The Petitioner sought to establish and expand a trucking business in Ohio, aiming to improve the safety, quality, and reliability of freight transportation across the U.S. and Canada.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“these employment and revenue projections are not supported by details showing their basis”

“the national shortage of truck drivers is not, in and of itself sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his own company and its clients to impact the industry more broadly”

“the Petitioner provides little explanation and supporting documentation to substantiate that his proposed trucking business would have a potential prospective national impact”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of 'substantial positive economic effects'”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “the Petitioner's expertise and record of success are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong”

  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
• Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

Notable

The Petitioner argued national importance based on the national truck driver shortage and alignment with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (INSSG); the AAO rejected both arguments, noting that labor shortages are addressed through the labor certification process rather than the NIW analysis.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
• Flores v. Garland
• INA 203(b)(2)
• 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