This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner sought to found and operate a trucking/vehicle-shipping business in the United States, claiming exceptional ability as an entrepreneur.
Field: freight transportation / trucking business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria (academic record, license, salary, professional association membership), so the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that he qualified as an alien of exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“These unsupported assertions do not show that the proposed endeavor would have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers.”
“counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the vagueness of the Petitioner's business plan for ... and on the lack of evidence of interest from potential customers, investors, and other individuals”
“there is scant evidence of the company's activities prior to 2022, and his claims regarding this experience are inconsistent”
“these unresolved inconsistencies significantly undermine the Petitioner's claim of experience and expertise as an entrepreneur”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“he does not meet this criterion”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he therefore does not meet this criterion”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he has not established that he has commanded a salary or remuneration which demonstrates exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide a basis for these employment projections”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he does not explain the relation between any knowledge or skills he may have acquired ... and his ability to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- NEW credibility inconsistencies · p2
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The AAO found extensive, unresolved inconsistencies between the Petitioner's business-plan narrative, tax returns, ETA 750B statements, and his prior P-3 nonimmigrant status as a culturally-unique dancer, noting he may have violated the terms of that status and worked without authorization, which undermined his credibility on the second prong.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers