Публикации в СМИ

"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."

Важное разъяснение: статья о вашей РАБОТЕ ≠ статья о ВАС. Офицер говорит: нужна статья О ВАС, которая связана с вашей работой - а не просто о проекте где вас упомянули. Фокус должен быть на человеке, не на проекте.

"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."

Офицер говорит: вы заявляете что это professional publication, но не доказали что аудитория - профессионалы вашей отрасли. Нужно показать intended audience.

"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.)."

Офицер отклонил доказательства потому что данные о тираже были за ДРУГОЙ год, чем дата публикации.

"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."

"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."

Критерий засчитан! Сработало: eg.ru + tadviser.ru + данные SimilarWeb в cover letters.

"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. - [Имя], [КОМПАНИЯ] 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."

Офицер показывает конкретный пример: одна цитата с именем и компанией в статье Forbes Council - это НЕ "published material about the beneficiary". Статья должна быть О ВАС, а не просто ЦИТИРОВАТЬ вас.

"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. Нет редакционного отбора - вы сами пишете и публикуете.

"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 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."

Офицер говорит: вы выступали на ТВ, но это было для продвижения вашего сайта/бизнеса, а не coverage о ваших достижениях. Промо-интервью ≠ статья о вас.

"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."

Максимально четкое правило: "about you, not authored by you". Если вы АВТОР статьи - это не работает для критерия published material.

"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."

Офицер сам нашел в Google: General Director - "professional niche", не 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."

Даже 2.2 млн аудитории недостаточно для "major media" в контексте всей России.

"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."

Локальная газета = локальное признание, а не национальное. NYT формально "нью-йоркская", но читается по всей стране - поэтому 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."

Даже Washington Post не поможет, если статья в локальной секции. Офицер смотрит на РАЗМЕЩЕНИЕ статьи в издании.

"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."

Офицер прямо говорит: региональная аудитория ≠ 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."

Даже если есть данные о тираже - без СРАВНЕНИЯ с другими изданиями они бесполезны.

"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."

Ключевое: "comparative circulation data" - нужно СРАВНИТЬ тираж вашего СМИ с другими major изданиями. Без сравнения цифры ничего не значат.

"The provided articles do not adequately satisfy the 'published material' criterion because they mutually fail to prove sustained national or international acclaim for the individual petitioner's exact work. Furthermore, regional publications, even those with impact data, may not meet the standard of 'major media' as defined for international visa purposes, which typically emphasizes broader national or international reach."

Офицер о Time.kz, Forbes.kz, KazTAG.kz: даже с данными об аудитории, региональные издания могут не соответствовать стандарту "major media" для международных виз. "Broader national or international reach" - нужен широкий охват.

"The evidence submitted does not adequately demonstrate that the published material about the beneficiary appeared in professional publications or major media, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). USCIS regulations stipulate that the publications must have significant national or international circulation or be recognized as authoritative within the petitioner's field. The current record lacks information about the publications' reach, audience, or prominence."

Офицер требует: circulation statistics, audience data, evidence of publications' reputation. Без этого - отказ.

"Moreover, the submitted material does not meet the requirements because it is not primarily about the beneficiary or their work in the field. The current evidence includes articles that only briefly mention the beneficiary or discuss broader subjects without emphasizing their accomplishments."

Вторая проблема: статьи "briefly mention" или "discuss broader subjects" - это НЕ "about the beneficiary".

"You provided evidence from tmn.aif.ru (July 27, 2024), kp.ru (April 17, 2024), informio.ru (December 2, 2023); however, you did not provide sufficient evidence to verify that the online source material is considered professional or major trade publications or other major media. USCIS notes, that you provided evidence for Newspapers; however, online sources (URL addresses) and newspapers may be separate and distinct from one another."

Конкретный пример: tmn.aif.ru (региональный АиФ Тюмень), informio.ru. Офицер подчеркивает: доказательства для ГАЗЕТЫ не работают для ОНЛАЙН ВЕРСИИ.

"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."

Офицер заметил что петиционер подал трафик mk.ru (федеральный), но статья была на spb.mk.ru (региональный Санкт-Петербург). Это РАЗНЫЕ сайты - офицер не принял такую подмену.

"You also submitted evidence that you have been featured in two online articles. However, you did not demonstrate that you have garnered wide attention from the field based on one article about your work as a manager. You have not established that you have enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim based on two articles."

Две онлайн-статьи не демонстрируют "sustained national or international acclaim".

"The record shows the petitioner wrote scholarly articles between the years 1998 to 2005, and then further wrote four scholarly articles in 2024. The petitioner has not demonstrated how a gap between the years of 2005 to 2024, would demonstrate a level of sustained acclaim."

Большой перерыв между публикациями = "how does this demonstrate sustained acclaim?"

"The articles submitted as evidence of published material about the beneficiary in major media have not established the beneficiary as an individual who has risen to the top of his field of endeavor. The articles fail to show how the published material about the beneficiary's work influenced the field or that the beneficiary has been able to sustain national or international acclaim."

Офицер хочет видеть: как публикации повлияли на поле? Просто наличие статей недостаточно.

"The petitioner has not demonstrated that one article from 2014, and one article from 2024 meet a level of sustained acclaim and further demonstrates the petitioner is at the very top of the field."

Даже если статьи за 10 лет - большой разрыв между ними не помогает. Нужна РЕГУЛЯРНОСТЬ публикаций.

"Though the published material about the petitioner indicates that there has been discussion about her and her work, it is insufficient to establish that the commentary signifies the petitioner has risen to the top percentage of the field and that she has demonstrated sustained acclaim."

Даже если есть публикации о вас и вашей работе - это не гарантирует что вы "risen to the top". Нужно больше доказательств.

"CRITERION MET initially, but failed in Final Merits Determination."

Критерий прошел первый этап (plain language), но провалился на втором (Final Merits).

"The record shows that the petitioner and his work have been featured in Amazing Architecture, Design and Survey Construction Works, Stroitelnaya Gazeta, and Komsomolskaya Pravda in 2022, 2023, and 2024. However, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has achieved or maintained sustained national or international acclaim since being featured in these publications."

Офицер говорит: публикации за 2022-2024 есть, но где доказательство "sustained acclaim"? Публикации - это момент признания, а не доказательство что оно продолжается.

"The petitioner has provided evidence of published material about the beneficiary in Tadvisor and CEO World in 2025. The evidence includes circulation data and the plain language criteria is met. As the evidence that meets the criteria is dated 2025, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim."

Офицер прямо говорит: "plain language criteria is met" (критерий засчитан), НО "dated 2025" = "insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim".

"After a review of the record of proceeding with what appears to be five articles issued in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025; these five recent articles would not be considered evidence of extensive documentation of published material about you that elevates your contributions to major prominence with sustained national or international acclaim."

5 статей за 4 года - формально проходит, но НЕ доказывает "sustained acclaim".

"The record does not show that the petitioner's authorship of approximately seven recent articles, published between 2022 through 2025, is reflective of the petitioner being among the small percentage at the very top of her field with sustained national or international acclaim."

Даже 7 статей за 3 года офицер называет "recent" и говорит что это не доказывает место в "very top".

"Relating to published materials, the beneficiary submitted articles published by various publications. However, the beneficiary did not establish that the publication of these articles is indicative of a 'career of acclaimed work in the field' as contemplated by Congress. The beneficiary has not shown that his overall press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among 'that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.'"

Офицер ссылается на намерение Конгресса: нужна "career of acclaimed work", а не несколько недавних публикаций.

"Several materials failed to identify the author of the material. As stated in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the material must be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media and such evidence 'must include the title, date and author of the material, and any necessary translation.' Since the materials failed to identify the author, they do not meet the regulation at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and were given no probative value under this criterion."

Офицер говорит: закон требует title + date + author. Нет хотя бы одного элемента = "no probative value" (нулевая доказательная сила). Статья просто не засчитывается.

"A couple of materials (touch-magazine.eu, shoutoutla.com, and merlaine.net) failed to identify the author and/or the date of publication... Since these materials failed to identify the author and/or the date of publication, they do not meet the regulation at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and were given no probative value under this criterion."

Конкретный пример: три издания отклонены только потому что не указан автор или дата. Качество статьи, уровень СМИ - не имеет значения без формальных реквизитов.

"It is noted that two of the articles provided did not attribute an author, therefore, have no probative value. Wikipedia, web portals, domains, blogs, social media: there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these open, user-edited Internet sites. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, any documentation from Wikipedia, web portals or social media sites carry no evidentiary weight within the present proceedings."

Офицер комбинирует две претензии: (1) нет автора = no probative value, (2) веб-порталы = no evidentiary weight. Case law Lamilem Badasa - стандартная ссылка офицеров для отклонения user-edited сайтов.

"Submitted a letter from Alexey Maksimov, Editor-in-Chief at ITWeek, claiming the author of the article was Igor Bezruchkin... Further, the submission of letters from media sources, in order to identify who an author was for an article, is not sufficient. Evidence of authors must be identifiable on the article itself, in order for the article to be viable evidence."

Офицер говорит: вы приложили письмо от главреда с именем автора - НЕ принимается. Автор должен быть указан В САМОЙ СТАТЬЕ. Письмо от редакции не заменяет эту информацию.

"The F3fm.ru article, 'Commercial Real Estate: Construction and Its Despots' did not include the author's name. Likewise, the article 'National Demand', did not include the date, and the record did not provide the publication. The inclusion of the title, date, and author of the material is not optional but a regulatory requirement."

Офицер подчеркивает: title + date + author - это "regulatory requirement", не опция. Статья может быть идеальной по содержанию, но без этих трех элементов она не засчитывается.

"The pieces disseminated at stroygaz.ru and msn are deficient because they do not include the required title, date, author, or some combination of these. As stated in the regulation, material about the beneficiary must be published 'in professional or major trade publications or other major media' and 'shall include the title, date, and author of the material.' Thus, such documentation has no probative value for meeting this criterion."

Офицер отклонил статьи из Строительной газеты и MSN как "deficient" - недостаточные. Слово "shall" в регуляции означает обязательное требование, не рекомендацию.

"The article published in Forbes does not contain the date it was published. The article published in ZTB News does not specify an author. The article published in WEProject Media does not contain an author or date published. This information is required for all published media under this criterion."

Даже Forbes отклонен из-за отсутствия даты! Forbes - нет даты, ZTB News - нет автора, WEProject Media - нет ни автора, ни даты. Проверяйте каждую статью на наличие ВСЕХ трех элементов: title + date + author.

"The articles entitled: 'Interview With Logistician [Имя]: Green Smart Logistics Is The Key To The Future Of Transportation' and '[Имя]: The Inspiration of Eco-Smart Logistics for Kazakhstan' do not appear to be labeled with the date on which they were published. As a result, this evidence cannot be considered probative."

Офицер отклонил две казахстанские статьи только потому что не указана дата публикации. Содержание статьи не имеет значения - без даты = "cannot be considered probative".

"We note that the articles from productionhost.com/blog and flickeringmyth.com do not meet the requirements listed at 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii) as no author is cited. We also note that a visit to the link for the article from kleo.ru suggests that the article does not exist."

Офицер проверил ссылки! Два результата: (1) productionhost.com/blog и flickeringmyth.com - нет автора, (2) kleo.ru - статья "does not exist". Мертвые ссылки = нулевая доказательная сила.

"USCIS searched on the World Wide Web for the links https://sm.news/trener-yulia-melnikova-razveala-mify-o-zanatiyakh-zhenshhin-pauerliftingom-71536, https://sm.news; https://interviewage.ru/post157189x12d1-zhenskiy-pauerlifting-sovremenniye-podkhod; https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/sport-express.tu/#overview found in the various screen prints submitted by the self-petitioner and was not able to find any information online, as those links do not appear to be valid or exist online. This calls into question the validity and truthfulness of all the evidence submitted with the petition."

Офицер ЛИЧНО проверил ссылки из скриншотов и НЕ НАШЕЛ их! Заметьте: sport-express.tu вместо .ru - возможно опечатка в петиции, но офицер расценил как "calls into question validity and truthfulness of ALL evidence".

"It is incumbent upon the self-petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Doubt cast on any aspect of the self-petitioner's evidence may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988)."

Matter of Ho - сомнение в ОДНОМ доказательстве может привести к пересмотру ВСЕХ доказательств.

"Disparagement of some of the supporting evidence casts doubt upon the entirety of the record. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (Comm.1988). Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973); Matter of Ngan, 10 I&N Dec. 725 (BIA 1964)."

Дискредитация части доказательств = сомнение во ВСЕМ деле. Три прецедента подряд - это серьезно.

"Material under this criterion 'shall include the title, date, and author.' Articles from dzen.ru did not state an author and therefore were not considered."

Офицер не рассмотрел статьи с Дзена потому что не указан автор. Даже если статья качественная и о вас - без автора она "were not considered".

"USCIS searched on the World Wide Web for the links https://sm.news/..., https://interviewage.ru/... found in the various screen prints submitted by the self-petitioner and was not able to find any information online, as those links do not appear to be valid or exist online. This calls into question the validity and truthfulness of all the evidence submitted with the petition."

Офицер ЛИЧНО проверил ссылки из скриншотов и НЕ НАШЕЛ их! Заметьте: офицер расценил как "calls into question validity and truthfulness of ALL evidence".

"It is incumbent upon the self-petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Doubt cast on any aspect of the self-petitioner's evidence may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988)."

Matter of Ho - сомнение в ОДНОМ доказательстве может привести к пересмотру ВСЕХ доказательств.

"Disparagement of some of the supporting evidence casts doubt upon the entirety of the record. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (Comm.1988). Matter of Namio, 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973); Matter of Ngan, 10 I&N Dec. 725 (BIA 1964)."

Дискредитация части доказательств = сомнение во ВСЕМ деле. Три прецедента подряд - это серьезно.

"The record did not included proper certified translations of the documents provided. Title 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) holds that '[a]ny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English.' Because properly certified translations of the documents were not submitted, the evidence does not support the claims."

Офицер говорит: документы на иностранном языке БЕЗ сертифицированного перевода = документы не рассмотрены.

"Furthermore, the submission of a single translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)."

Нельзя приложить один общий сертификат на все переводы. Каждый сертификат должен четко указывать какой именно документ он сопровождает.

"To assist in determining that the published material contains the title, date, and author, please emphasize (highlight or underline, on the original and translated copy): The title, date, and author of the published material."

Офицер требует ВЫДЕЛИТЬ (highlight или underline) title, date и author как в оригинале, так и в переводе. Используйте желтый маркер или подчеркивание.

"Most of the articles are structured as interviews, and they were all published shortly before the petition was filed. While the articles are about the petitioner and his work in the field, they appear to be promotional articles."

Офицер заметил: все интервью вышли незадолго до подачи. Это выглядит как подготовка к визе, а не органическое признание.

"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)."

Важно: даже "seemingly objective content" (внешне объективный контент) в major publications не засчитывается, если за него заплатили. Офицеры знают что PR существует.

"The petitioner submitted articles from Komsomolskaya Pravda (Belarus), Hackernoon, Cossa, and She Owns It. The evidence demonstrates that only Komsomolskaya Pravda qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. All of the articles are structured as interviews, and while they are all about the petitioner and her work in the field, they were published shortly before the petition was filed, and they appear to be promotional articles."

Конкретный пример: из 4 изданий только КП Беларусь признана major. Hackernoon, Cossa, She Owns It - отклонены как promotional. Интервью перед подачей = красный флаг для офицера.

"Additionally, transcripts of the YouTube broadcasts were not submitted. Please submit transcripts of the YouTube broadcasts."

Офицер говорит: нет транскрипта - нет рассмотрения. Это не рекомендация, а требование.

"You also provided a web link to an online video interview in support of this criterion. The USCIS Policy Manual notes that qualifying media will include 'professional or major audio or video coverage of the person and the person's work.' USCIS lacks any transcription of your cited video interview. As such, USCIS did not review this material in this proceeding."

Офицер прямо говорит: "USCIS did not review this material" - видео НЕ СМОТРЕЛИ. Без транскрипта доказательство просто игнорируется.

"In relation to the video works, you have not submitted evidence of a certified published transcript; therefore this would not be considered commensurate with the plain language of this criterion which indicates that this must be published material about the beneficiary."

Офицер объясняет юридически: критерий требует "published material". Видео без транскрипта - это НЕ published material по определению. Это не придирка, а plain language закона.

"The petitioner submitted a screen capture from YouTube but there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site where anyone can self-publish information. Further, it is not evident whether users come to the website intentionally or are redirected unintentionally, web traffic is not directly comparable to circulation."

Офицер говорит: YouTube - это сайт где любой может публиковать что угодно. Нет гарантий достоверности. Плюс трафик YouTube нельзя сравнивать с тиражом СМИ - люди попадают туда случайно.

"The petitioner provided a screen shot of a YouTube video... posted on the Communications bureau rupor agency YouTube channel. YouTube is a free, online video platform that enables individuals to upload their own videos and have their own channels. There is no assurance of reliability or objectivity from these sources that allow for self-created material to be posted. USCIS does not consider YouTube to be a professional or major trade publication or other major media without providing comparative data to show the media content can be considered 'major.' For instance, the record shows that there are four subscribers (as of November 5, 2024) and no indication of the number of verified views. Such a limited number of subscribers and no reference of the number of views would not appear to be major by any means."

Конкретный пример: YouTube канал с 4 подписчиками - офицер прямо говорит "would not appear to be major by any means". Для YouTube нужны comparative data: много подписчиков + много просмотров.

"You provided evidence that the beneficiary was interviewed on a podcast, but you did not provide evidence about the podcast(s) regarding listeners/viewership and comparative data establishing the podcast(s) as 'professional or major trade publications or other major media.'"

Офицер требует для подкаста: (1) данные о слушателях/просмотрах, (2) comparative data - сравнение с другими подкастами. Без этого подкаст не засчитывается.

"You further provided a link to an interview on YouTube; podcasts, web portals, company websites, social media, and search engines are not subject to editorial review, are open to self-creation of material, and will not meet this criterion."

YouTube интервью прямо отклонено: "will not meet this criterion" - не может соответствовать критерию. Причина: нет editorial review, открыто для self-creation.

"As an initial matter, social media posts that appear on apps such as Instagram and YouTube are insufficient under this criterion."

Офицер говорит прямым текстом: посты в Instagram и YouTube НЕ ПОДХОДЯТ для этого критерия. Точка. Количество подписчиков не имеет значения.

"The petitioner provided a YouTube link to the video interview, but upon accessing the link, an error message appeared stating that the video was removed."

Офицер проверил ссылку - видео удалено. Всегда сохраняйте копии!

"The petitioner provided material about the channel that posted the video, Mir Belogorya, but the evidence is only from its channel and the petitioner did not submit any objective, documentary evidence which demonstrates that it qualifies as professional or major trade publication or other major media."

Данные с самого канала = self-serving. Нужны объективные доказательства major статуса.

"The petitioner submitted additional material which ranks the Mir Belogorya channel among other YouTube channels, and material which ranks the channel and websites with other news and media websites in Russia. However, these rankings do not demonstrate that any of the material qualifies as major media."

Даже рейтинги среди YouTube каналов и СМИ России не убедили офицера. "Rankings do not demonstrate major media" - рейтинг сам по себе не доказательство.

"The petitioner provided few published articles that interviewed the petitioner expressing her opinion about the dairy industry in general and does not discuss her work in the field of Dairy Manufacturing Technology. As such, the submitted evidence does not meet this criterion."

Офицер говорит: вас интервьюировали, вы высказали мнение об отрасли - но статья не о ВАШЕЙ РАБОТЕ. Экспертный комментарий об индустрии ≠ coverage о ваших достижениях.

"Counsel states that 'the articles explicitly mention the petitioner, the Managing Partner and General Director of GPGroup, and include his expert opinions on various industry-related topics.' The Policy Manual states that '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...' Therefore, mentioning and quoting the petitioner do not establish that the articles include a substantial discussion of the petitioner and his work."

Офицер говорит прямо: "mentioning and quoting" ≠ "substantial discussion".

"The information about the petitioner provided in the report is as follows: '[Имя] underscored the importance of established building codes and engineering systems, such as ventilation and lighting, in ensuring a healthy office environment. He advised against unnecessary changes to engineering systems...' The petitioner has not demonstrated that two sentences attributed to the petitioner constitute a 'substantial discussion'."

Офицер буквально считает предложения: два предложения с вашей цитатой - это НЕ substantial discussion.

"The petitioner provided examples of articles that mention the company, his name, or quote the petitioner. This is not evidence that the published works included a substantial discussion about the petitioner and his work. Additionally, articles that discuss projects completed by the petitioner's work but do not refer to the petitioner in connection with the projects do not meet the criterion requirements. The Bfm.ru article, 'Commercial Real Estate: Construction and Its Despots' includes a discussion about the petitioner and his work."

Реальный пример: из 12 статей только ОДНА (Bfm.ru) признана как substantial discussion.

"The majority of the articles were not about the petitioner and her work, rather they included a quote made by the petitioner regarding the subject matter of the articles. While this indicates the petitioner's opinion is respected, it does not establish extraordinary ability in the field."

Интересная формулировка: офицер признает что цитирование показывает уважение к вашему мнению, но этого недостаточно для доказательства extraordinary ability.

"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."

Важное разъяснение: статья о вашей РАБОТЕ ≠ статья о ВАС. Нужна статья О ВАС, которая связана с вашей работой - а не просто о проекте где вас упомянули.

"At issue is the articles content rather than the publisher. In this instant case, the articles discuss the broad field rather than the petitioner."

Критически важно: даже если публикация в RBC, Forbes Russia, Meduza - это не гарантия. Офицер смотрит на КОНТЕНТ статьи, а не на издание.

"The articles from NUR.KZ titled 'Can Kazakhstanis Find Out About the Income of Civil Servants and the President?'; 'How Denunciations Help Fight Tax Evaders in the US and Kazakhstan'; and 'Why Businesses and Citizens Do Not Want to Pay Taxes in Kazakhstan, Expert Says' are not about the petitioner and his work in the field. Material only cites, quotes, references, or includes a photograph of the petitioner does not meet all the plain language elements of this criterion."

Конкретный пример: статьи о налогах в Казахстане, где заявитель - эксперт с цитатами. Офицер: статьи о налоговой системе, а не о ВАС.

"It is noted that several articles merely quote you, include a paragraph with your name, or simply discuss the events. However, there are no indications that your accomplishments are the focal point of these articles. Published material about the alien and their work in the field that include a substantial discussion of their work accomplishments may satisfy the plain language of this criterion."

Офицер перечисляет что НЕ засчитывается: (1) просто цитата, (2) абзац с вашим именем, (3) обсуждение событий. Требуется: "your accomplishments should be the focal point".

"The evidence does not indicate that the published material was material that related to the beneficiary and the beneficiary's work in the field. The majority of the articles submitted are event recaps and are not about the petitioner or her work. Media that simply recaps a competitive event is not about the petitioner, but rather is about the event itself."

Офицер говорит: репортаж о соревновании/конференции - это статья о событии, а не о вас. Даже если вас там упомянули.

"The published material should be about the beneficiary's work in the field, not just about the beneficiary's employer or other organizations the beneficiary is associated with."

Статья о вашей компании или организации - не статья о вас лично.

"Published material could cover another topic but should include a substantial discussion of the beneficiary's work in the field."

"Substantial discussion" - ключевое слово. Упоминание вскользь не считается.

"Marketing materials created for the purpose of selling the beneficiary's products or promoting the beneficiary's services are not generally considered to be published material about the beneficiary."

Рекламные материалы, даже если выглядят как статьи - не засчитываются.

"Unevaluated listings in a subject matter index or footnote, or reference to the beneficiary's work without evaluation are insufficient."

Просто включение в список или упоминание в сноске - недостаточно. Нужна оценка вашей работы.

"The material from obozrevatel.com made no mention of you within the material nor did it discuss your work in the field. The USCIS Policy Manual notes that probative published materials should include 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.'"

"An article cannot be about someone if it does not find it necessary to even identify them, let alone discuss them in a meaningful way."

Офицер объясняет логику: если автору статьи не показалось нужным вас назвать - значит статья не о вас.

"It must be noted that articles that are not about the alien do not meet this regulatory criterion. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor)."

Два судебных прецедента: суд подтвердил что статьи о шоу НЕ считаются статьями об актере.

"Coverage that is about a broader topic in which the Petitioner is merely mentioned does not demonstrate that the published material itself is 'about the alien' and 'relating to the alien's work in the field' as the regulation mandates. See Mussarova v. Garland, 562 F. Supp. 3d 837, 848-49 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (finding the published material criterion's requirements are not satisfied where the articles are about events in which a foreign national was associated but were not about them)."

Mussarova v. Garland (2022) - самый свежий прецедент. Суд подтвердил: статьи о мероприятиях, с которыми человек связан - НЕ считаются статьями о нем.

"A review of the material appears to establish the contents briefly cites, quotes, references, or includes a photograph of the petitioner. There is no discussion of the petitioner and his/her work in the field."

Офицер перечисляет что НЕ работает: краткая цитата, упоминание, ссылка, фото. Все это - не "discussion of the petitioner and work".

"It is noted that each of the articles were not primarily about the petitioner and included only one or two sentences or brief references. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be 'about the alien'."

Офицер говорит: если статья содержит только 1-2 предложения о вас - это НЕ статья "about the alien". Критерий требует чтобы статья была ПРЕИМУЩЕСТВЕННО о вас.

"In addition, some articles are not substantially about the petitioner. Rather, they are instead using the photos that were taken by the petitioner for the articles. As a result, they cannot be considered probative."

Критически важно для фотографов: если издание использует ваши ФОТОГРАФИИ в своих статьях - это НЕ статьи о вас. Статья иллюстрирована вашими работами ≠ статья о вашей карьере.

"Lastly, the petitioner has submitted articles of which he is the author. However, self-manufactured evidence is not objective or probative documentary forms of evidence."

Офицер говорит: статьи где ВЫ автор - это "self-manufactured evidence". Нет объективности = нет доказательной силы. Критерий требует чтобы ДРУГИЕ писали о вас.

"Counsel's assertions cannot be seen as evidence because it comprises attorney statements and does not comprise documentary forms of evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988) (stating that counsel's assertions 'cannot serve as evidence in an immigration proceeding'). Furthermore, USCIS 'need not accept primarily conclusory assertions.' 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). Furthermore, unsupported assertions do not meet the petitioner's burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998)."

Три прецедента подряд: unsupported assertions ≠ evidence. Комментарии адвоката без документальных доказательств не удовлетворяют burden of proof.

"Published material cannot just be about the beneficiary's employer or other organizations that the beneficiary is associated with, such as found in search engine optimization marketing materials, press releases or copy rewritten from press releases. General materials created for the purpose of selling or reviewing the beneficiary's or the beneficiary's employer's products, providing general education, biographical information or project updates about the beneficiary's field such as found in on-line business platform blogs and organizational newsletters, gameplay or player statistics, promoting the services, or updates on company restructurings or academic or private company research announcements are not generally considered to be substantial published material about the beneficiary."

"You provided evidence from Argumenti Nedeli Newspaper and/or online source argumenti.ru; however, the evidence appears to be about Akkuyu NPP, rather than related to your specific work in the field. USCIS Policy Manual: Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 expresses that 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."

Конкретный пример: статья в Аргументах Недели об АЭС Аккую (турецкий проект Росатома) - офицер говорит это статья О ПРОЕКТЕ, а не о петиционере. Работа на известном проекте ≠ статья о вас.

"You provided information from kp.ru about Argumenti Nedeli; however, the evidence does not verify the circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media) of the published material (compared) to other statistics."

Офицер отклонил статью КП об Аргументах Недели как доказательство major статуса. Даже упоминание в крупном СМИ (КП) не заменяет comparative circulation data.

"After a review of the record with what appears to be five articles issued in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025; these five recent articles would not be considered evidence of extensive documentation of published material about you that elevates your contributions to major prominence with sustained national or international acclaim."

5 статей за 4 года - это не "extensive documentation" и не доказывает "sustained acclaim".

"The article entitled: 'Food photographer Artyom Zolotarev: Artistic taste and watchfulness help me navigate any shooting' appears from blog. However, blogs are self-promotional info, lacking independence. Publications must be independent, have a national audience, and a board of editors."

Офицер перечислил три критерия для блогов: (1) Independence, (2) National audience, (3) Board of editors. Без всех трех элементов блог НЕ считается major media.

"Moreover, blogs are self-promotional info, lacking independence. Publications for the purpose of this visa should be independent, reach a national audience, and have a board of editors."

Офицер подтверждает: для визовых целей публикация должна быть Independent (независимая), National audience (национальная аудитория), Board of editors (редакционная коллегия). Большинство блогов не отвечают этим требованиям.

"Wikipedia, web portals, domains, blogs, social media: there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these open, user-edited Internet sites. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, any documentation from Wikipedia, web portals or social media sites carry no evidentiary weight within the present proceedings."

Судебный прецедент: суд подтвердил что открытые сайты с user-generated контентом не имеют доказательной силы.

"Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia."

Офицер цитирует собственный disclaimer Wikipedia - энциклопедия сама признает что не может гарантировать достоверность.

"Web portals, company websites, social media, and search engines not subject to editorial review are open to self-creation of material. There is no assurance of reliability from open or user-edited internet sites. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the material provided from these sources (Wikipedia, IMDb, Instagram, etc.) carries no evidentiary weight within the proceedings."

Офицер перечисляет конкретные источники: Wikipedia, IMDb, Instagram - "no evidentiary weight".

"You submitted your biography and other documents from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), but there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). According to the IMDb, information on the website comes from various sources, and includes 'press kits, official bios, autobiographies, and interviews' as well as 'people in the industry and visitors.' The site indicates that while efforts are made to keep the information as 'accurate and reliable as possible,' 'occasional mistakes are inevitable.' Therefore, we shall not assign weight to information for which IMDb is the only cited source."

Офицер цитирует disclaimer IMDb: сайт признает что информация приходит от пользователей и "occasional mistakes are inevitable".

"Websites that are portals or offer services from news, opinions, blogs and videos to network platforms for business do not qualify as they combine both professional media and user generated content as well as material targeted to regional interests, therefore it cannot be determined where the postings originated or that they are objective, credible, and reliable."

Веб-порталы смешивают профессиональный контент с пользовательским - нельзя понять что объективно, а что нет.

"Journals and major media require an editorial or peer review process to ensure a level of objectivity, reliability and accuracy."

Настоящие СМИ имеют редакционный или peer review процесс. Это отличает major media от user-generated контента.

"International accessibility via the internet (such as postings in blogs, social media, web portals, search engines, podcasts, webinars, training portals, user-created content or an organization's website) is not commensurate with 'major media' in the United States or any other country as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)."

Полный список: блоги, соцсети, порталы, поисковики, подкасты, вебинары, сайт организации - всё это НЕ major media.

"While internet websites can be accessed worldwide, we cannot ignore that anyone with a computer can create a website. Not every brief mention on a website can be considered published material about the petitioner appearing in major media."

Офицер формулирует фундаментальную проблему: доступ к сайту со всего мира ≠ major media.

"While the self-petitioner submitted some documentation to support the size of the websites' audience, it does not demonstrate that the websites are authentic news sources, as many websites act as platforms that allow individuals to create their own accounts and publish their own articles. Therefore, the evidence did not demonstrate that the websites are reliable sources of information."

Аудитория сайта не доказывает что это authentic news source. Многие сайты - платформы для самопубликации.

"The record provided material disseminated by web portals; however, web portals are not publications."

Офицер: "web portals are not publications". T Adviser и ArtMoskovia классифицированы как порталы.

"As such, the submitted evidence does not meet the plain language for this criterion."

Критерий не засчитан даже на первом этапе (plain language). Веб-порталы - это автоматический отказ.

"You provided articles from web portals such as sostav.ru, similarweb.com, dzenn.ru, snob.ru, vc.ru, banya.ru, andreysechin.medium.com, businessstory.ru, youtube.com, instagram.com, gazeta.ru, kp.ru, rosbalt.ru, daptar.ru, coverjournal.com, sm.news, et al. However, the evidence does not show that the posted material was published in a professional or major trade publication."

Даже известные российские СМИ (Газета.ру, КП) классифицированы как "web portals".

"You provided materials from web portals (matchtv.ru, championat.com, sports.ru, sportsdaily.ru, metaratings.ru). With regards to web portals and/or domains, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these open, user-edited Internet sites. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, any documentation from web portals or domains sites carry no evidentiary weight within the present proceedings."

Матч ТВ, Чемпионат, Sports.ru классифицированы как "web portals".

"You provided web printouts/articles from trends.rb.ru, vedomosti.ru, probusinesstv.ru, comnews.ru, telcomdaily.ru, et al.; however, you did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the material was published in professional or major trade publications or other major media."

Даже Ведомости и RB.ru требуют отдельного доказательства major статуса.

"You provided articles from web portals such as redner.ru, imdb.com, cerebrohq.com, thealmostdone.com, sbwire.com, articlesreader.com, speakerhub.com, youtube.com, yandex.ru, et al. However, the evidence does not show that the posted material was published in a professional or major trade publication, or if it was reported in major media."

Даже профессиональные инструменты (Cerebro) и индустриальные платформы не считаются major media.

"The petitioner has provided several articles from web portals, such as alau.kz, kazpravda.kz, qostanay.tv, and altyn-orda.kz. However, the evidence does not show that the posted material was published in a professional or major trade publication, or that it was reported in major media."

Казахстанские новостные сайты классифицированы как "web portals" без доказательств major статуса.

"With regards to Wikipedia, web portals, domains, blogs, podcasts and social media, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these open, user-edited Internet sites. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 901-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, any documentation from Wikipedia, web portals (qq.com, ifeng.com, china.com, sohu.com, baidu.com, sina.com, 163.com, xinhuanet.com, etc.), domains, blogs (medium.com), or social media sites (weixin.qq.com, vk.com) carry no evidentiary weight within the present proceedings."

Даже крупнейшие китайские СМИ (Xinhua, Sina, Baidu) классифицированы как "web portals" с нулевой доказательной силой.

"We note that the petitioner offers online material disseminated by u-f.ru, business.ru, spb.aif.ru, mir24.tv, but these appear to be from web portals or domains. The material is not published, these domains are not publications, and web portals are open to user-created and marketing content."

Важное различие: "domains are not publications". Даже если сайт выглядит как СМИ, офицер может классифицировать его как "domain".

"You have not presented any credible third-party or corroborated evidence demonstrating that crushthat.com is a major trade publication, or other major media as required by 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii). To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution, or viewership is high compared to other websites."

Для любого сайта нужно доказать: (1) significant national/international distribution, ИЛИ (2) high viewership compared to others.

"Web portals, company websites, social media, and search engines not subject to editorial review or open to self-creation of material. Because it is not evident whether users come to the websites intentionally or are redirected unintentionally, web traffic is not directly comparable to circulation. There is no assumption of reliability from open or user-edited internet sites."

Офицер объясняет логику: (1) нет редакционного контроля, (2) возможна самопубликация, (3) трафик ≠ тираж, (4) нет гарантии надежности.

"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."

Критерий засчитан! Сработало: eg.ru + tadviser.ru + данные SimilarWeb в cover letters.

"The petitioner submitted material from the following: • 'Creativity and innovation: Teacher of Fine Arts - about lessons in modern schools' published on July 27, 2024, by Svetlana Borisova • 'Uncovering Talents: interview with Fine Arts Teacher Evgeniia Zaevskaia' published April 17-24, 2024, by Evgeniy Arsyukhin on www.kp.ru Komsomolskaya Pravda • 'Only when you close your eyes before going to sleep...' by P.S. Chernyshov published on December 2, 2023, on Informio"

"However, the evidence indicates that the remaining publications are professional or major trade or other major media publications. Therefore, the plain language of the criterion has been met."

Критерий засчитан! Komsomolskaya Pravda (kp.ru) и Informio приняты как major media.

"Media Report - Interview: 'The Future of Massage Trends and Prospects' With massage therapist-expert [Имя] about the development of the industry and forecast for 2023 - Author: [Автор] - kp.ru - November 9-16, 2022; Media Report - [Имя]: 'Massage can help effectively cope with stress and anxiety' - www.kp.ru - August 1, 2024; Media Report - [Имя]: 'It is important to influence the body not only on a physical level' - zdrav.expert - August 15, 2024; Media Report - Lymphatic Drainage Massage: Secrets of Youth After 50 - beautyhunter.ru - April 14, 2024; Media Report - Revolution in massage - apni.ru - April 25, 2024"

"The petitioner submitted published material from kp.ru, zdrav.expert, beautyhunter.ru, and apni.ru. The material was written about the petitioner and her work in the field. As such, the submitted evidence meets this criterion."

Критерий засчитан! Все четыре издания приняты как major media.

"Only your interview articles from SM.news and kp.ru were considered under this criterion."

Офицер признал что интервью на SM.news и kp.ru - это статьи О ВАС. Первый барьер пройден.

"Nevertheless, you have not presented credible third-party or corroborated evidence to demonstrate the national or international circulation of the organization(s) that printed or distributed any of these submitted articles, or to otherwise show that these sources are professional, major trade publications, or other major media publications."

Статьи о вас - но не доказано что издания major. SimilarWeb alone недостаточно.

"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."

Один SimilarWeb = "inconclusive". Нужны дополнительные источники.

"The petitioner submitted an article published on kp.ru. However, it appears to be a tabloid newspaper. Tabloid newspaper coverage is generally insufficient to satisfy this criterion because generally characterized by sensationalism and entertainment-focused content, and are not widely recognized as reputable sources of professional or major media coverage. As such, kp.ru does not meet the regulatory standard of major media as intended under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)(iii)."

Офицер назвал Комсомольскую Правду "tabloid newspaper" - таблоидом с сенсационным контентом. Это ПРОТИВОРЕЧИТ одобрениям kp.ru в других кейсах!

"This criterion has not been met because the evidence does not indicate that the published material was published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The evidence of record indicates the media sources are not major media as they do not appear to have significant readership or visits especially when compared to notable major media sources such as The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal."

Офицер говорит: ваши СМИ не дотягивают до NYT и WSJ. Это эталон, с которым сравнивают.

"The evidence submitted should be specific to the media format in which it was published. If the material was published online, the evidence should relate to the website. If it was published in print, the evidence should relate to the printed publication."

Для онлайн-статьи нужны данные о сайте (трафик), для печатной - данные о тираже.

"The petitioner submitted articles about himself related to his work published in Amazing Architecture, Design and Survey Construction Works, Stroitelnaya Gazeta, and Komsomolskaya Pravda but submitted no independent, probative evidence that they are in major trade publications or other major media."

Офицер говорит: вы приложили статьи, но НЕ ДОКАЗАЛИ что эти издания major. Сами статьи - не доказательство статуса СМИ.

"While the petitioner submitted readership and circulation data, a majority of the data came from the publications' own websites. We do not accept self-serving assertions of circulation data."

Офицер говорит: данные с сайта самого СМИ - "заинтересованный источник". Издание само себя хвалит - это не доказательство.

"Statistics such as visit duration and bounce rates are not indicative of major media status."

Метрики поведения пользователей - не показатели major статуса. Это данные для маркетологов, не для USCIS.

"USCIS cannot ignore the fact that all of the materials submitted from the web sites' 'about us' pages were prepared by the web sites themselves. Self-generated materials will, by nature, paint their own publications in the most high regard to generate advertisement revenue, participation and increase readership. Such materials are not independent evaluations of the major status of the medium."

"О нас" - это самореклама для рекламодателей. Любое СМИ напишет о себе в превосходных тонах. Это не независимая оценка.

"A complete review of the semrush printouts indicates these are static figures for marketing purposes. While these printouts address metrics such as visits, unique visitors, pages/visit and average visit duration, there is no comparative data by which to measure the metrics for these specific web sites. For example, the semrush printout for [сайт] indicates a unique visitors number of 12.7k. Now, is this per day, per month or per year? Are these numbers low, average or high compared to known major media outlets such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Without a comparative aspect the information from semrush is not indicative of major media status."

Офицер буквально спрашивает: "А это вообще много?" 12.7K - это за день, месяц, год? Без сравнения с NYT/WSJ цифры ничего не значат.

"USCIS has reviewed the similarweb printout for [сайт]. According to this printout the website generated 1.826 million visits from August, 2024 through October, 2024. That visit total placed [сайт] as the 27,083 most popular website in the United States, and the 3,147 most popular website in the computer and electronics industry. Given these low ranks USCIS cannot conclude that [сайт] is a major media source, even within the industry."

Даже 1.8 миллиона визитов за 3 месяца - недостаточно. Рейтинг 27,083 в США и 3,147 в категории - это "low ranks". Для major media нужно быть в топе, а не на 27-тысячном месте.

"See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media)."

Суд подтвердил что USCIS имеет право НЕ верить self-serving данным. Офицеры ссылаются на это дело как на юридическое обоснование.

"USCIS need not rely on the publisher's self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D.C.A. July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009); see also, e.g., Victorov v. Barr, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRX, 2020 WL 3213788, at *8 (C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020)."

Victorov v. Barr - более свежий прецедент (2020), подтверждающий позицию Braga. Офицеры начинают ссылаться на оба дела вместе для усиления аргументации.

"USCIS is not required to rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher and 'we may require more than the publication's own say so that it is major.' Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 185 (D.N.J. 2021) (citing Braga v. Poulos)."

Krasniqi v. Dibbins (2021) - еще один свежий прецедент. Ключевая формулировка: USCIS может требовать "more than the publication's own say so" - больше чем просто утверждения самого издания о своей значимости.

"In the cover letter, Counsel has included information about the publications, but simply going on record without supporting substantive evidence to support assertions, is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 1972)."

Важный прецедент: адвокат написал информацию о СМИ в cover letter, но офицер ответил что "going on record without substantive evidence" недостаточно. Нельзя просто утверждать - нужно доказывать документами.

"While the petitioner provided website analytics and ranking data, these statistics alone do not demonstrate that the publications qualify as major media. The evidence must establish that the publication has significant national or international distribution and is considered a professional or major trade publication in the field."

Офицер говорит: вы дали аналитику сайта, но этого недостаточно. Нужно доказать "significant national or international distribution" и статус в отрасли. Цифры трафика - это не статус.

"Furthermore, some of the submitted materials appear to be promotional in nature or were created for marketing purposes, which generally do not satisfy this criterion. The published material should be independent coverage about the beneficiary's work in the field, not advertising or self-promotional content."

Офицер говорит: материалы выглядят как реклама/промо, а не независимый coverage. Ключевое слово - "independent coverage". Ваш PR ≠ статья о вас.

"You provided evidence from ProBusiness TV, comnews.ru, telecomdaily.ru, et al. such as Broadcast certificate and printouts about their own organizations; however, USCIS need not accept self-serving assertions of information data. See Braga v. Poulos."

Сертификаты вещания и информация с сайта самого СМИ - это self-serving. Braga v. Poulos применяется и здесь.

"You provided data from similarweb.com which is a tool to broadly determine internet domain traffic, not to determine a publication's circulation. Material on the internet can include many types of domains, not all are objective or vetted in the manner of major media and publications with editors or peer review. General web domain statistics offer inappropriate comparisons that are not useful to determine whether a source is major media commensurate with this criterion."

Офицер говорит прямо: SimilarWeb показывает ТРАФИК ДОМЕНА, а не ТИРАЖ ИЗДАНИЯ. Это разные вещи. Статистика доменов - "inappropriate comparisons" для определения major media.

"USCIS acknowledges that SimilarWeb analytical data would not be considered self-serving or promotional data, and that the application of Braga does not apply in this regard. However, the SimilarWeb data does not establish that the submitted evidence demonstrates the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media."

Это важный нюанс: офицер признает что SimilarWeb - не "self-serving" данные (в отличие от Media Kit). НО даже такие данные без сравнительного контекста недостаточны.

"The circulation statistics for the publications are to be compared against at least two separate media traffic analytics (not the publisher) that are in the beneficiary's field during the same timeframe of the beneficiary's publications, in the same format (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, volume, episodic, annually) and in the same field of endeavor."

Конкретное требование от офицера: нужно МИНИМУМ 2 источника аналитики (не от самого издания). Сравнение должно быть: (1) в той же сфере, (2) за тот же период, (3) в том же формате измерения.

"The petitioner points to SimilarWeb data showing the number of visits to the websites of the various publications, but raw numbers do not provide the comparison to other circulation figures required by the USCIS Policy Manual guidance. SimilarWeb data does provide comparative evidence in the form of rankings by country and category, as well as globally. A review of these rankings do not establish these publications as a major trade publication or other major media. For example, render.ru has a global rank #131,250, country rank #8,110 and industry rank #90."

Конкретный пример: render.ru с global rank #131,250, country rank #8,110, industry rank #90 - отклонен как NOT major. Офицер говорит: даже рейтинги SimilarWeb не помогли - 131 тысячное место в мире явно не major.

"You provided data from siteworthtraffic.com which is a tool to broadly determine internet domain traffic, not to determine a publication's circulation. Material on the internet can include many types of domains, not all are objective or vetted in the manner of major media and publications with editors or peer review. General web domain statistics offer inappropriate comparisons that are not useful to determine whether a source is major media commensurate with this criterion."

Аналогичная критика для siteworthtraffic.com - тот же аргумент что и для SimilarWeb. Любой traffic estimation tool не подходит для доказательства circulation.

"You provided data from similarweb.com, pr-cy.io which are tools to broadly determine estimations of internet domain traffic or visits and/or rankings, and/or pageviews, not to determine a publication's circulation, readership and/or viewership."

pr-cy.io - российский сервис анализа сайтов. Отклонен по той же причине что SimilarWeb и siteworthtraffic.com: traffic estimation ≠ circulation data.

"USCIS finds the information from similarweb.com is relied upon in media and other industries to evaluate website traffic and other performance indicators. However, USCIS finds the figures provided are insufficient to show that any of the websites qualifies as 'other major media'. Thus, USCIS finds reported visits are not a reliable indicator of the number of people visiting the site, and thus of each publication's online circulation."

Интересная формулировка: офицер признает что SimilarWeb используется в индустрии, НО говорит что "reported visits" - ненадежный показатель количества реальных посетителей. Посещения ≠ circulation.

"USCIS notes, that circulation, readership and/or viewership of published material is not the same as visitation and/or pageview and rankings of published material. Circulation is a count of how many copies of a particular publication are distributed. Readership is an estimate of how many readers a publication has. Viewership is a count of visitor loads or reloads of a page that they chose to view. Visits and/or pageviews occurs when someone lands and/or is redirected to a site from an external page such as Google or another website but did not choose to go to that site."

Офицер объясняет разницу: Circulation = сколько копий распространено; Readership = сколько людей читает; Viewership = сколько людей ВЫБРАЛИ смотреть; Pageviews = сколько раз открыли страницу (включая случайные переходы из Google). Pageviews включают случайный трафик - это не то же самое что аудитория!

"What appear to be self-manufactured editorial comments regarding articles and publication information were supplied in multiple documents without a foreign language original source. For example, Exhibit 93 stated, 'The article highlights Mr. [Имя]'s involvement as a member of the Board of Directors... actively promoting the tannery's products...' The document proceeds to cite a title, author, date and link to the publication and brief overview of the Business Journal of Bashkortostan. It is not apparent where the circulation and distribution information originated, please explain."

Офицер заметил что петиционер создал СВОИ документы с комментариями о статьях и данными о тираже, но не указал источник этих данных. "It is not apparent where the circulation and distribution information originated" - офицер требует объяснить ОТКУДА взяты цифры.

"The explanatory note from [Имя] is simply an opinion. Furthermore, the submission of solicited letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988); see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 'fact')."

"Simply submitting online material about other online material whose veracity and legitimacy cannot be determined has no probative value."

Нельзя просто приложить статью из Wikipedia о СМИ как доказательство major статуса. Офицер не может проверить достоверность таких источников.

"With respect to documents from the Internet, you must submit webpage screen shots (including the URL address and page number on each page) as they would appear on the original source's website. You submitted webpage screen shots not as they appear (did not include the URL address and page number on each page) on the original source's website."

Каждая страница скриншота должна содержать: (1) URL адрес, (2) номер страницы. Без этого - "not as they appear on original source".

"It appears you submitted self-made documentation where you pasted specific portions of information (text, pictures, etc.) from the original webpage (articles or information). This undermines the credibility of this documentation because it did not originate from the original source."

Офицер прямо пишет: если вы вырезали куски статьи и вклеили в свой документ - это "undermines credibility".

"With respect to documents from the Internet, the petitioner did not submit evidence that shows the full URL address on each page in order for the source to be identified. Therefore, no way to independently and objectively verify their originality. As such, this article is given no probative weight. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (BIA 1972)."

Офицер ссылается на Matter of Treasure Craft: без full URL на каждой странице - "no way to independently and objectively verify originality". Результат: НУЛЕВАЯ доказательная сила.

"The petitioner submitted digital, self-made copies of documentary evidence that you reduced or altered, but such documentation is inadmissible. You must submit legible, non-digital photocopies or computer printouts directly from publications of all original documentary evidence, reflecting their original size."

Офицер говорит: вы изменили размер или отредактировали документы - такие копии не принимаются. Нужны оригинальные распечатки в оригинальном размере.

"Internet webpage screen shots lacking an URL address and page numbers from the original source are of little probative value as the statements or assertions contained therein cannot be corroborated, nor can we verify the screen shot is complete and accurate."

Без URL и номеров страниц офицер не может: (1) проверить источник, (2) убедиться что скриншот полный и точный. Результат = "little probative value".

"You have submitted copies of digitized evidence that appear illegible and incomplete. The material that you provided as evidence includes digitized material, possibly scanned, and some altered with handwriting and cut and pasted information on the copies. This material is not reliable documentation, nor does it comply with the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)."

Офицер говорит: сканы нечитаемые и неполные, плюс рукописные пометки и вырезанные куски - это не reliable documentation. Ссылка на 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3) = юридическое обоснование отказа.

"Eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of the filings alone but by their quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). We 'examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence.'"

Офицер говорит: много документов - не значит хорошо. Оценивают КАЧЕСТВО каждого документа: relevance, probative value, credibility. Дело Chawathe - стандартная ссылка.

"Digital, self-made copies of documentation (recommendation letters, membership documents, internet webpages, etc.) that includes altered material or information pasted (text, pictures, dates, etc.) into a self-created document will not be given probative value. You must submit 'ordinary legible photocopies' of all original documentary evidence, reflecting their original size. Do not submit digital photos or scans of documentary evidence that are pasted in to a document, altered, or photoshopped."

Офицер прямо запрещает: (1) вставку в Word/Google Docs, (2) изменение размера, (3) фотошоп, (4) вырезание кусков. Требует: "ordinary legible photocopies" в оригинальном размере.

"With respect to documents from the Internet, you must submit webpage screenshots (including the URL address on each page) as they would appear on the original source's website. You submitted webpage screenshots not as they appear (when searching the stated URL address) on the original source's website. Instead, you submitted self-made documentation where you pasted specific portions of the webpages' information (text, pictures, etc.) from the original webpage (articles or information). This severely undermines the credibility of this documentation because it did not originate from the original source."

"Severely undermines credibility" - сильная формулировка. Офицер проверил URL и увидел что ваш документ не совпадает с оригиналом. Вклеенные куски = подрыв доверия.

"Furthermore, you were solely responsible for what content was included (which is not independent nor objective), not the original source, and it is not clear whether the submitted documents were complete (and completely translated). In addition, many of your self-made documents included text (including URL addresses, dates, authors names, etc.) that were illegible. Consequently, we did not consider any of this self-made material."

Три проблемы: (1) вы сами выбирали что включить - "not independent nor objective", (2) неясно полный ли документ и переведен ли полностью, (3) текст нечитаемый. Результат: "we did not consider any of this self-made material" - полный отказ рассматривать.

"If you want USCIS to fully credit the material you have submitted from the internet, re-submit the webpages (webpage printouts) as they would exactly appear on the original source's website/webpage, with the full URL address."

Офицер дает четкую инструкцию: "webpage printouts as they would exactly appear" + full URL. Используйте Print to PDF или GoFullPage.

"You submitted an article from newsru.co.il that only mentions you and where you placed in competition. This material is about the results of the 2022 European Ballroom Dance Championships and not 'about' you. Published material must not simply be about the results of a ballroom dance competition, but about you--though it may not be unrelated to your work. Your accomplishments in the wider field should be the focal point of the published material."

Конкретный пример: статья на newsru.co.il о Чемпионате Европы по бальным танцам 2022. Офицер говорит: это статья о РЕЗУЛЬТАТАХ чемпионата, где вас просто упомянули. Это НЕ статья о вас.

"This article did not include a substantial evaluation or discussion of your accomplishments in the field. Without an evaluation or discussion of your accomplishments in the field, this published material cannot be considered to be 'about the beneficiary (you)' as is required by this criterion."

Офицер требует "substantial evaluation or discussion of your accomplishments" - существенную оценку или обсуждение ВАШИХ достижений. Простое упоминание результата ("занял 3 место") - недостаточно.

"You have submitted what appear to be one article and dance sport competition results and synopsis. You have submitted articles that appear to be missing one of these three pieces of information: title, date or author and this evidence therefore cannot be considered probative."

Офицер говорит: результаты соревнований по танцам - это не "published material about you". Это статистика события, а не статья о вас как личности.