RFE Language by Criterion — EB-1A / O-1A

When an RFE Challenges Published Material About You

Two separate failures hide under this criterion: the articles are about your employer rather than you, and the outlets are never proven to be major media. Officers ask for circulation data and proof the coverage was not paid placement.

The governing text

8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)

Read the primary source →

The officer's own element test

Quoted verbatim. This is the most directly usable paragraph in any RFE — the officer states the criterion as a numbered checklist and says every item has to be satisfied. Audit your exhibits against it one line at a time.

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
  4. that the published material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media

The Petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion.

What the officer actually wrote

Quoted verbatim from a real USCIS notice. Names, employers, exact dates, and figures have been removed or generalized; bracketed text marks a redaction.

“The current record does not clearly demonstrate that each submitted item constitutes independently published material about the petitioner. Several items appear to be general corporate announcements, performance summaries, or articles primarily about the petitioner's employer or its projects rather than about the petitioner and her work in the field.”

The same attribution problem that sinks the awards criterion, in a different costume. A press release announcing your company's results is published material about the company. Before submitting, read each clipping and ask who the subject of the sentences is.

“The petitioner has not provided objective information such as circulation figures, distribution data, target audience, or industry recognition to establish that these outlets are professional or major trade publications or other major media rather than internal publications, marketing platforms, or local sources with limited reach.”

Element 4 is a claim about the publication, and almost nobody evidences it. Being covered is not the same as being covered somewhere that counts, and the burden of proving the outlet counts sits with you. This is the half of the criterion most filings simply skip.

“The evidence does not consistently provide legible copies that show the title, date, and author of the material, nor does it include complete certified English translations for all non-English content as required by 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3).”

Element 2 is a formality that fails cases anyway. A screenshot cropped to the headline, or a scan too poor to read the byline, does not satisfy it — and every non-English clipping needs a certified translation, not just a summary. See the procedural rules page for what "certified" requires.

What that officer said would help

USCIS's own list from the same notice, quoted verbatim. This is the closest thing to a specification for the response you will get.

  • Objective information from the publishers of each cited outlet that identifies the publication type, circulation numbers, geographic distribution, target readership, and editorial process
  • Independent industry or government reports, media directories, or academic references that classify the cited outlets as professional journals, major trade publications, or other major media in the field
  • Archival records or database printouts from recognized news or academic databases that show the publication details for articles about the petitioner, including the title, date, author, and publication name
  • Additional independent articles or profiles from widely recognized national or international newspapers, magazines, professional journals, or major trade publications that focus on the petitioner and analyze her work and impact in the field
  • Editorial statements or letters from editors or senior journalists at the relevant publications confirming that the articles were independently written, subject to normal editorial control, and not paid advertising or promotional content issued by the petitioner or her employer
  • Evidence that the articles are accessible to the public, such as screenshots or records showing public web access, print newsstand distribution, or subscription-based distribution at a national or international level

Authorities the officer cited

Reproduced as they appear in the notice. These are the officer’s citations, not ImmiFlo’s — we have not independently verified each quotation against the reporter. Our own verified library is on the legal citations page.

  • Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953
  • Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369
  • Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115

ImmiFlo compares your RFE notice against your original filing and tells you, criterion by criterion, exactly what the officer challenged and which of your existing exhibits already answer it.

Analyze your RFE for free →
← All criteria