dismissed H-1B Case: Healthcare

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-P-H-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 28,2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a community health business, seeks to employ the Beneficiary and to classify her as a 
nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed as the matter is now moot. 
The Director reviewed the record of proceeding and determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Specifically, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary was exempt from the numerical limitation (the CAP) set for the 
H-lB visa classification. The Director denied the petition. 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that on a date 
subsequent to the denial of the instant petition, the Petitioner submitted a new Form I-129 on behalf 
of the Beneficiary. US CIS records further indicate that this new Form I -12 9 was approved. Bec.ause 
the Beneficiary in the instant petition has been approved for H -1 B employment with the Petitioner 
based upon the filing of another petition, further pursuit of the matter at hand is moot.
1 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite asMatter ofM-P-H-C- , ID# 12547 (AAO Oct. 28, 2015) 
1 We will briefly note that even if the matter was not moot , the petition could not be approved as the record does not 
support the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary would be authorized to concurrently work at _ in 
Connecticut and at the Petitioner's business location in Arizona. For example , the Beneficiary's employment 
agreement with does not permit "moonlighting" without written approval from its program director 
and the record does not contain such written authorization . Moreover , we contacted however , the 
hospital did not indicate that "moonlighting " or concurTent employment was permissible . Further , the Pe.titioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary could reasonably and concurrently perform the work described in each employer 's 
respective positions .