replace editorial oversight.
Does Habr (Habrahabr) qualify for the media criterion?
No for the published-about-you criterion. Habr is a platform for author articles:
- Articles by you, not about you
Use for Final Merits or to show expertise.
TechCrunch, Wired, The Verge — how to prove major?
These are clearly major media:
- International audiences in millions
- Industry recognition
- Cited by other outlets
One or two pages of SimilarWeb/statistics are usually sufficient.
USA Today — Contributor Content section — counts?
No. “Contributor Content”, “Partner Content”, “Sponsored” — not editorial content. Officers pay attention to these labels.
Petition assembly
How to describe media in the petition?
Structure for each outlet:
- Name + URL
- One-line description
- Audience statistics (SimilarWeb, circulation)
- Rank in country/category
- Recognition (awards, citations)
- Comparison with a U.S. analogue
How to describe one outlet in a memorandum? Is 10 pages too much?
Yes, 10 pages per outlet is excessive. Optimal:
- 1–2 pages of written description
- 2–3 pages of screenshots (SimilarWeb, Media Kit)
- Total 3–5 pages max
Attach full media kit or only first page?
Attach only relevant pages:
- About/Overview (1 page)
- Audience statistics (1–2 pages)
- Awards/recognition (if any)
Do not attach ad rate cards.
How to phrase Forbes Russia’s strength?
Example:
"Forbes Russia is the Russian edition of Forbes, one of the world's most recognized business publications. Licensed by Forbes Media LLC, the publication reaches Russia's business elite with 15M+ monthly visits according to SimilarWeb, ranking among Top-5 business media in Russia."
What to highlight in the article/interview?
In your description highlight:
- Headline contains your name
- Article focuses on your achievements
- Journalist presents you as an expert/leader
- Context (award, launch, event)
How many words should the article have? Is 400 words too short?
No formal minimum. But:
- 400 words is acceptable if it’s a profile about you
- 800+ words is more convincing
- Quality over length
Is a photo in the article necessary?
No, but a photo with your name in the caption strengthens the claim the article is about you.
Types of publications
Do interviews count as articles about the beneficiary?
Yes, if:
- Published in major media
- There’s an editorial introduction about you
- The focus is your work and achievements
No if it’s just a Q&A without context.
Example from RFE: interview for promotion does not count
"The petitioner states that he has been interviewed in various broadcast and print media such as the Georgia Today and Doeba in Imeldi TV. However, the petitioner has not shown that these interviews and activities were about him, relating to his work; the various media were not reporting on the petitioner's skills and achievements. Rather the petitioner made these appearances as part of his duties to promote his field or his website."
The officer says: you appeared on TV but it was to promote your site/business, not coverage about your achievements. Promotional interviews ≠ article about you.
| Counts | Does not count |
|---|---|
| The media chose to cover you | You appeared to promote your product |
| Focus on your accomplishments | Focus on your business/service |
| Journalist frames you as an expert | You advertise your services |
How to present radio/TV interviews?
- Transcript in English
- Screenshots from the video
- Info about the channel/program
- Audience data (Mediascope, Nielsen)
- Media Kit of the program (if available)
Radio interview WITHOUT transcript = not published material
"Interviews from radio stations are not published material as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) which references written work and specifically requires evidence of an author. As such, the evidence regarding the radio interview is not probative."
The regulation requires an author. Radio interviews lack the conventional byline — therefore a written transcript is needed.
Do press releases count for the media criterion?
No. Even if syndicated on Yahoo Finance or MarketWatch — press releases are not editorial coverage. Officers know the difference.
Does content labeled “advertorial” count?
No. Anything marked Sponsored, Partner Content, Advertorial, Native — does not qualify.
Expert columns — media or scholarly articles?
Not for the published-about-you criterion. Your authored columns are not articles ABOUT YOU.
They can be used for: proving expertise (Final Merits) or the Authorship criterion (if in an academic journal).
Example from RFE: article authored by the petitioner ≠ media criterion
"The article was authored by you. However, the plain language of this criterion requires that the published media be about you, not authored by you."
Clear rule: “about you, not authored by you.” If you wrote the article — it does not qualify for this criterion.
Glossy magazines — what conditions apply?
- Must be major (large circulation/audience)
- Article about your professional activity
- Not paid content
Vogue, Elle, GQ may work for fashion/beauty professionals.
A film review in a trade publication — is it about me?
Depends on content:
- Yes if the review focuses on your work as director/producer
- No if you are only mentioned in the credits
Lifestyle interview without professional achievements — qualifies?
Weak evidence. The criterion requires material “relating to work in the field.” Interviews about private life don’t fit.
Co-authorship in media — like scholarly co-authorship?
No. For this criterion the article must be ABOUT YOU, not authored by you. Co-authoring is another criterion.
Contributor vs Journalist as author — acceptable?
Depends:
- Staff contributor — OK
- Guest contributor — may be problematic (Forbes Contributors)
- Check whether editorial control exists
If the author is a guest contributor — acceptable?
Look at editorial policy. If contributors are edited and selected, it may be acceptable. If the platform is self-publishing — not acceptable.
Russian and regional media
How to prove major media for Russian outlets?
| Outlet | How to prove |
|---|---|
| KP | Scimago #37 world, Guinness record |
| RBC | SimilarWeb top-3 RU, cited by Reuters/Bloomberg |
| Kommersant | Compare to WSJ, long history |
| Forbes Russia | Forbes license, business audience |
| TASS | Government agency, international recognition |
USCIS officers will Google your media!
"On November 4, 2025, USCIS performed a general Google search on the background of both of the aforementioned media sources..."
Officers don’t only read your exhibits — they perform their own Google searches. Make sure info about your outlets is easy to find.
Example: officer Googled 'General Director' and Radio Rostov
"The magazine 'General Director' is a specialized business-oriented publication in Russia, but it is not considered one of the major, mass-media publications in the overall Russian media landscape. The Russian media landscape is largely dominated by state-controlled television channels and major news agencies."
The officer found via Google: General Director = niche professional, not major media.
"Radio Rostov is a regional media outlet, not a major national media publication in Russia. Major media publications in Russia typically have a national, or even international, reach, covering 85% or more of the country's population."
Even 2.2M audience may be insufficient for “major media” in the context of all Russia.
How to prove a regional outlet (MK-SPb) is major?
- Leadership in the region
- Part of a federal network
- Audience relative to region population
- History and awards
[details=“Example from RFE: local outlet ≠ national acclaim”]
"To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. You would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, like The New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but, unlike local papers, would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution."
Local paper = local recognition, not national. NYT is nominally local but has national distribution — that makes it major.
"Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county."
Even Washington Post won’t help if the article is in a local section. Officers check the placement within the outlet.
"The evidence does not demonstrate that the news articles were published in major media. Publications with only a regional audience are not generally considered to be major media."
Officer: regional audience ≠ major media.
"No evidence was provided comparing the circulation figures of these publications to those of other similar publications. Data alone is insufficient to meet the requirements of this criterion."
Even with circulation numbers, without comparison they are meaningless.
"You may submit independent and objective evidence indicating: the circulation (online and/or in print) at the time of publication, comparative circulation data of major publications in the field at the time of publication, the intended audience of the publication."
Key: provide comparative circulation data.
Is a regional RBC acceptable as major?
Depends on region:
- RBC Petersburg, RBC Moscow — part of federal network, OK
- Small regional RBC sites — must prove regional leadership
Which domain’s numbers to use for subdomains (spb.kp.ru)?
Use the traffic of the actual site where the article stands (regional subdomain) and explain relation to the main domain. Do not substitute the federal domain without justification.
Example from RFE: spb.mk.ru vs mk.ru — officer noticed substitution
"Please note evidence in exhibit 51 was illegible and you only submitted website traffic for mk.ru, not the actual website spb.mk.ru (local mk.ru site for St. Petersburg) that posted the article."
The officer noticed the petitioner submitted mk.ru traffic while the article was on spb.mk.ru. These are different sites — the officer rejected the substitution.
Additional problem: Exhibit 51 was illegible.
Do not substitute domains!
If the article is on spb.mk.ru — submit spb.mk.ru traffic, not mk.ru. Officers check URLs.
Can regional outlets be used instead of federal ones?
Yes, but with a traffic nuance.
- Traffic — prove the regional site’s traffic, not the federal site
- Rankings/awards/history — federal brand recognition can be used as supporting context
How to explain to the officer
"Kommersant Kuban is the regional edition of the federal Kommersant (a top-3 business outlet in Russia by Medialogia). The article was published on the regional site with X unique visitors."