The two purposes of the phase of the investigation described in this article are to: (1) follow up on some of the results of a multiple regression study by Pan, Sivo, and Goldsmith (2016) on learner perceived success in eLearning that is explained by four factors: perceived course management system support by the university (coded, USC), perceived course management system use by instructor (coded, IUC), perceived instructor use of course management system for communications (coded, ICC), and perceived affinity for technology (coded, AFF); and (2) explore plausible patterns of the four stated learner success factors in relation to student-expected, instructor overall integration of mobile technology for the past year (coded, IIT) in support of mLearning student success. Given the notion that student university experience is highly affected by their instructors' integration of technology in the curriculum, as noted in the survey research by Pan et al. (2016), the authors intended to answer this follow-up question, "Which learner group(s) will require more attention of the university administration in optimizing limited resources and creating efficient incentives resulting into a social outcome that is efficient and makes all concerned parties better off?" This is the goal of this study. Three research questions were framed and studied: (1) To what degree do eLearning students' USC, IUC, ICC, and AFF contribute to the most plausible learner profile?; (2) What does the sought learner profile mean in the context of instructor integration of mobile technology in learning (IIT)?; and (3) To what degree do USC, IUC, ICC, AFF, and learner profile predict mobile device ownership? The present stage of the investigation is supposed to benefit university distance education management team and related policy or decision makers.