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 founder, owner, and CEO of a freight transportation/trucking and logistics business in the United States, aiming to enhance the standard of trucking and logistics services.
Field: freight transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director found 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria met (A, C, E), but the AAO withdrew all three findings: the degree (mathematics) did not relate to the freight transportation endeavor, the CDL and OOIDA membership were dated after the petition filing date and thus constituted a new set of facts, and the CDL/membership also failed to show they were required for or related to the claimed occupation (CEO). The salary criterion (D) was also unmet. Because fewer than three criteria were satisfied, the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, and the AAO did not reach the NIW (Dhanasar) prongs.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not establish how a bachelor's degree in mathematics relates to this business endeavor.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Because the Petitioner's CDL is dated after the petition filing date, it presents a new set of facts that do not establish eligibility.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“because the Petitioner's membership in the OOIDA is dated "10/21," after the petition filing date, it presents a new set of facts”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not indicate that the Petitioner's duties would include operating a vehicle that would require a CDL.”
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 case turned entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability determination under Kazarian; the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on three criteria (degree, license, membership) because the CDL and OOIDA membership post-dated the petition filing date, applying the material-change/after-acquired-facts doctrine from Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. and Matter of Izummi. The AAO expressly declined to reach any Dhanasar/NIW prong analysis, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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