RFE on the "Media about you" criterion: common objections and how to respond
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
Broken down from 94 real denials and RFEs on this criterion: which objections officers raise most often, what each one means and what closes it. Community experience, not legal advice.
Common objections (7)
Not about the applicant and their work
The material does not show that the publication is specifically about the applicant and relates to their work in the claimed field.
What fixes it: Add articles where the main focus is the applicant, their role, achievements, and work in the relevant field.Tool How it was closed
Media level not proven
It was not confirmed that the source is a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media.
What fixes it: Add evidence of the publication's scale and status: audience, rankings, circulation, traffic, and industry recognition.Tool How it was closed
No title/date/author
The publications do not contain required elements: title, date, author, or other required information.
What fixes it: Provide complete copies of the publications with the page showing the title, date, author, source, and a translation if needed.Tool How it was closed
Promotional or user-submitted
The officer considers the materials promotional or posted on user-generated content platforms without editorial review.
What fixes it: Replace them with independent editorial publications and add confirmation of editorial review and the author's independence.Tool How it was closed
Social media does not qualify
Posts on Instagram, YouTube, and similar apps were found insufficient for this criterion.
What fixes it: Use published editorial materials in recognized media or specialized publications, not social media.Tool How it was closed
plain language not met
The package does not meet the criterion's basic formal requirements for published material.
What fixes it: Rebuild the evidence around the elements of the criterion: published material, about the person, work-related, qualifying media, title/date/author.Tool How it was closed
Weak for final merits
Even if the criterion was initially counted, the publications did not persuade the officer at the Final Merits Determination stage.
What fixes it: Add context on the significance of the publications and independent evidence that the coverage reflects recognition and a high level in the field.Tool How it was closed
How to respond (from real cases)
The deadline (up to 87 days), the packet order and how long a decision takes - in the general guide to the RFE response by criterion.
Not about the applicant and their work
Show that the publication is about the applicant, his or her role, and specific contribution, not just the company, project, or industry.
What to attach: Highlighted excerpts from the article mentioning the applicant, describing his or her work, position, contribution, and connection to the result; brief table - quote, translation, meaning.
Media level not proven
Confirm that the source is a professional or mass media outlet with independent editorial control and a significant audience.
What to attach: Media kit, traffic data, reach, editorial policy, rankings, citations, publication archive, independent authors, and the publication's topical relevance.
No title/date/author
Eliminate the formal deficiency and confirm the publication can be identified.
What to attach: Full copy of the publication or archived version with title, date, author, URL, publication name; screenshots of the page, PDF, web archive, bibliographic reference.
Promotional or user-submitted
Prove the editorial nature of the material and the publication's independence from the applicant.
What to attach: Confirmation from the editorial staff, information about the journalist-author, absence of a label advertising/sponsored/user submitted, editorial guidelines, correspondence about editorial selection without payment for placement.
Social media does not qualify
Do not present social media posts as media coverage; use them only as supporting evidence of dissemination or public response.
What to attach: The main evidence is media articles; social media should only show reposts, comments, reach, and links to independent publications.
plain language not met
Explain in plain language why the publication is significant and how it shows the applicant's recognition beyond the ordinary professional circle.
What to attach: A brief summary of each publication: who wrote it, where it was published, what the article is about, why the applicant is the focus, and why the audience and source matter.
Weak for final merits
Connect the publications to the overall conclusion that the applicant has been recognized, rather than treating them in isolation.
What to attach: A summary table of media outlets, dates, reach, independence, subject matter, and the applicant's role; comparison of the publications with awards, citations, invitations, commercial or industry influence.
Mistakes that sink the response
- Submit articles written by the applicant under the media about the applicant criterion. Author articles usually fall under a different criterion and do not prove that the media wrote about the applicant.
- Assuming that a well-known publication name automatically proves major media. An officer may reject even a recognizable outlet without objective data on audience and status.
- Using YouTube, social media, personal blogs, user-generated content platforms, or aggregators as media without proof of editorial control and the significance of the source.
- Failing to show the publication's connection to the professional field. The material may be about the applicant, but if it is not related to the claimed expertise, the criterion may not be counted.
- Providing only links to articles without archived copies, screenshots, translations, and explanations. The officer is not required to independently look for context, metrics, or the publication's significance.
How often the criterion is accepted in challenged petitions
Among petitions that drew an RFE, NOID or denial and claimed this criterion, the officer accepted it in 24% of cases (47 of 200).
This is not an approval rate. The sample is petitions that were challenged, so it says how often a claimed criterion survived scrutiny - nothing about how often EB-1A petitions succeed overall.
Based on: 253 coded USCIS I-140 notices (RFE, NOID, denial) · updated Sep 6, 2026 · RFE by criterion
The wording of the criterion, sentence by sentence
This criterion elsewhere on the site
Got an RFE? Upload it - we will break down the objections automatically
A free response plan from your document: we identify the officer's objections and suggest what to attach.
From community practice
Field chats advise gathering evidence for a specific criterion from the start, rather than bolting it onto the petition at the last moment.
Regional or niche outlets can also help if they have independent editorial control and measurable reach in your field - not only global brands.
The community reminds that the same piece of evidence cannot be counted under several criteria at once - the officer expects separate evidence for each.
Distilled from public community chats - observations, not legal advice.
From community discussions
«Usually this means that formally the criteria are met, but in the officer's opinion they're not enough to establish that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. There's work at a respected company, but the critical capacity isn't proven, and so on.»
community member · from public community chats
«A Medium article just doesn't get considered, since it's a blog platform. If the article is worthy - you need to publish it in proper media, and if you duplicate it on Medium after that, imho it has no effect, but what you submit is specifically the one in the media.»
community member · from public community chats
«Media publications can close two criteria 1) about the person 2) contribution, that is, expert articles.»
community member · from public community chats
Personal opinions of community members from public discussions, not legal advice.
Approval stories
What the officer actually did with this criterion
Across 196 of 259 real notices where this criterion appears, what the officer's own text did with it. In 39% he discussed the evidence that was filed; in 47% the criterion appeared only as recited regulation.
- engaged with the evidence39% · 76the officer wrote about the specific exhibits, not the criterion in general
- only recited the criterion47% · 92the regulation text with no discussion of what was filed
- questioned it4% · 7asked for more without deciding
- explicitly rejected it9% · 18
- explicitly accepted it2% · 3
These are notices - petitions that already drew an RFE, a NOID or a denial - so none of this is an approval rate. It measures attention, not outcome: a criterion the officer usually only recites is one where more exhibits are unlikely to change the reading, and a criterion he argues with in detail is where the response has to do its work.
What people ask about this criterion
RFE on other criteria
Generalized from real community RFEs/denials (anonymized). Independent project, not affiliated with USCIS; not legal advice.