dismissed EB-1C Case: Fast Food

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN f 0 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u • .._., .. V~JJUl UUt:Ut •n .I.HJUI~hiUU '-7C"Il.UlllJ 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
rl Ron Rosenberg 
'OActing Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on a 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO will dismiss the motion as moot. 
The petitioner is a Michigan corporation. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as president of its fast food business. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity in a managerial capacity and that the beneficiary is currently and will continue to 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Counsel for the petitioner filed a subsequent appeal. 
On appeal, the AAO found that the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to overcome the director's objections 
and to establish that the beneficiary works as an executive for the U.S. entity. However, the AAO affirmed the 
director's finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a 
managerial position for at least one year in the three-years immediately preceding his entry in the United States in 
nonimmigrant E-2 status. Consequently, the AAO dismissed the appeal. 
Counsel for the petitioner subsequently filed the instant motion to reopen and reconsider. A review of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary of this petition adjusted 
status to that of a U.S.lawful permanent resident as of April29, 2010 (A61 303 974). 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's adjustment of status deprives this appeal of any practical 
significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Matter of Luis, 22 
I&N Dec. 747,753 (BJA 1999). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.