dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
- ~, 
DATE: 
DEC 1 3 2013 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department i)f Homeland Sec~rity 
U.S. CitizeJ)s!Jip l!lld Immigration Ser'Vices 
Office of Administr.ative Appeals 
20 Massachuse.tts Ave .• N.W,. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S~ Citizenship 
aiJ.d Immigration 
Services 
FILl::: 
PETITION: 
1 
bnmigral)t Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the '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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new c:onstructions of law nor establish 
agency poiicy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied qu:rent law or 
policy to your·qse or if you seek to presem new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or il motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
1~290B) within 33 da.ys qf the date of this decision. Please reView th~ ForQJ I-290B instructions at 
http://www .usciS.goY/fcm:(ls for the latest. information on fee, filing location, and otber requirements. 
See aiso 8 C.F.R. § 103.~. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~~ 
Chief,Admmistr.ative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRF.:CEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the preference visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Admini~trative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss 
the ~ppeal as moot. 
The petitioner is an IT services and solutions corporation. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as • its 
·identity and security manager. According! y, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as ·an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section Z03(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and National.ity 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as .a multinational exe~utive or manager. 
The director denied fue petition '.after concluding that the petitioner failed to e.stablish that tb~ 
beneficiary was employed abroad of would be employed in the United States in a qu;llifying managerial 
or executive capacity~ Counsel for the petitioner subsequently filed the instant appeaL 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and lniniigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that while the appeal 
was pending, the petitioner filed a new iiJliiligrant petition (Form 1-140) on the beneficiary's behalf 
which was approved on. August 6, 2012. The beneficiary adjusted statUs to that of a U.S. lawful 
permanent resident on January 25, 2013. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this 
proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently a permanent reside11t apd the issues in 
this proceeding are moot. 
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 S:ee 
Matter of Luis, 22 I&N Dec. 747,753 (BIA 1999). 
OJU)ER: The appeal is dismissed.