dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Beauty Salon
Decision Summary
The appeal was dismissed as moot. The Administrative Appeals Office found that the beneficiary had already adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident through a separate petition. Since the beneficiary no longer needed the nonimmigrant status being appealed, the issues in the proceeding were considered moot.
Criteria Discussed
Managerial Or Executive Capacity
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
PUBLIC COpy identifying data deleted to prevent clearly unwarranted invasionofpersonal privacy U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 Washington, DC 20529 u.s.Citizenship and Immigration Services File: EAC 06 211 52949 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SlP 06 1001 INRE: Petition: Petitioner: Beneficiary: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) ON 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. ~ Robert P. Wiemann, Chief Administrative Appeals Office ~ EAC 06 211 52949 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant 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 general manager 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it operates a beauty salon. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of Gastromar C.M.M. CA., located in Venezuela. The beneficiary was granted a one-year period in L-1A classification to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend her status for three additional years . The director denied the petition on October 18, 2006, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes the director's decision and requests the petition be reconsidered. A review of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary in this case is also the beneficiary of an approved first preference employment -based immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident as of December 28, 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, the appeal is dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.
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.