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 develop and manage a trucking company in the United States, claiming exceptional ability in business.
Field: trucking company management (business/logistics) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner abandoned the advanced-degree claim on appeal and failed to establish exceptional ability, meeting only the membership criterion (E) out of the required three of six categories under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); degree, experience, license/certification, and salary evidence were all found insufficient or not credible.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he has received a degree...relating to his claimed area of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the credibility of the letter is in question, as the employment period contradicts the dates listed in...Employment Book”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- business plan · discounted
“these documents are not supported by evidence that the Petitioner has gained any full-time experience managing the company”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“We are unable to determine whether the Petitioner's earnings are comparably higher than the earnings of others in his field”
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 found the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification (neither advanced degree nor exceptional ability established) and, as a result, expressly declined to reach or analyze the national interest waiver / Dhanasar prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues. Notably, the case caption describes the Petitioner as working 'in the field of construction,' which appears inconsistent with the body's consistent description of a trucking-company endeavor, likely a template/OCR artifact.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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