dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 29, 2023 In Re: 23944908 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as president under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an 
extended petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter oJChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n .2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as moot. 
The Petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(16)(i), we notified the Petitioner that, according to the records 
on the website at the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Petitioner has been 
dissolved sincel 12022. 2 We also notified the Petitioner that its dissolved status is material 
to its eligibility for the requested visa, as the dissolution raises serious questions about whether the 
Petitioner continues to exist as an employer, whether it maintains a qualifying relationship, and 
whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. See section 214(c)(l) 
of the Act; see also 8 C .F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). We granted the Petitioner 30 days in 
which to provide proof that the petitioning business had not been dissolved and is currently in active 
status . 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf. That petition was approved for the 
one-year period from December 28, 2020, until December 27, 2021 . A "new office" is an organization that has been doing 
business in the United States through a parent, branch, affiliate , or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the 
date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
2 See https ://search .sun biz.org/lnguutCorporationSearch /ConvertTiffT oPD F?storagePath =COR%5C2022 %5C l 229%5C9966 
9124.tif&documentNumber=l.______.(originally checked on May 4, 2023 , and rechecked on June 28, 2023) . 
I 
A response has been provided in the form of a statement from counsel, who claims that the Beneficiary 
continues to do business in Florida "on behalf of'' the Petitioner. However, no evidence was submitted 
to demonstrate this. Counsel farther claims that the Beneficiary was unaware that dissolving the 
corporation would adversely impact the instant petition and requests that we do not dismiss this appeal 
as the Beneficiary intends to "timely reinstate" the Petitioner's corporate status. However, the 
Petitioner has been dissolved for approximately I I and no evidence was submitted with the 
response to show that it actually filed for reinstatement, or that it has been reinstated. In addition, 
the Petitioner provided a copy of a document titled I I Business Tax Receipt," effective 
I2022, thus showing that the document was issued more than two months prior to the 
Petitioner's dissolution inl 12022. 
Because the Petitioner has provided no evidence to overcome the adverse findings listed in our 
previously issued notice of intent to dismiss, this appeal will be dismissed as moot. 3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Even if the appeal could be sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii) upon dissolution of the corporate entity. Accordingly, dissolution of the Petitioner deprives this appeal 
of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Matter ofLuis, 
22 l&N Dec. 747, 753 (BIA 1999). 
2