dismissed H-1B Case: Education

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and 1m migration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
FEB 0 6 2ui5 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
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 establish 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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
J�,0-
Ron RoPe�rg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition that is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed as the matter is now moot. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 1,400-
employee "Charter School" firm established in In order to continue to employ the beneficiary 
in what it designates as a "Science Teacher" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The director initially approved the petition. However, on April 12, 2013 the service center director 
issued a notice of intent to revoke in this matter. Subsequently, on May 14, 2014, the director 
revoked approval of the visa petition. The petitioner filed an appeal on June 13, 2014. 
A review of the records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicates that this 
beneficiary is also the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that 
of a lawful permanent resident as of August 13, 2013. Because the beneficiary's status has been 
adjusted to permanent resident, further pursuit of the matter at hand is moot. Therefore, this appeal 
is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is denied.