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 proposed to own and operate a luxury private transportation (chauffeur) business in the United States, though on appeal he asserted instead that his field was agriculture.
Field: luxury private transportation / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 exceptional ability classification: presented inconsistent/shifting occupational field claims (transportation vs. agriculture), an unauthenticated foreign degree issued before that degree type existed, and insufficient evidence for at least three of six regulatory criteria (education, experience letters, license/certification, salary, membership, recognition).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Bakalavr Diplomi degree was first awarded in Uzbekistan in 2000, a year after the Petitioner's diploma was issued”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter did not provide the Petitioner's dates of employment, indicate whether the employment was full-time, or give specific details”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“Since the Petitioner did not address this issue with specificity on appeal, we deem the issue waived”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the appeal brief presents a new set of facts regarding the occupation in which the Petitioner seeks employment”
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's on-appeal shift in claimed occupational field from luxury transportation to agriculture constituted an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Katigbak, and treated the entire EB-2 exceptional-ability threshold as dispositive, expressly declining to reach any NIW/Dhanasar prong analysis (all three prongs unanalyzed).
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
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