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 operate a freight transportation company hauling general freight and dry goods, with plans to employ about 20 workers within three years.
Field: freight transportation/logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner ineligible for exceptional-ability classification but never addressed the alternative advanced-degree-equivalency criteria; the AAO expressly reserved judgment on threshold eligibility because the case was resolved on prong 1 alone.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the specific proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the company's clients and employees to affect the field or industry more broadly”
“the record does not establish how employing those 20 workers demonstrates "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ... other substantial positive economic effects,"”
“the publications ... do not address the Petitioner, the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and how the potential prospective impact ... may have ... national or even global implications”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not establish how employing those 20 workers demonstrates significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the publications ... that provide generalized information regarding the freight transportation industry are immaterial to whether the potential prospective impact of the specific endeavor ... may have national importance”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
Notable
The Director denied on exceptional-ability grounds without ever addressing the alternative advanced-degree-equivalency criteria, and the record does not clarify why the Director reached the national-interest waiver analysis despite finding the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying classification. The AAO expressly declined to resolve threshold eligibility or prongs 2 and 3, resting the dismissal solely on prong 1.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- 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