dismissedAPR222025_01B52032025-04-22 · combined · Texas Service Center
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 proposed to own and operate a freight transportation trucking company in the United States, hiring and training truck drivers.
Field: freight transportation trucking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“his prong one assertions continued to rely primarily on the importance of the trucking industry, and "its collective impact."”
“the record contained insufficient support for "his hiring projections, considering the claimed shortage of truck drivers in the United States,"”
“we question the reliability of the hiring projections ... [as the Petitioner] did not explain how he plans to recruit 16 truck drivers in a five-year period given the stated shortage of truck drivers.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his prong one assertions continued to rely primarily on the importance of the trucking industry, and its collective impact”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“insufficient support for his hiring projections, considering the claimed shortage of truck drivers in the United States”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's contentions in his current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in prior decisions”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Third combined motion to reopen/reconsider following an appeal and two prior combined motions, all dismissed on identical prong-one grounds; AAO expressly continued to reserve prongs two and three as unnecessary given prong one dispositive 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. 103.5
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
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