dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Educational Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8468549 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 27, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an instructional technologist, 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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 documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver. 
In these 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. 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: 
(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 ofjob 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 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, 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. 
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 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 
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) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
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. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 4 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. 
After receivin his Ph.D. the Petitioner worked as a research assistant and online facilitator atD 
Universit nil n ary 2014. Since January 
2014, the Petitioner has been employed as a program analyst wit~ ____ __.. 5 As outlined below, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated eligibility for a national 
interest waiver under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that he intends "to work in the field of educational technology as an 
instructional technologist with teaching assignments for curriculum and instructional design courses 
and professional training programs." He explains that "[i]nstructional design is the process by which 
learning products and experiences are designed, developed, and delivered. These learning products 
include online courses, instructional manuals, video tutorials, and learning simulations." The 
Petitioner further stated that he plans "to collaborate with faculty, staff: and public interest 
stakeholders to design, develop, and implement blended and online courses and/or training modules." 
In addition, he asserted that his undertaking involves "teaching, research, academic scholarship, and 
creative activity, as well as "service to the university, instructional technology profession, and the 
greater community." 
The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner's proposed work involving 
instructional design and research has substantial merit and national importance. For example, the 
record includes a letter frortj I professor of social medicine atl I asserting that 
the Petitioner's undertaking stands "to contribute to the development of a strong educational system." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research 
has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through professional 
journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed research and instructional design work, he has established that he meets 
the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 6 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these thrr prolgs. 
4 The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from University in August 2012. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we will consider information about his position to illustrate the capacity in which he intends 
to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework. 
6 With respect to the Petitioner's proposed work as a teacher at his university, while this endeavor has substantial merit, 
3 
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 curriculum vitae, academic credentials, membership in the Association for the 
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), scholarly articles, peer review activity, and 
experience as a facilitator forl Is 'I I' course. 7 The Petitioner also 
offered two examples of articles that cited to his published and presented work, and letters of support 
discussing his projects atOUniversity. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that his multiple graduate degrees, professional memberships, 
scholarly research contributions, published and presented work, and research experience in the 
academic field demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. He also 
asserts that while the recommendation letters he provided are limited to his professional acquaintances 
aC7University, his references are individuals "with extensive research experience in teaching and 
academic research." For the reasons discussed below, the record supports the Director's determination 
that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor under Dhanasar's second prong. 
In letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner's references discussed his work atD University. 8 
For example, regarding the Petitioner's work involving integration of internet and computer 
technologies in instruction and learning,! I technolo coordinator a Universit , stated 
that the Petitioner authored a dissertation entitled " 
~---------~".__ __ _____. indicated that the Petitioner's work explained "how instructors 
could foster a culture of learning where students regard themselves as contributors to their own 
learning and that of the community." Likewise] I, professor of educational studies at 
I !University, asserted that the Petitioner's dissertation "advances our understanding of how online 
learning can be tailored to the specific needs of learnersl" "has been widely distributed," and "is part 
of an ongoing collaboration." I I and~----'· however, did not provide specific examples 
indicating that the Petitioner's work has affected online learning practices at multiple universities or 
otherwise constitutes a record of success in the academic field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research relating to global health initiatives and the interprofessional 
education community,~-----------' assistant director for Prospect Research and 
Mana ement atc=JUniversit stated that the Petitioner resented his paper, entitled "I I 
' at the American Association ~o_f_C_o_l_le_g_e_s_a_n_d_O_st-e-op_a_t_h-ic_M_e_d-ic_i_n_e_a_n_n_u-al_c_o_n_f_e_re_n_c_e_i_n_2_0_1_6 ___ Wh____,ilel I noted 
the record does not establish that his instructional work stands to impact the field of educational technology more broadly, 
as opposed to being limited to his students. Accordingly, without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, 
the Petitioner's instructional work 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. 
7 The record includr~I ~~ syllabi listing eight facilitators for her February 2013 course and ten facilitators for her 
April 2013 course. 
8 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
that the Petitioner's work focused "on the correlation betwee~ I participation 
in global health programs and their choice of medical specialty and location of their medical practice," 
she did not explain how his findings have been implemented, utilized, or applauded by others in the 
field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's instructional technolo work I I asserted that he "played a significant 
role in development and implementation" of her course, but the record 
does not show that this work stands to be utilized beyond University.~_~forther indicated 
that the Petitioner "worked closely with me, as the content expert, and offered to support other 
instructors on various ways that online environment tools are deployed to enhance different teaching 
methods." She did not offer examples of how the Petitioner's work has influenced the educational 
technology field, has served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or 
otherwise represents a record of success or progress rendering him well positioned to advance his 
proposed endeavor. 
As it relates to the citation of the Petitioner's work, he provided documentation of two articles citing 
to his published and presented work. The record, however, does not include comparative statistics 
indicating how often others in his field are cited, nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that 
the number of citations received by his publications and presentations reflects a level of interest in his 
work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar' s second prong. 
Regarding his peer review activity, the Petitioner presented webpages from AACE listing him among 
more than 90 individuals who serve as editorial review board members for International Journal on 
£-Learning and among more than 120 individuals who serve as "Program Committee Members." In 
addition he sub:itted a February 2010 email asking him tj provide review comments for J I I _ _ The record, however, does not include 
documentation of the reviews he completed for AACE and thd I The Petitioner 
also offered a May 2016 email thanking him for serving on a peer review panel for the American 
Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting in 2016. Furthermore, he P.rovided 
"Review Pa er" assi nments from the "AACE Publish S stem" ortal for two a ers entitled 
"and 
'---------------------------------~ 
."9 The record, 
however, does not contain evidence showing that the Petitioner completed the aforementioned reviews 
or identifying the papers he reviewed for AERA. Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
occasional participation in the widespread peer review process represents a record of success in his field 
or that it is otherwise an indication that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also submitted documentation of his membership in the AACE. The record, however, 
does not include evidence demonstrating the significance or level of distinction of this membership in 
his field. Nor has the Petitioner established that his membership is sufficient to show a record of 
success in his research or a level of interest in his work from relevant parties signifying that he is well 
positioned to advance his proposed work. 
9 These assignments both indicated that while the Petitioner had accepted the reviews, he had not yet completed them. 
5 
With respect to the Petitioner's education, while his Ph.D. and two master's degrees from ~I -~ 
University render him eligible for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, he has not shown that his 
academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor. We look to a variety of factors in determining whether a petitioner is 
well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor, and education is merely one factor among many 
that may contribute to such a finding. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has conducted, published, and presented research during 
his graduate studies and professional career, but he has not shown that this work renders him well 
positioned to advance his proposed research and instructional design work. 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 proposed endeavor. 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, however, has 
not sufficiently demonstrated that his published and presented work has served as an impetus for 
progress in the educational technology field or that it has generated substantial positive discourse in 
the academic community. Nor does the evidence otherwise show that his work constitutes a record of 
success or progress in advancing research relating to instructional technology. 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 education, 
professional experience, and expertise in emerging instructional technologies. 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 second prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that he has not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6