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 in the trucking industry, eventually owning and operating his own trucking company engaged in interstate transportation, later recharacterized as a 'transportation manager' role.
Field: transportation management / trucking industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): his foreign engineering degree was not shown to relate to a specified area of exceptional ability (criterion A); employer letters did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the claimed occupation of 'transportation manager' (criterion B); his CDL was issued after the filing date and was not shown to be required for the occupation (criterion C); and his claimed $80,000 salary was not shown to demonstrate exceptional ability given the ambiguity of the endeavor and his actual reported income of $9,552 (criterion D). Because the threshold exceptional-ability showing failed, the AAO declined to reach the national interest waiver (Dhanasar) analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not establish how the Petitioner's foreign degree in engineering relates to the area of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not describe the duties the Petitioner performed for his employers”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's CDL is dated after the petition filing date, it presents a new set of facts that may not establish eligibility”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not establish how an income of $80,000 may demonstrate exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reasserts, verbatim, his assertion in response to the Director's RFE”
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 Petitioner attempted to change his stated occupation from 'entrepreneur' to 'transportation manager' via a one-page I-140 excerpt submitted in RFE response, and his CDL was issued after the filing date; the AAO rejected both as impermissible attempts to conform a deficient petition to a new set of facts under Matter of Izummi and Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. Because the threshold exceptional-ability showing failed, the AAO expressly reserved judgment on the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. 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)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Section 291 of the Act
- 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