dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Educational Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-A-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 27,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a scholar in the field of educational technology, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is normally attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
established her eligibility as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that record demonstrates 
her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate his or her 
qualification for the underlying visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification 
normally 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 states, in pertinent part: 
(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 
Matter of E-A-H-
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. ... the 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.[1] 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national 
interest by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the 
United States economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she seeks 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must 
establish that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner's assurance 
that the beneficiary will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish 
prospective national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather, a petitioner must justify projections of future 
benefit to the national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievement with some 
degree of influence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n.6. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, and that 
her proposed work in the field of educational technology has substantial intrinsic merit. The two 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision ofthe Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-H-
findings at issue in this matter are (1) whether the Petitioner established that the benefits of such 
work are national in scope as required under the second prong of the NYSDOT national interest 
waiver analysis, and (2) whether she demonstrated that her past record of achievement is sufficient 
to meet the third prong. 
At the time of filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner was a 
doctoral student in educational leadership at 
having previously earned a bachelor's degree in communication studies (digital media) and a 
master's degree in education (educational technology). The record reflects that the Petitioner had 
also worked in the at as an · 
information technology consultant for faculty members. The Petitioner did not specifically identify 
her intended occupation or endeavor on the Form I-140 or in her initial evidence. 
Accompanying the Form I-140, the Petitioner submitted letters from colleagues and faculty members 
at multiple 
institutions attesting to her expertise and dedication and describing various projects on 
which she had worked.2 For instance, president and professor at 
stated that the Petitioner worked on several educational 
technology projects for his school in exchange programs with including designing an 
interactive online course called In addition, he indicated 
that she had helped a colleague, to showcase interactive exercises, 
group projects, and tests online using authoring tools, and that this approach was "recognized as an 
outstanding teaching tool and course preparation model" and adopted by the 
for its own international exchange courses with In a separate letter, 
discussed the high quality of the Petitioner's work on that project and stated that "[ s ]he 
has the unique capability to not only attract faculty in developing online instructional support for 
their courses and creating multimedia c:}assroom presentations but also to give advice based on her 
life and educational experience." 
an art professor at indicated that the Petitioner had assisted her with several 
projects, including the design of a well-received educational website for 
in France. In addition, described a 
collaboration between herself, the Petitioner, and from the 
She stated that they used a software called 
to initiate projects in which students created websites to follow their progression in an art 
course, and that they presented this work at the 
She also maintained that the project "has been recognized many times as an outstanding 
teaching and learning model; it was most recently recognized at the 
at 
Another prqfessor, indicated that the Petitioner has helped her to create 
several hybrid and web-only religious studies courses. Beyond praising the Petitioner's expertise 
2 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-H-
and character, she stated: "All of my classes are global in scope. Consequently, [the Petitioner's] 
international background allowed her to contribute invaluable material that enhanced the content of 
my global courses." In addition, adjunct professor at attested that the 
Petitioner's help in using technology to enhance her course "allowed me to transform my class, triple 
student population, and support goals of offering the highest quality education to their 
students." She further indicated that the Petitioner "was awarded the m 
2011 in recognition of her commitment and contributions to the quality of life at 
In addition to reference letters, the Petitioner's initial submission included a conference abstract for a 
that she co-authored entitled 
The document did not indicate at which conference the paper was 
presented, nor did the Petitioner submit documentation regarding the conference presentation 
mentioned in letter as discussed above. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for additional documentation to establish 
eligibility under the analysis set forth in NYSDOT. The Petitioner was requested to submit further 
information and evidence about her proposed employment including letters from current or 
prospective employers, employment contracts, or a statement detailing her plans for continuing her 
work, as well as evidence that the benefits of the proposed work are national in scope. In addition, 
the Director requested documentation that the Petitioner has a past record of specific prior 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a statement regarding her career plans after 
completion of her Ph.D. She indicated her intent "to work as an administrator, in a technology 
related field, and a faculty member coordinating technology services, as well as teaching assigned 
classes helping educational stakeholders to fulfill their maximum potential." She also expressed her 
goal to "develop educational stakeholders' technology skills with keen awareness of international 
and intercultural diversity." The Petitioner provided samples of job postings to demonstrate the 
types of positions that she might pursue. The postings included: a "Student Success and Support 
Program Faculty Coordinator" for ·a "Director, Curriculum 
Program Development" for a "Director of Field Services 
and Professional Development Schools & Assistant/ Associate Professor of Education" for 
a "Course Mentor, Curriculum and Instruction" for 
and "Faculty - Teacher Education (Curriculum & Instruction)" for 
Regarding her past influence, the Petitioner stated that her "unique educational technology 
instructions have contributed to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), 
intercultural competency, and the arts in the past." She also indicated that her past projects "have 
contributed to faculty and students successes nationally." The Petitioner submitted additional letters 
that detailed her work developing interactive technologies for specific university courses and 
distance learning programs. professor at and 
in Brazil, described how the Petitioner helped him to create a "mathematics trail map," 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-H-
accessible from any technology device, which has been used by his students in several countries. 
associate dean of the at discussed the 
Petitioner's work for the college as a graduate level student assistant. She stated that, "[ o ]n a daily 
basis, [the Petitioner] collaborates with faculty members who desire to put courses and materials into 
an online format" and that she also contributes to process activities for the department and 
organizational activities "at the college level." 
In denying the Form I-140, the Director found 
that the Petitioner had not the second prong of the 
NYSDOT analysis. He stated that USCIS "cannot conclude that any benefits would be national in 
scope since the [P]etitioner has failed to provide any probative evidence that [her] proposed 
employment is realistic and obtainable." He noted that the Petitioner had not established "that she is 
eligible, qualified, or likely to be hired for any of the job postings provided." The Director further 
found the record insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner had achieved a degree of influence on 
the field as a whole under the third prong of NYSDOT. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that NYSDOT listed a teacher as an example of a meritorious 
occupation that lacks national scope. See id. at 217, n.3. However, she notes that much of her work 
"uses the Internet, which surely reaches more people in more places than that single elementary 
school teacher." The Petitioner also contends that the Director erred in analyzing her job prospects, 
as she seeks a waiver of the job offer requirement. She nevertheless indicates that she has received 
"several actual job offers." She provides evidence that she has been offered a contractor position at 
and she states in an accompanying email that she will design instructions to teach 
marketing personnel around the world to promote its products. In addition, she submits a 
letter from indicating its desire to hire the Petitioner to design programs, 
develop curriculum, and assist the school's international students in their educational pursuits. The 
letter indicates that there are currently 80 students in the international students "and that number will 
continue to grow." Finally, the Petitioner presents a letter from stating that the company 
intends to hire her as a marketing consultant to support its expansion to Africa. 
With regard to the third prong of the NYSDOT analysis, the Petitioner indicates that the record 
demonstrates that her work has been implemented "around the world." She also contends that 
educational technology is a new, "cutting-edge" field, and as such, it 
takes relatively few individuals 
adopting her work to constitute widespread adoption within the field. She contrasts a "mature 
industry" such as automobile manufacturing , in which widespread adoption "would mean most car 
manufacture[r]s had adopted the person's work." 
As evidence of her ' online course designs, the Petitioner submits 
screenshots of some of her projects. In addition, she provides a letter from · a 
student at "the in Germany who took part in an "intercultural short 
course" at He indicates that he works for an American company, and that the course 
has been very helpful in his interactions with colleagues nationally and internationally. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of E~A-H-
A. National Scope 
Under the second prong of the NYSDOT analysis , the relevant question is not whether a petitioner is 
likely to find employment in her intended occupation, but whether the benefits of the proposed 
occupation are national in scope. See id. at 218. Accordingly , as stated by the Petitioner, the 
Director was incorrect to focus on the attainability of her job prospects in his analysis of this prong . 
We find the record insufficient , however , to demonstrate the national scope of the Petitioner 's 
proposed work. 
As discussed above, the evidence regarding the Petitioner's intended work includes the statement 
about her future plans submitted in response to the RFE, the sample job postings showing the types 
of positions she might seek, and the job offer letters submitted on appeal. This evidence indicates 
that the Petitioner intends to develop educational technologies that will be used by an individual 
institution or organization. The Petitioner has emphasized that because the courses and websites she 
develops are on the Internet , they can be used by students around the world. However , the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the benefits of her work will extend beyond the set population of facult y 
and students associated with a single institution . Regardless of the location of the individuals 
served, we do not find this range of benefit satisfies the "national scope" requirement as described in 
NYSDOT. The finding of national scope in that case was based on the determination that the 
beneficiary's bridge maintenance and engineering work, while limited to a particular region, served 
the interests of many regions of the country as part of the national transportation system. !d. at 21 7. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work will similarly offer benefits at a national level. 
B. Influence on the Field 
We find that the Petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient influence on her field to satisfy the third 
prong of the NYSDOT analysis. As stated above , that prong requires a petitioner to demonstrate that 
he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available 
U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. To do this, a petitioner must establish "a past 
history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." !d. at 
219, n. 6. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has developed online courses , websites , and interactive 
activities that have been used by faculty members at and at affiliated institutions .3 While the 
Petitioner contends on appeal that the field of educational technology is so new that this 
implementation constitutes a degree of influence on the field as a whole, she has not provided 
sufficient documentation to support that statement. Statements made without supporting 
documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter o.fTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
3 The submitted reference letters indicate that each of the Petit ioner 's projects was for an institution related to or 
for a program involv ing a faculty member . 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-A-H-
Beyond the Petitioner's work on specific projects, her reference letters indicate that she has 
disseminated her work through presentation at conferences, but she did not provide evidence 
showing that her presentations have been widely cited or have otherwise been considered influential 
in her field. In addition, the letter from stated that the Petitioner's work "has been 
recognized many times" as outstanding, including at a symposium, and the letter from 
maintained that she received the for her work at 
However, the Petitioner did not submit documentation regarding the referenced recognition of her 
work, nor did she establish that such recognition would be indicative of having had a degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. For the reasons discussed above, we find the record insufficient to 
establish that the Petitioner has satisfied the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest waiver 
analysis. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner in 
this case has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the benefits of the proposed 
work are national in scope or that she has a past record of demonstrable achievement with some 
degree of influence on the field as a whole. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement will be in the national interest of the United States. Accordingly, 
the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-A-H-, ID# 17247 (AAO May 27, 2016)