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 own and operate his own trucking company engaged in interstate transportation, claiming this would benefit the supply chain, logistics industry, economy, and infrastructure.
Field: trucking / logistics (civil engineering background) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish advanced degree equivalency and five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; also failed to meet three regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (salary, membership, recognition for achievements).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his business and its customers to impact his field”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“did not submit a detailed advisory evaluation of his credentials”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he does not point to specific evidence in the record showing that has commanded a salary”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate that AMA has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“this certificate reflects internal recognition from the Beneficiary's employer and therefore it does not rise to the level of "achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field"”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient infonnation and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his specific proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO addressed both threshold EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) and NIW prong 1 as independent alternate bases for dismissal; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given dispositive prong 1 failure.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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