dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive

pwc COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W , Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Imnaigration 
File: SRC 03 089 50889 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 8 4 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Robert P. wiernannAief 
- Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 089 50889 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant 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 employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State -of Florida that claims to 
. ,. ,\ , - 
operate an automobile distributorship. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary o 
Limited, located in Kingston, Jamaica. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-ye 
classification in order to open a new office in the United States. The Director, Texas Service Center, denied a 
subsequent petition requesting an extension of the beneficiary's status. The petitioner now seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as its president for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. 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 asserts that the beneficiary 
travels outside the United States frequently and is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the petitioner's 
business, as concluded by the director. Counsel contends that the director placed undue emphasis on the small 
size of the petitioning company and the fact that the beneficiary's subordinates may be employed on a part- 
time basis. Counsel submits a brief in support of the appeal. 
A review of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicates that the beneficiary in this case is 
also the beneficiary of an approved first preference employment-based immigrant petition filed by the 
petitioner, and was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident on March 14,2006. 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, this appeal is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.