dismissed EB-1C Case: Multinational Management

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 0 8 .2014 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigr ation Services 
Administrative Appeals Offic e (AAO) 
20 Massachu setts 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)(1 )(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1153(b)(1 )(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 constructions of law nor establi sh agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed as moot. 
The petitioner filed the petition 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 petitioner indicated on the Form I-
140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that the beneficiary would apply for an immigrant visa at 
the U.S. Consulate in Toronto. 
The director denied the petition on February 1, 2013. The petitioner filed a timely appeal on March 
7, 2013. 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that, on November 
27, 2013, USCIS approved a second Fmm I-140 filed by the petitioner on behalf of the beneficiary. 
While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the 
beneficiary has been granted the requested immigrant visa classification and the issues in this 
proceeding are moot. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds that the approval of the second Form I-140 in the requested classification 
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 (BIA 1999). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.