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, a truck driver, proposed to operate a Wisconsin-based trucking company offering long-haul and short-haul freight transportation and delivery services across the United States.
Field: trucking and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew SCOPS' favorable exceptional-ability finding because meeting three criteria alone does not establish eligibility absent a final merits determination, but reserved the issue as the NIW analysis was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for the country that rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
“although an individual's experience, qualifications, contributions, and achievements are material, they are misplaced in the context of the first Dhanasar prong”
“alignment with general national goals, in and of itself, does not necessarily establish that the Petitioner's endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“it does not demonstrate how these benefits would extend to the broader trucking and transportation industry or have an impact so broad as to affect the U.S. economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not provide sufficient detail of the basis of these projections or adequately explain how these staffing targets and revenue forecasts will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they are generally immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO withdrew SCOPS' favorable exceptional-ability finding (three-criteria met but no final merits determination conducted) yet reserved the threshold EB-2 issue as unnecessary given the dispositive first-prong denial; unusual applicant profile as a truck driver/entrepreneur invoking national security strategic guidance to argue importance.
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
- 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