dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Alternative Medicine

MATTER OF C-G-K-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 10, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an alternative medicine researcher and practitioner, seeks second preference 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and 
national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the 
requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is eligible for a national interest waiver under the 
Dhanasar framework. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification 
requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required 
to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
Matter of C-G-K-
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent 
or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 
will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in 
the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the 
United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer -
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884.1 Dhanasar states that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, 
USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a national interest waiver when the below prongs are 
met. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of 
areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors 
including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in 
related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the 
proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities 
or individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In 
performing this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
2 
.
Matter ofC-G-K-
foreign national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the 
foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, 
even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit 
from the foreign national' s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national' s 
contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, 
the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
The record reflects that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as director of the 
a homeopathic clinical practice in Korea. In addition, he indicates that he was 
concurrently serving as scholarly director of the 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner states: "My proposed field of endeavor ... is the use of homeopathy to the field of 
autism and specifically the link between autism and gastrointestinal dysfunction, skin problems, and 
liver dysfunction." He asserts that he intends to pursue research "to improve the quality of life and 
even reverse the damage of the disease known as autism." The Petitioner further explains that his 
"plans include continuing his research and treatment in these very important and problematic areas 
in the United States." We find that the Petitioner's proposed research aimed at improving treatment 
options for autism and investigating that condition's link to other ailments has substantial merit. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's work satisfies the national importance requirement we look to 
evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. The record includes an article 
entitled "Sickness is Profitable" from , a website that markets yoga, fitness and wellness 
products. This article contends that the U.S. healthcare system "ignores holistic healing," "profits 
more from sickness than health," and "emphasizes drug-based treatment and research," but it does 
not discuss homeopathic research aimed at autism or the broader implications of such research. As 
further documentation of his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact, the Petitioner quotes 
a letter he provided from _____ a specialist of general surgery and chief surgeon at 
stating: 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The Petitioner presented an academic credentials evaluation indicating that his degree from in Korea is 
the foreign equivalent of "a Doctor of Medicine Degree from an accredited college or university in the United States." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). 
3 
.
Matter ofC-G-K-
I saw all progressions and the great result [the Petitioner] accomplished from the first 
treatment and perfect cure of the various patient of incurable diseases which he was 
serving in hospital .... I saw [the Petitioner] was treating mental disease, 
skin disease (Atopy, Psoriasis), chronic pain, and, furthermore, beside him I could see 
directly he was remarkably contributing to the improvement of partial function ... of 
the patient who had been suffering with Lou Gehrig Disease for 7~8 year [sic]. 
The above statements from relate to the Petitioner's past clinical work in Korea rather than 
his proposed U.S. endeavor to conduct homeopathic research aimed at autism and its link to other 
medical conditions. With respect to the Petitioner's proposed care and treatment of patients, while 
this endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not establish that his clinical work would impact 
the homeopathic medicine field and healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to 
the patients he serves. Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the 
Petitioner's clinical work treating patients does not meet the "national importance" element of the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's 
teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not 
impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Accordingly, statements are not sufficient to 
demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner's appeal brief references a 2011 study on homeopathy published by 
Switzerland's government that he claims affirms the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment and its 
cost-effectiveness. He also references information from 
indicating that "only 2.1 %" of the U.S. population uses homeopathy. The record, 
however, does not include a copy of the aforementioned reports to corroborate this infonnation. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how these reports demonstrate that his 
proposed research stands to advance U.S. healthcare interests or to otherwise have broader 
implications consistent with a finding of national imp01iance. 
The relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or cause for which the individual 
will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we noted that "[a]n undertaking may 
have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a 
particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed 
area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890.4 Here, the 
record does not sufficiently explain or document the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's 
4 In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner stated: "I also intend to produce and distribute 
homeopathic remedies in the United States to American and world-wide customer. This will create American jobs, because I 
will need American workers to help with the production, bottling, marketing, and sale and distribution of the products." The 
Petitioner, however, has not shown that the level of projected statfmg for his business is sufficient to support a finding that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance based on its potential to employ U.S. workers. Regardless, the Petitioner's appeal 
focuses on his proposed research and does not provide arguments or evidence addressing the issue of job creation. 
4 
.
Matter ofC-G-K-
specific proposed endeavor to support a finding that it has national importance. Accordingly, he has 
not met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
documentation of his academic credentials, physician license, professional memberships, medical 
training, conference presentations, and book entitled Atopy, Finding Answer from European 
Medicine.5 He also submitted his curriculum vitae, a "Research and Business Plan," a certificate of 
business registration (Korea), and three reference letters from colleagues in Korea discussing his 
research experience and projects.6 
The Petitioner contends that he has devoted his "career to the study of homeopathy" and that he is "a 
pioneer in the field." In addition to the aforementioned book, the Petitioner asserts that he has 
authored three others relating to homeopathy or autism, but the record does not include evidence to 
corroborate his claim. 7 Furthermore, the Petitioner maintains that he has "worked with and will 
continue to work with the top homeopathic researchers and physicians in the United States. . . . My 
connection with other top researchers in the field attests to the fact that I am well positioned to 
advance my field once I get to the United States." The record, however, does not include any letters 
of support from researchers, physicians, potential customers, users, or investors in the United States 
expressing their interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to conduct homeopathic research 
aimed at autism and its link to other medical conditions. 
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's colleagues in Korea discussed his homeopathic 
treatment methods. While complimentary of the Petitioner's work, their uncorroborated statements 
are not sufficient to support his claim that his "publications are used by doctors as well as 
laypersons, because they provide a foundational knowledge set for homeopathy." For example, 
a neurosurgery specialist with the 
asserts that the Petitioner's " : among top tier selling books 
related to t" and that "[a]ll members of the community are 
administering this treatment." The record, however, does not include sales figures from the book's 
publisher or other evidence to corroborate these claims. In addition, a professor 
in the department of internal medicine at in Korea, 
contends that the Petitioner's "published books are currently used by doctors and even ordinary 
5 The documentation relating to this book includes only its cover page and a brief summary. The book's International 
Standard Book Number (ISBN) (a unique numeric commercial book identifier) was not included in the submitted 
documentation. 
6 Two of these three letters did not include an address, a telephone number, or any other information through which the 
references can be contacted. The lack of proper contact information as a means for verifying the information in the 
references' letters diminishes the probative value of their statements. 
7 The Petitioner also indicates that he has "translated books from English into Korean so that the Korean population can enjoy 
learning from the international community about homeopathic breakthroughs." The record contains documentation of these 
translated books which were authored by ___ and 
5 
Matter ofC-G-K-
people studying the Homeopathy as a textbook in Korea," but the record does not adequately 
document utilization of his publications or methodologies at medical centers, homeopathic clinics, or 
educational institutions, or show how they otherwise render him well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his medical career and worked on homeopathic treatment methods for various diseases. While we 
recognize that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be 
accepted for publication, presentation, funding, or academic credit, not every individual who has 
performed medical studies will be found to be well positioned to advance his or her proposed 
research. Rather, we examine the factors set forth in Dhanasar to determine whether, for instance, 
the individual's progress towards achieving the goals of the proposed research, record of success in 
similar efforts, or generation of interest among relevant parties supports such a finding. Id. at 890. 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his research has been frequently cited by independent 
researchers or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the field, that it has affected treatment 
methods outside of the institutions where he has worked, or that it has generated substantial positive 
discourse in the broader medical community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his 
work constitutes a record of success or progress in his area of research. 
The evidence offered in the present matter is insufficient to show that the Petitioner's medical 
research constitutes a record of success or progress in his field, or has garnered degree of interest in 
his work from relevant parties, that would rise to the level of rendering him well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor aimed at improving treatment options for autism and investigating that 
condition's link to other ailments. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, he has not established that he satisfies the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. Here, the Petitioner claims that he is eligible for a waiver due to his expertise in 
homeopathy and the impracticality of labor certification, and because his work will advance the 
medical field and improve Americans' healthcare. However, as the Petitioner has not adequately 
documented the national importance of his endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, or established that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by 
the second prong, he is not eligible for a national interest waiver and further discussion of the 
balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose. 
(i 
Matter ofC-G-K-
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework, 
we find that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-G-K-, ID# 1501047 (AAO Sept. 10, 2018)