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 work as an entrepreneur owning and operating a trucking and cargo transportation services business in the United States, having previously run a similar business in Russia.
Field: trucking and cargo transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); letters were self-authored and uncorroborated, license and membership evidence postdated filing, and no salary evidence was submitted.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“his letter alone is insufficient to meet his burden of proof”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence would not be evaluated and could not establish that he satisfied this criterion at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these documents do not reflect his salary or other remuneration in any given year”
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 turns entirely on failure to establish the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification; the Director never reached the NIW question, and the AAO expressly declines to address the national interest waiver prongs, stating 'that issue is therefore not before us on appeal.' Evidence of a CDL license and OOIDA membership obtained ~18 months after filing were excluded as untimely under the 'eligibility at time of filing' rule.
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. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- 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