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 be an independent business owner operating a truck transportation services company in the United States, serving construction, agribusiness, and manufacturer clients.
Field: trucking / truck transportation services business management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (unresolved conflicting academic evaluation, no established 5 years progressive experience in the specialty of business management) nor as an individual of exceptional ability (failed to satisfy at least 3 of 6 regulatory criteria). This threshold failure was dispositive; the AAO did not reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evaluation's veracity is questionable, it bears minimal probative value”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not specify whether the [Petitioner] was employed full- or part-time”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this unresolved inconsistency further reduces the reliability and sufficiency of the Petitioner's own statements”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the letter does not specify the frequency of the €5,600 payments”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's training certificates... relate to business administration”
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 case never reaches the NIW/Dhanasar analysis at all; the AAO dismisses on threshold EB-2 classification grounds (advanced degree and exceptional ability), explicitly reserving opinion on Dhanasar prongs. Notable use of credibility/inconsistency doctrine (Matter of Ho) to discount both an academic evaluation letter (self-contradictory equivalency opinion) and an employer letter submitted on appeal that contradicted the employer's earlier letter regarding dates of employment and salary. Petitioner attempted to establish exceptional ability via engineering diploma and technical certificates that did not match the claimed business-management specialty of the endeavor.
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
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of V-K-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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