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 operate a trucking company specializing in the safe and secure transportation of expensive and rare cars, vehicle prototypes, oversized and heavy vehicles, and specialized equipment.
Field: trucking / specialized vehicle transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
In the prior appellate decision, AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that Petitioner established advanced degree status because the record lacked a certified English translation of educational documents; however, this was not the basis of dismissal since Petitioner was not on notice of the issue, and it was not revisited on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record did not explain how the business would impact the overall field more broadly beyond its clients on the level of national importance”
“the plan did not explain how these forecasts were calculated or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“the record did not contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections”
“the record did not illustrate how creating 50 jobs and generating profits as projected in the business plan would have substantial positive economic effects on the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record did not contain evidence to support the business plan's financial projections”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any evidence”
AAO decision text
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO's prior decision flagged an unresolved threshold issue (lack of certified translation of educational credentials) but expressly declined to rely on it because Petitioner lacked notice; this issue was not revisited on motion. The motion to reopen was dismissed for failure to submit any new facts or evidence, and the motion to reconsider was dismissed because Petitioner merely reasserted eligibility without identifying legal or policy error.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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