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 self-employed trucking industry entrepreneur and owner-operator, sought to continue providing commercial trucking/transportation services in the United States.
Field: trucking/transportation industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to show a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience at time of filing (only ~4 years 8 months claimed), and failed to satisfy at least three exceptional-ability criteria (no CDL submitted, salary evidence lacked comparative data, professional-association membership not substantiated as a 'profession').
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not reflect that the Petitioner holds ... a foreign equivalent degree above that of a bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has claimed no relevant employment experience prior to February 2018”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not in fact include a copy of his CDL in the initial filing or with his response to the Director's RFE”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“this evidence alone does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's earnings are comparably higher than the earnings of others in his field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish the professional nature of the association”
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 appeal was resolved entirely on the threshold EB-2 classification issue (advanced degree/exceptional ability); the AAO expressly reserved the national interest waiver prongs as unnecessary to reach given the dispositive threshold failure ('Because this issue is dispositive, we need not address whether he is eligible for ... a national interest waiver').
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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