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 own and operate his own cargo trucking company, providing transportation of materials, equipment, and goods to businesses in various industries.
Field: trucking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, holding he had not shown five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty; the exceptional-ability claim was not resolved and was remanded for the Director to address in the first instance.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“Although we make no findings, the record does not appear to establish national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to work as an entrepreneur in the field of trucking.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner has submitted his academic credentials, certificates, and a job offer letter but did not explain why this evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director found the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor would be beneficial to the United States but did not explain what evidence was considered for this determination.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“This letter only indicates that the Petitioner worked as an auto mechanic for one year and three months.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not appear to establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria provided in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“the Director's decision does not indicate whether this evidence was considered and whether this evidence was sufficient to establish substantial merit and national importance”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“the Director's decision does not indicate whether this evidence was considered and whether this evidence was sufficient to establish substantial merit and national importance”
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
AAO remanded largely due to the Director's own procedural errors: the Director misidentified the Petitioner's proposed endeavor as 'airline pilot' rather than trucking entrepreneur, and failed to explain the basis for denial under any of the three Dhanasar prongs or the exceptional-ability criteria. The AAO withdrew the advanced-degree finding but expressly declined to make findings on exceptional ability or the NIW prongs, instructing the Director to issue a properly reasoned decision on remand.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director misidentified the proposed endeavor as airline pilot instead of trucking entrepreneurship and failed to explain why submitted evidence (business plan, expert letter, credentials) was insufficient under any Dhanasar prong.
Ensure adjudicators and petitioners clearly and consistently identify the actual proposed endeavor; procedural remand results when agency decisions misstate or ignore the endeavor and evidence of record.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · other
mixed
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