Date of Decision: July 26, 2017
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Plastic Surgery
Petitioner Information
Profession: Plastic Surgeon
Field: Cosmetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery
Nationality: [Not Specified]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
The Petitioner possesses a Master of Medicine and a Doctor of Philosophy in Anatomy, equivalent to advanced degrees in the U.S.
The Petitioner’s research and clinical work have substantial merit and national importance.
Criteria Not Met:
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.
The Petitioner did not provide enough evidence to show that waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor:
The Petitioner seeks to perform plastic surgery procedures and share his surgical innovations with other practitioners in the United States. His work aims to improve techniques in breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, and ophthalmoplasty, with a focus on both cosmetic and medically necessary procedures.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
The proposed endeavor has substantial merit, as it involves significant advancements in plastic surgery techniques that can improve patient outcomes and reduce recovery times. The Petitioner’s work in this field has potential national importance due to its implications for the broader healthcare system.
Supporting Evidence:
The Petitioner provided graduation certificates, an academic credentials evaluation, published research, reference letters from colleagues, and documentation of professional memberships. Despite this, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a record of success or broad interest in his techniques among the medical community.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor:
The primary issue was not inconsistencies but rather the lack of substantial evidence showing that the Petitioner’s techniques have been adopted or recognized widely within the U.S. medical community. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation to support the claim that the Petitioner developed certain innovative techniques.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent: Not applicable.
Business Plan: Not applicable.
Advisory Letter: Reference letters from surgical faculty and colleagues were provided but lacked detailed supporting evidence.
Any other supporting documentation: Professional memberships, conference presentations, and additional credentials were submitted but did not demonstrate a strong impact on the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The Petitioner did not meet the requirement of demonstrating that he is well-positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. While his qualifications and proposed research have merit, the lack of substantial evidence showing a record of success, broad adoption, or significant impact of his techniques within the U.S. medical community was a critical factor. Consequently, the Petitioner did not establish that waiving the job offer requirement would be beneficial to the United States.
Download the Full Petition Review Here
In Re: H-C-C-, JUL262017_01B5203.pdf
