dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-M-T-
APPEAL NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 30,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a special education teacher, 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 ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska 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 she 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 she is eligible for a 
national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
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 otTer 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. ~ 
Matter ofR-M-T-
(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 otTer-
(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definition: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that ofbaccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
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 
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 
.
Matter of R-A4- T-
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 \vaive 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 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 \Vaive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner qualifies as both a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree and as an alien of exceptional ability. The record includes a copy of her diploma 
from in Missouri, evidencing that, in 2012, she earned a Master of 
Arts in Education: Teaching & Learning. Thus, the record supports the Director's conclusion that 
the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification. Accordingly, we need not analyze her 
eligibility as an alien of exceptional ability. 
B. Eligibility under the Dhanasar framework 
The Petitioner proposes to continue her work as a special education and mathematics teacher at 
in Missouri. She indicates that she provides special 
education support to sixth grade students in four content areas including math, communication, 
science, and social studies. 3 She previously taught at 
In 
Missouri. She also states that she intends to assume a district curriculum leadership role 
"responsible for the school or district's instructional materials including the evaluation and 
development of educational programs, textbooks, classroom technology, and teacher professional 
development." Finally, she explains that she intends to conduct research in special education 
focusing on the deficits of students receiving special education services in the area of mathematics. 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
' 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 consider information about her position with to illustrate the 
capacity in which she intends to work. 
3 
.
,'vfatter of R-M-T-
The Petitioner contends that her training allows her to facilitate special education instruction "in 
order to provide children \Vith exceptionalities with the same opportunities as other children for a 
meaningful, purposeful, and fultilling life," and that her work will "promote student achievement 
and prepare them for global competitiveness by raising educational distinction, excellence, and 
ensuring equal access to education." The record includes letters of support and published articles 
discussing the benefits of her proposed areas of research and documenting the importance of special 
education in the United States. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's proposed work has 
substantial merit. 
With respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, we consider evidence 
documenting the "potential prospective impact" of her vvork. Throughout the record, the Petitioner 
reiterates that she intends to continue her work as special education classroom teacher and that her 
work teaching special education students offers benefits in the field of education. She explains that 
her work is "necessary to provide adequate interventions and support to such individuals ensuring 
that they acquire an education like other persons with average abilities." She references federally­
funded statutes such as the Individual Disabilities Educational Act, and the Family Education and 
Privacy Rights Act which provide for early intervention and special education services for identified 
students. 4 
In addition, associate professor at notes that "the 
overall outcomes of students with learning disabilities related to mathematics achievement is dismal 
and likely to continue to be deficient until educators like [the Petitioner] who has content expertise in 
mathematics begin to focus on students with special education needs." He notes that her work "may 
lead to potential creation of jobs by assisting the ability of students with disabilities to reach their 
full academic potential and advance the work and priority of the U.S. to educate and prepare all 
students to be college and career ready.'' 
The Petitioner's evidence, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that her proposed teaching 
endeavor is of national importance. While we acknowledge the merits of the Petitioner's work to 
improve the educational experience of her students, the evidence does not demonstrate that her 
instructional activities offer benefits that extend beyond her school or district to impact the field of 
special education more broadly. 5 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that these proposed 
activities satisfy the "national importance" element of the Dhanasar framework's first prong, we 
will limit the remainder of our analysis to her proposed research. 
4 We note that the relevant question is not whether the field of intended work has national importance; instead we focus 
on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." ld. at 889. For instance, in Dhana.sar, 
although we acknowledged the merit of "STEM" teaching in relation to U.S. educational interests, we found 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 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. 
4 
.
J..,faller ofR-A1-T-
To the extent that the Petitioner proposes to conduct special education research, we find the evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate that such research is of national importance. The Petitioner submits articles 
from the Department of Education and several peer-reviewed journals describing the need tor special 
education research. Thus , the record shows that research in this area stands to have broader 
implications beyond any one company or organization , whether through the development of special 
education practices and techniques or through research for dissemination to others in the field 
through professional journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the 
substantial merit and national importance of her proposed research , she meets the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. 
With respect to the second prong of the Dhanasar analysis, however, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated a record of success or progress , or a degree of interest in her work from relevant 
parties, rising to the level of rendering her well positioned to advance her proposed research work. 
See Dhanasar , 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's resume, 
professional memberships , training credentials , and documentation of her attendance at continuing 
education seminars. 
The Petitioner presented evidence that in 2016, she published four journal articles that discuss 
special education practices. 6 The record does not, however, include evidence that this work 
constitutes a record of success or otherwise renders her well positioned to advance her proposed 
research. For instance , the Petitioner has not presented sufficient documentation to illustrate the 
significance of her written work, or to establish that her research has been implemented, utilized, or 
applauded by those viewing it. 
On appeal , the Petitioner provides several letters discussing the importance of her research in the 
field of special education. For example, letter notes that the Petitioner's work is 
"very important, timely, and addresses an under developed area in our field." He comments that her 
work "has provided profound understanding of the dynamics of mathematics in the field of special 
education'' and that her contributions have been "widely appreciated and highly regarded." 
Similarly, assistant professor at notes that the 
Petitioner "is exceptionally trained in several interdisciplinary fields of special education that make 
her a uniquely strong researcher in special education and mathematics. " She writes that she was 
"impressed" with the Petitioner ' s research relating to mathematics interventions for students from 
disadvantaged backgrounds. associate professor of school psychology at the 
states that the Petitioner's work "is helping advance the tield' s understanding 
of how best to teach mathematics and her current role as a special education teacher is critical to 
support he implementation of best practices in mathematics for students with disabilities." He does 
not explain the nature of her contribution or offer sufficient detail regarding the study explaining 
how her work renders her well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
6 Although the Petitioner has stated that the publications in which her work appeared are high impact peer-reviewed 
journals , the record does not include evidence to support that assertion. In addition, we note that two of the submitted 
articles include identical abstracts and several sections of text in common. 
5 
Matter of R-M-T-
In sum, \vhile these and other letters attest that the Petitioner is respected by her peers, the authors do 
not sufficiently explain how her \vork has been influential among special education teachers, has 
served as an impetus for progress or generated positive discourse in the field, or othenvise represents 
a record of success or progress rendering her \vell positioned to advance her proposed research. 
Further, the Petitioner has not offered a model or plan for her future research activities. 7 She has 
generally stated that, in addition to her teaching duties, she will conduct research and publish 
additional research papers. However, the Petitioner has not explained the capacity in which she will 
do so, demonstrated the interest of relevant entities or individuals in funding her proposed work, or 
otherwise shown hmv she proposes to conduct her research. For all of the reasons discussed. the 
record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance her 
proposed research endeavor. 
Finally, with regard to the third prong of the Dhanasar analysis, the Petitioner has not established that, 
on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job otTer and 
thus of a labor certification. On appeal, she addresses the third prong of the Dhanasar framework 
with respect to her proposed teaching activities, and also states that "the issue of finding and keeping 
best-qualified researchers [in this area] far outweighs the need for labor certification." She does not, 
hO\vever, provide adequate evidence that on balance, her proposed research work necessitates a 
waiver of the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification. She has not, for instance, 
provided sufficient information or evidence outlining why a labor certification would be impractical 
in her case: whether the United States \Vould benefit from her research contributions even if other 
U.S. \Vorkers are also available; or whether urgency warrants foregoing the labor certification 
process. 8 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical frame\vork, 
she has not established that she is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest \vaiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-M-T-, ID# 1087384 (AAO Mar. 30, 2018) 
7 
See Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. 
8 We note that because the Petitioner has not established that she is well positioned to advance her proposed research 
endeavor(s) as required by the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, she is not eligible for a national interest waiver 
and further detailed discussion of the balancing factors under the third prong would serve no meaningful purpose.