dismissedDEC012025_01B52032025-12-01 · appeal

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 work as an independent business owner in the trucking industry, expanding and enhancing his freight transportation and logistics company using his information systems technology background.

Field: long-distance freight transportation and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found, and AAO affirmed, that the Petitioner established eligibility as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“SCOPS determined the Petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence regarding his endeavor's projected economic impact.”

“the alleged shortage of occupations or occupational skills does not render his proposed endeavor nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”

“merely aligning with government initiatives is insufficient to establish the national importance of a proposed endeavor.”

“the letter, like the business plan, did not cite corroborating evidence and the record does not support its assertions.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not present supporting evidence corroborating the assertions and figures in his business plan”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“SCOPS acknowledged this information and determined that these letters would be more relevant under Dhanasar's second prong.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the letter, like the business plan, did not cite corroborating evidence and the record does not support its assertions”
AAO decision text
degree · credited

Where this case turned

Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
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
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,312coded 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

This case involves revocation of a previously approved I-140 following a NOIR, rather than an initial denial; the AAO treated the revocation appeal identically to a denial appeal under the Dhanasar framework, affirming SCOPS' finding of no national importance while expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary to the disposition.

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. 103.3
Flores v. Garland
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer