dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Plastic Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-C-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 26,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a plastic surgeon, 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 the 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 ol 
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 otTer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and argues that he is eligible for a 
national interest waiver due to his work aimed at developing new techniques in the areas of breast 
augmentation, rhinoplasty, and ophthalmoplasty. In May 2017, we issued a request for evidence 
(RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide evidence satisfying the three-part framework set forth in 
Dhanasar. In response, the Petitioner provides further evidence and 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. 
Matter of H-C-C-
Section 203(b) ofthe Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(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'l 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 recently 
set forth a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. See 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 
1 
In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department()[ 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (NYSD07). 
2 
.
Matter of H-C-C-
performing this analysis, US CIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the 
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? 
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 whet~r 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 Petitioner stated that he is a "researcher in the field of cosmetic surgery" and that his "target 
employment is in the field of cosmetic and reconstruction plastic surgery." At the time of tiling, he 
was serving as the chief executive officer and director of the in Korea. 
In addition, he was working as "a visiting professor at both and 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance ofthe Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicates that he seeks to perform plastic surgery procedures on U.S. patients and to 
share his surgical innovations with other U.S. practitioners. He states that his research "is directed 
toward improving techniques and processes ... in not only cosmetic plastic surgery cases, but in 
medically necessary cases." The Petitioner further attests that his "achievements in research advance 
broad interests related to the application of plastic surgery techniques." He also contends that his 
innovative methods "are helping to improve not only cosmetic but reconstructive plastic surgery 
techniques, as well as minimize suffering from these techniques." We find that the Petitioner's 
proposed work assisting patients as a clinician and researcher in plastic surgery has substantial merit. 
To evaluate whether the Petitioner's work satisfies the national importance requirement, we 
requested evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his work. In response, he 
maintains that "he will continue to make major innovations and improvements to the [plastic 
surgery] field in the U.S." His response includes a "Personal Statement" addressing his "future 
research plans" involving studies and research concerning facial cosmetic surgery. In addition, the 
Petitioner provides letters from surgical faculty discussing his proposed research aimed at plastic 
2 . 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91 , for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 
The Petitioner provided graduation certificates from the and stating that he 
received a Master of Medicine ( 1996) and a Doctor of Philosophy (2000). In response to our RFE, he offers an academic 
credentials evaluation indicating that his degrees are "the equivalent of a Master of Science degree in Medical Science 
and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Anatomy from an accredited institution of higher education in the United States." 
3 
.
Matter of H-C-C-
surgery improvements and its potential benefit to our nation's healthcare system. For example, 
an associate professor in the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at 
in Korea, asserted that the Petitioner's innovative surgical 
techniques "will bring significant relief to many American patients." The record establishes that the 
proposed benefit of his research has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in 
the field through medical journals and conferences. Accordingly, we find the evidence sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed research to improve plastic surgery techniques is of 
national importance. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed research, he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framevv'ork. 4 . 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner's qualifications. 5 
The Petitioner submitted documentation of his published work, membership in the 
medical certifications, appreciation awards, and 
academic credentials. He also offered reference letters from four colleagues in Korea discussing his 
surgical experience and research projects. In response to our RFE, the Petitioner provided an 
academic credentials evaluation, additional professional memberships, a photograph from a 
conference presentation, and another reference letter. 
The Petitioner maintains that his work "has already resulted in several major contributions that have 
significantly benefited his field" and "has already had a significant impact that has benefited 
numerous facets of his industry." In letters supporting the petition, surgical faculty discussed the 
Petitioner's development of several plastic surgery methods. For example, professor in the 
department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at in Korea, 
indicated that the Petitioner "developed a brilliant new 
method of breast augmentation surgery" that 
involves "inserting an endoscope through the navel and inserting breast prostheses." further 
noted that the advantages of the Petitioner's method include no outward scarring and eliminating the 
need for insertion of a suction pipe during surgery. In addition, director of the 
in Korea, explained that the Petitioner "developed a new technique of breast 
augmentation" involving transplantation of "analogous fat tissue to the breast, instead of using 
common method of inserting breast implant." asserted that this technique offers advantages 
such as speedy surgery and painless recovery. The record does not include supporting 
documentation to establish 
that the Petitioner was responsible for developing the claimed techniques. 
4 Unlike his proposed research, the Petitioner has not established that his clinical work would impact the plastic surgery 
field 
and healthcare industry more broadly, as opposed to being limited to the patients he serves. Accordingly, without 
sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's clinical work as a plastic surgeon does not alone 
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. /d. at 893. 
5 
As noted above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed clinical activities as a plastic surgeon meet the 
"national importance" element of the Dhanasar framework's first prong. Accordingly, we will limit our analysis under 
this prong to his proposed research. ' 
4 
.
Matter of H-C-C-
Regardless, while and claimed that the Petitioner's methods will encourage 
American patients to undergo mammoplasty, they did not offer specific examples of how his 
techniques have generated positive interest among relevant parties, have been implemented in other 
surgical clinics, or otherwise reflect a record of success in his area of research. 
Furthermore, professor in the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at 
in Korea, stated that the Petitioner has "been practicing 
ophthalmoplasty through a new method, 'shortening of aponeurosis of levator muscle' on the basis 
of his extensive experience in ptosis surgery." added that this method avoids scarring, 
offers a natural look, does not require a thigh muscle autograft procedure, and prevents movement 
disorder of the lower body. He did not identify any surgical centers that have adopted the technique 
nor does the record include supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner developed it. 
Lastly, an associate professor in the department of biomedical engineering at 
contends that the Petitioner "is an outstanding surgeon who has extensive 
surgical experiences" and that "his plastic and reconstructive surgery may affect the U.S. commerce 
[sic] significantly." 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his medical career. 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 original research 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. !d. at 890. The Petitioner has not shown that his plastic surgery . research has been 
frequently cited by other medical professionals or otherwise served as an impetus for progress in the 
field, that it has affected clinical practice, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the 
broader medical community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that his work otherwise 
constitutes a record of success in his area of research. 
With respect to the Petitioner's ·professional memberships, his response to our RFE includes a 
certificate from the reflecting that he became an 
international member in March 2015. In addition, he provides documentation of his 2016 
membership in the Lastly, he offers a 
photograph reflecting that he presented his work at a meeting in 2016. However, the 
Petitioner has not documented the reputation of the aforementioned societies or offered other 
evidence demonstrating that his memberships render him well positioned to advance his proposed 
research endeavor. Further, he has not demonstrated that his memberships required a record of 
success in his field, that his presentation garnered substantial interest, or that he is otherwise 
well positioned to advance plastic surgery research. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information or evidence regarding how he 
is positioned to carry out and fund his proposed research in the United States. As the Petitioner is 
5 
Matter of H-C-C-
applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, he need not have a job offer from a specific 
employer. However, information about the nature of the proposed endeavor, such as the capacity in 
which he will work, is necessary for us to evaluate whether the Petitioner is well positioned to advance 
the endeavor. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a record of success or progress in his field, or a degree of 
interest in his work from relevant parties, that rise to the level of rendering him well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor of improving cosmetic and reconstructive plastic surgery techniques. 
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 accomplishments that 
are greater than those of his peers. However, as the Petitioner has not established that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed endeavor as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, 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. 
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 eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-C-C-, ID# 433104 (AAO July 26, 2017) 
6