dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: 
JUN 1 5 2012 
IN RE: 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degrce or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find thc 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 madc to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be t()und 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.S(a)(J)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~a~~ 
~Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Ollice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal as moot. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in business. The 
petitioner, an automotive component manufacturer, seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president. 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in business, but that the petitioner has not 
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the 
United States. 
The record identifies as the petitioner'S attorney of 
record. The record, however, does not contain a properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of 
Appearance as Attorney or Representative, signed by both the attorney and by an authorized official of 
the petitioning entity. Specifically, there are several Forms G-28 in the record, but each shows a 
stamped facsimile o~signature rather than an original handwritten signature as required 
by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(2) specifies certain circumstances in which 
USCIS should attempt to obtain a properly executed Form G-28. In this instance, however, such an 
effort would be unproductive because the available evidence shows the appeal to be moot. Therefore, 
in the absence of a properly executed Form G-28, the AAO considers the petitioner to be self­
represented for the purposes of this decision. 
USCIS records show that, subsequent to filing the instant petition, the petitioner filed another Form 
1-140 petition seeking the same classification for the beneficiary (but with an approved labor 
certification) on September 21, 2011, with receipt number LIN 11 910 10713. The director approved 
that petition on February 29, 2012. The beneficiary filed a Form 1-485 Application to Adjust Status, 
receipt number LIN 12 900 65484, on October 20, 2011. The director approved that application on 
April 5, 2012. Because the beneficiary has adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, further pursuit 
of the matter at hand is moot. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, based on the beneficiary's permanent resident status.