dismissed L-1A Case: Apparel Wholesale

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
-Y, 
File: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN i) ; 205 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
'ji4 Ro ert P. Wiemann, Director 
11 
drninistrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its vice president as an 
L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
New York that is engaged in the import and wholesale distribution of apparel manufactured in India. The 
petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Hems Apparel, located in Bombay, India. The beneficiary has 
served as the petitioner's vice president in L-1A status since November 1998 and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend the beneficiary's stay for an additional two years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal in response to the denial. The director declined to treat the appeal 
as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes 
the director's findings and contends that the director inappropriately raised issues in the decision which were 
not addressed in the request for evidence. Counsel asserts that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to 
establish that its subordinates are professionals. Counsel also contends that the director placed undue 
emphasis on the small size of the petitioner's staff without taking into account the petitioner's reasonable 
needs and use of independent contractors to perform certain functions. 
A review of CIS records indicates that this beneficiary in this case is also the beneficiary of an approved 
family-based immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident as of January 18, 
2005. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the 
beneficiary is presently a permanent resident and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, the appeal 
is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.