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 planned to work as an independent business owner in the cargo transportation and logistics industry.
Field: cargo transportation & logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria; evidence for license/certification (D), salary/remuneration (D), and professional membership (E) all postdated the I-140 filing date and could not establish eligibility as of filing. AAO reserved opinion on criteria (A) and (F) since three criteria were not otherwise met.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the CDL dated after the Form 1-140 filing date cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the documents are dated after the Form 1-140 filing date and, thus, cannot establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“cannot establish eligibility because it is not evidence of a fact that existed at the time the Petitioner filed the Form 1-140”
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
This decision focuses entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability classification, not the NIW/Dhanasar prongs. The AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis because the threshold exceptional-ability failure was dispositive. Key evidentiary problem: nearly all supporting documents (CDL, tax returns, membership) post-dated the I-140 filing date, invoking the Katigbak 'facts as of filing' rule and Izummi's bar on material post-filing changes.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Izummi
- 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