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, holding foreign master's degrees in chemistry-related fields, initially proposed to work as a truck driver in the United States, later asserting he would instead own and operate a transportation and logistics company as its operations manager.
Field: road transport and logistics / chemical and materials science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's advanced degree in chemistry/materials science was not shown to be required for his proposed occupation of truck driver; a later claimed shift to business owner/operations manager was disregarded as an impermissible post-filing material change.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“neither the initial evidence nor the Petitioner's response to the RFE demonstrate that the intended occupation of "truck driver" ... requires an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“A petitioner also may not materially change a petition after its filing.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the RFE response did not include evidence to establish that an advanced degree is required to own and operate a business”
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
The AAO expressly reserved (declined to reach) all three Dhanasar NIW prongs because the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree-professional requirement, applying Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to avoid unnecessary findings. The case also turned on a Katigbak/Izummi material-change issue: the Petitioner tried to recharacterize his proposed occupation from 'truck driver' to 'business owner/operations manager' after filing, which the AAO refused to consider as the operative endeavor.
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)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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