dismissed L-1A Case: Business Systems

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 196 50250 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 0 4 2UU6 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
~ationalit~ Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 lOI(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. 
- 
.$ SRC 04 196 50250 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 nonimrnigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its directorlpresident 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. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Texas corporation, claims to be a 
subsidiary of Integrated Business Systems, located in Hyderabad, Pakistan. The beneficiary was granted a 
one-year period of stay in order to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend his status for a two-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established: (I) that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition; or (2) that the U.S. and 
foreign entities are qualifying organizations. 
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. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the director's findings and 
submits additional evidence 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 instant 
petitioner, and has adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident as of June 29, 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petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently a 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, this appeal is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.