dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and In1n1igration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-O-B-O-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 12, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mathematics teacher and education researcher, 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, and a subsequent motion, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 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 submits additional evidence and a brief asserting that she is eligible for a 
national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. 
Upon de nova 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 G-O-B-0-
(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 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 
.
Matter of G-O-B-0-
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 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 3 The remaining 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. 
A Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicates that she intends to continue teaching mathematics 4 and conducting research 
relating to methods for improving students' academic progress. She states that she has launched "a 
research based collaborative network of professionals" to address the Science, Technology, 
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skills gap in the United States. The Petitioner further 
explains that this collaborative "network is engaged in a global private-public partnership with 
industry, academic and educational institutions, government, and the nonprofit sector through a 
virtual platform" and that her proposed work will focus on nations that are ahead of our country in 
STEM initiatives. The record includes a letter from ____ Chief Executive Officer of 
stating: 
[The Petitioner] uses a real-time index ... of interactive mapping to create 
collaboration for best practices in STEM subjects among peers in the western world, 
that are currently ahead of United States in ranking of STEM related subjects 
(particularly in Mathematics) . . . . The ideas and data are then worked on by [the 
Petitioner] and her research team to improve STEM performances and applications in 
the U.S. Results will be evaluated and published within the industry. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
3 The record reflects that the Petitioner received a Ph.D. in teaching, learning , and culture (May 2015) from 
4 At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a part time mathematics instructor for and 
an adjunct assistant professor at In 2017, she began serving as adjunct 
faculty at and as part time faculty at As 
the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job offer from a 
specific employer. However, we vvill consider information about her current and prospective positions to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
.
Matter of G-O-B-0-
In addition, asserts that the Petitioner's proposed research is aimed at identifying best 
practices that "will form the basis for policy in our education sector." Furthermore, the record 
contains information from the U.S. Department of Education discussing its goal of promoting high 
quality STEM education and explaining the importance of improving instructional quality in 
mathematics. We find that the Petitioner's proposed research aimed at improving U.S. students' 
educational performance in STEM areas has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective impact" of her work. In addition to the information from the U.S. Department of 
Education described above, her evidence includes letters of support from colleagues discussing the 
potential benefits of her research to our country's education system. For instance, . a 
mathematics and science instructional coach at asserts that the Petitioner's 
proposed "work can help create an optimum learning environment by linking mathematics research­
based teaching and classroom management to the needs and interests of students." Furthermore, • 
contends that the Petitioner's research relating to the STEM skills gap could contribute to an 
educational model for governmental and policy experts that "will continuously and prospectively 
benefit the United States." In addition, the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that 
the benefit of her proposed educational research has broader implications for the field, as the results 
are disseminated to others in the field through education journals and conferences. As the Petitioner 
has documented both the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research, we find 
that she meets the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 5 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. 6 The Petitioner 
submitted documentation of her published articles, conference presentations, academic credentials, 
professional memberships, and a travel grant from her alma mater She also offered 
reference letters discussing her academic accomplishments, work experience, and research projects. 7 
With the appeal, the Petitioner provides evidence indicating that she had papers accepted for 
presentation at the 
(April 2018), for the 
5 With regard to the Petitioner's teaching duties at and while these endeavors have substantial merit, the 
record does not establish that such course instruction work would impact the field of education more broadly, as opposed 
to being limited to her students. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of their broader impact, the 
Petitioner 's teaching duties as part of the faculty at and do 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. 
6 As previously noted, the Petitioner's teaching duties do not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework , therefore 
our analysis under this prong will focus on whether she is well positioned to advance her proposed research. 
7 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter of G-O-B-0-
(July 2018), and 
(September 2018). 8 
With respect to her research contributions, the Petitioner asserts that she "has published a lot of 
research work on mathematics for more than ten years." In letters supporting the petition, several 
colleagues discussed the Petitioner's research that focused on understanding and improving students' 
mathematics performance. For example, associate professor in mathematics 
education at 9, discussed the Petitioner's Ph.D. research investigating "college students' 
conceptions of duality." stated: "[The Petitioner] used Action-Process-Object­
Duality framework to evaluate duality concept development. She clearly demonstrated that analysis 
of college students' views of infinity is a perplexing and intricate process. Her dissertation adds to 
the important field of research in STEM education." Likewise, professor of 
mathematics education at asserted that the Petitioner's "dissertation contributes to the field of 
research in mathematics education that has a national value in terms of improving STEM education 
in the country." Although contended that the Petitioner's work "could be used as a 
springboard to further analyze cognitive obstacles in college students' understanding of infinity 
concept," the record does not show that her specific research findings and methods stand to be 
implemented at various colleges or universities. 
In addition, associate professor of psychology at in 
Russia, indicated that the Petitioner's work "introduced a new and novel approach to interpreting 
students' perceptions of infinity as a process as well as an object. I regarded this as a significant 
contribution to the field of mathematics." however, did not offer specific examples 
of how the Petitioner's work has generated positive interest among relevant parties, has been 
implemented by others in the field, or otherwise reflects a record of success in her area of research. 
Furthermore, 
that she "hosted the 
a faculty member of the 
for the 
indicated 
Texas" (2013) and that the Petitioner "received an Outstanding Review for 
her presentation 
further stated that the Petitioner presented her paper, entitled 
at the 
"' 
in 2012. The record 
includes a citation report showing that this article has been cited to eight times, but the Petitioner 
does not offer comparative statistics indicating how often other education researchers are cited, nor 
does the record otherwise demonstrate that her published and presented research constitutes a record 
of success or a level of interest in her work from relevant parties sufficient to meet this prong. 
8 These three conferences post-date the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). Regardless, we do not find that 
presentation of the Petitioner's work alone is sufficient to establish that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
research. 
was a member of the Petitioner's doctoral committee. 
5 
.
Matter of G-O-B-0-
Regarding the Petitioner's professional memberships, she submitted documentation indicating that 
she is a member of the 
and 
Several of these memberships became effective after the Petitioner filed the 
instant petition on July 25, 2016, and therefore this evidence does not show her eligibility under the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Regardless, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's memberships represent a record of 
success in her field or that they are otherwise an indication that she is well positioned to advance 
educational research. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
her graduate studies and university employment. 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. Id. at 890. The Petitioner has not shown 
that her research has been frequently cited by independent scholars or otherwise served as an 
impetus for progress in the field, that it has affected educational strategies at multiple schools or 
universities, or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in the broader academic 
community. Nor does the evidence otherwise demonstrate that her work constitutes a record of 
success or progress in her area of research. As the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, she has not established that she 
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 she is eligible for a waiver due to her research skills 
and accomplishments, the impracticality of labor certification, and because of the urgency of helping 
U.S. students "catch up with countries that are more mathematically advanced." However, as the 
Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor as 
required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she 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 she has not established she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
Matter of G-O-B-0-
as a matter of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-O-B-0-, ID# 2338656 (AAO Mar. 12, 2019)