dismissedJUN262023_02B52032023-06-26 · 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 manage and grow a trucking company, purchasing trucks and employing drivers to transport freight for logistics companies across the U.S.
Field: trucking and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence ofrecord does not address how the Petitioner's individual company will impact the trucking industry or freight logistics models beyond its role as a small business operating amongst others in the industry.”
“The Petitioner asserts that he will create both direct and indirect jobs and "enhance the overall standard of trucking and logistics services in the U.S."; however, the record does not include documentation to support these assertions.”
“The Petitioner has not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“cites potential growth and revenue numbers in the trucking industry”
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
- 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
Petitioner's appeal brief failed to specify any erroneous conclusions in the Director's decision, which the AAO noted violates 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v); AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as prong 1 was dispositive.
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
- 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