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 work as a truck driver and owner-operator of a trucking business he established in Washington state, serving truck-load and less-than-truck-load freight customers.
Field: trucking/freight transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability but established only 2 of the 6 required regulatory criteria (academic record and CDL license), falling short of the required 3; employment letters did not establish 10 years of experience, salary comparison to average truck driver was insufficient, professional association membership post-dated filing, and recommendation letters were conclusory and contained suspiciously similar wording. Because fewer than 3 criteria were met, no final merits determination was reached and the NIW prongs were never addressed.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the letter is dated after the filing of the petition, and therefore does not establish the Petitioner's membership...at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's employment verification letters did not establish ten years of full-time experience in the occupation”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has commanded a salary which demonstrates exceptional ability”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not describe achievements or significant contributions to the trucking field”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The decision contains an apparent drafting/OCR error in footnote 2: after stating the Petitioner does not claim to qualify as an advanced degree professional and that the credential evaluation is unclear, the AAO nonetheless concludes 'we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional,' which contradicts the surrounding analysis and the ultimate finding that he only pursued the exceptional-ability track. The AAO also applied an adverse-inference doctrine from BIA/circuit fraud case law (Matter of R-K-K- and related cases) to discount two similarly worded recommendation letters, an unusual citation pattern for an NIW exceptional-ability appeal. Because the threshold EB-2 classification was not met, the AAO expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs.
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
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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