dismissed
H-1B
dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed because the issue became moot. The beneficiary's application to adjust status to a lawful permanent resident was approved while the appeal was pending. As a result, the H-1B extension petition was no longer necessary.
Criteria Discussed
H-1B Extension Beyond Six-Year Limit Ac21 Section 104(C) Ac21 Section 106 Mootness
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
idemti&@ data daeted to prevent clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy PUBLIC COPY U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3000 Washington, DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration FILE: EAC 04 1 9 1 5 1 5 5 8 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER a: JUN 1 5 2006 PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) of the immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(H)(i)(b) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED . INSTRUCTIONS: This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All materials have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. Robert P. Wiemann, Chief Administrative Appeals Office EAC 04 191 51558 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. In a subsequent motion to reconsider, the director dismissed the motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed as the matter is now moot. The petitioner is an information technology consulting service. It desires a one-year extension of the beneficiary's H-1B classification under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), as amended by the 21" Century Department of Justice Appropriations Act. The director determined that the beneficiary was not eligible under sections 104(c) or 106 of AC21 for an extension of H-1B classification beyond the six-year maximum limitation. On appeal, the petitioner states that the director's decision was incorrect. A review of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicate that a labor certification application (Form ETA-750) on behalf of the beneficiary was filed on June 27,2003, and subsequent to the filing of the instant petition, the petitioner filed a Form 1-140 petition seeking immigrant classification on the beneficiary's behalf. CIS records Wer indicate that the petition was approved on November 23,2004. The beneficiary subsequently filed a Form 1-485 Application to Adjust Status, receipt number EAC-05-025- 50253, which was approved on April 27, 2005. Because the beneficiary in the instant petition has been adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, further pursuit of the matter at hand is moot. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed due to the beneficiary's adjustment of status to that of a lahl permanent resident.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.