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 police investigator in Kazakhstan, proposed to establish and operate a cargo logistics and transportation business in the United States.
Field: cargo logistics and transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner waived exceptional-ability claim; as advanced degree professional, failed to show his post-baccalaureate law-enforcement/legal experience was 'in the specialty' of his proposed cargo logistics/transportation endeavor, since experience letters and other documents did not independently corroborate his claimed connection to traffic-related crimes or the logistics industry.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“does not mention a specialization in 'traffic-related crimes,' 'road safety compliance,' or other work related to the transportation and logistics industry”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not cite to a source for those summaries and appear to be simply repeating the Petitioner's claim”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“do not cite to a source for those summaries and appear to be simply repeating the Petitioner's claim”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“we need not address whether the Petitioner has established that he possesses the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree”
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
AAO expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs because the threshold EB-2 classification failure alone was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues; the case also involved waiver of an initially claimed exceptional-ability basis that the Petitioner did not pursue after the RFE.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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