This criterion runs two separate tests, and a clipping has to pass both. The material has to be about you and your work, and the outlet has to qualify as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media.
- Two tests: what the material is about, then where it appeared
- Paid placements are excluded, including ones that read as objective
- You need not be the only subject if your work is substantially discussed
- Team coverage can count where your role is documented
- No approved list of outlets exists. Audience and reach are the factors
What the regulation says
"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" 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)
That last sentence is a filing requirement, not a suggestion. Title, date, author, and translation where needed. A screenshot with no byline and no date is an incomplete exhibit.
Test one: what the material is about
USCIS puts it plainly, and this is where most submissions fail:
"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." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
A funding round is about the company. A product launch is about the product. Both get filed under this criterion constantly and neither is about you.
Two allowances soften that, and they matter.
You need not be the only subject. The guidance says 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." A trend piece quoting you at length about your own work can qualify. A trend piece that names you in a list cannot.
Team coverage can count. 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." Note the alternative at the end: if the article does not name you, other evidence in the record can establish your role.
The exclusion that catches people out
This one is worth quoting in full, because the parenthetical is the part people miss:
"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)." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
So the test is not how the piece reads. A sponsored profile written in house style, in a real publication, with a real byline, is still paid placement. This is exactly what the outfits described in profile-building scams sell, and it is why paying for coverage tends to produce exhibits that cannot be used.
Test two: does the outlet qualify
There is no approved list. USCIS gives factors instead:
"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)." USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2
Read the split carefully. For professional and trade publications the question is the intended audience, so a journal read by a few thousand specialists can qualify on audience alone. For major media the question is reach, and it is explicitly relative, so the comparison is to other outlets in the field rather than to national newspapers.
The qualifying examples the guidance lists are broad:
- 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
- Transcripts of professional or major audio or video coverage of the person and the person's work
Online publications and audio or video coverage are named directly, so a podcast or a broadcast segment is not disqualified by its medium. What it needs is evidence about the outlet's audience or reach, and a transcript.
What to submit
- The full item, with title, date, and author visible, plus a translation if it is not in English
- A transcript for audio or video
- Evidence about the outlet: circulation, readership, or viewership figures, or a description of the professional audience it serves, from a named source
- Where relevant, a comparison to other outlets in your field, since the major media test is a relative one
- For team coverage, evidence of your role in the work described
- A note on how you came by it, since nothing you or your employer paid for will count
Save each piece when it appears. Outlets restructure, paywalls harden, and URLs rot, and reconstructing a 2021 article in 2026 is far harder than saving a PDF on the day.
The second step still applies
Clearing this criterion is step one of the two-step review. In the final merits determination the officer weighs the record as a whole against whether you are among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Coverage in a specialist trade journal may satisfy the criterion and carry modest weight at step two; sustained coverage across independent outlets carries more. When your profile is ready to file covers that second question.
For the practical side, how coverage actually gets earned without paying for it, see earning press coverage without a publicist.
Sources
All accessed 24 August 2026.
- USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2. The criterion 3 discussion, source of every Policy Manual quotation and the qualifying examples above.
- 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii), eCFR. The text of the criterion.
- USCIS, Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1.
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), the origin of the two-step framework.
We publish no circulation thresholds or lists of qualifying outlets here. Neither appears in the regulations or the Policy Manual, which asks for audience and relative reach rather than a fixed number.
This article describes evidence-building strategy in general terms. It is not a substitute for advice from your attorney about your own case.
Frequently asked questions
Does the article have to be only about me?
No. USCIS says the person and their work need not be the only subject, and that material covering a broader topic may qualify if it includes a substantial discussion of the person's work and mentions them in connection to it.
Does a paid placement count?
No. The guidance excludes marketing materials created to sell the person's products or promote their services, and says this includes seemingly objective content in major print publications that the person or their employer paid for.
What makes an outlet major media?
USCIS names the intended audience for professional and major trade publications, and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership for major trade publications and other major media. There is no list of approved outlets.
Does coverage of my team count?
Potentially. Officers may consider material focused on work by a team the person belongs to, provided the material mentions the person in connection with the work, or other evidence documents their significant role in it.
Do podcasts and video count?
The guidance lists transcripts of professional or major audio or video coverage of the person and their work among the qualifying examples, so the medium is not the obstacle. The outlet still has to qualify.
Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.