dismissedDEC272023_01B52032023-12-27 · appeal · Nebraska 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 sought to own and operate a freight trucking company providing high-level trucking services nationwide, including recruiting Uzbek truck drivers to help address a driver shortage.
Field: trucking/freight transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not adequately explain how his proposed endeavor of owning and operating a freight trucking business has national importance”
“the plan did not elaborate on those revenue projections or adequately explain how they were calculated”
“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clientele”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan did not elaborate on those revenue projections or adequately explain how they were calculated”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's skills, expertise, abilities, and prior accomplishments relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it appears that he did not own the company as of November 2021, when this petition was filed”
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
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
AAO raised, without ultimately relying on it, a discrepancy regarding whether the Petitioner actually owned the trucking company at the time of filing since ownership documents postdated the filing date; this was noted as a side issue but the decision rested on prong 1 national 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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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