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 former bank employee, sought to operate her own freight/trucking company in the United States, providing cargo transport and logistics services.
Field: trucking / freight logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO did not disturb this and noted it did not need to explore whether the intended occupation qualifies as a profession because the appeal could be dismissed on other grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner did not provide any further details or supporting evidence to show how her proposed endeavor would have a wider impact on logistics management or the trucking industry.”
“the record contains statistics about the trucking industry as a whole, but these figures do not establish the economic or other impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner did not establish the broader implications and significance of these projections in an industry that ... employs over 1.4 million people with annual revenues exceeding $260 billion.”
“Developments after the filing date, such as the formation of the company and specific information about its management and operation, cannot establish eligibility as of the filing date.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these figures do not establish the economic or other impact of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner submitted no documentary evidence to corroborate these present-tense descriptions of the claimed services.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the new claim contradicts the employment timeline that the Petitioner submitted when she first filed the petition, which raises overall questions of credibility”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO raised a credibility concern under Matter of Ho regarding a contradicted employment history claim, though this was not the basis for dismissal. AAO also noted but declined to resolve whether the Petitioner's intended occupation qualifies as a profession, dismissing solely on prong 1 national importance grounds.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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