Date of Decision: October 24, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Spinal Treatment (Surgical and Non-Surgical)
Petitioner Information
Profession: Physician
Field: Spinal Treatment (Surgical and Non-Surgical)
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work focuses on developing new techniques for surgical and non-surgical treatment of the spine, which holds substantial merit.
The potential impact of reducing healthcare costs and improving patient outcomes in spinal treatment demonstrates national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner’s qualifications, while impressive, did not sufficiently demonstrate a significant impact or widespread recognition in the medical community.
The evidence provided did not establish a clear record of success or substantial interest in the Petitioner’s research and techniques from relevant parties.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner proposed practicing and developing new techniques for the treatment of back pain, including both surgical and non-surgical methods, and planned to set up a hospital in the United States.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The Petitioner’s work aims to reduce the socio-economic burden of spinal surgery by promoting non-surgical treatments, which can be beneficial to both patients and the healthcare system.
Letters from colleagues highlighted the potential of the Petitioner’s techniques to improve medical outcomes and reduce recovery times, thus contributing to the national interest.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided letters from orthopedic clinicians and faculty, which discussed the potential benefits of his techniques.
Evidence included published research, professional memberships, and reference letters attesting to his expertise in spinal treatments.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The evidence did not demonstrate the broader impact of the Petitioner’s clinical work beyond his immediate practice.
The plan to set up a hospital in the United States lacked detailed information regarding its specific impact and feasibility.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
Letters discussed the Petitioner’s innovative techniques but did not provide concrete examples of their broader implementation or success.
Business Plan:
Not applicable.
Advisory Letter:
Letters from medical professionals supported the Petitioner’s expertise but lacked specific details on how his work had been adopted or recognized broadly.
Any Other Supporting Documentation:
Additional documents included an academic credentials evaluation and media coverage, though translations and detailed information were lacking.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner did not establish that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and thus did not meet the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.
Reasoning:
The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a record of success or substantial interest from relevant parties, nor did it show the broader impact of the Petitioner’s proposed work.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: I-K-C-
Document Name: OCT242017_01B5203.pdf
