dismissed L-1A Case: Construction And Architecture

identifying..MIl: iI ..·
preventdeady 1 2 EI
invasiUliof u.,
PUBLIC COpy
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
--,
File: SRC 04 180 51422 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
JUl 06 2007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
~~
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 04 18051422
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 nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary in
the position of 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. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly a construction and architectural business.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the beneficiary will
be employed in a primarily executive or managerial capacity; or (2) that the petitioner has been "doing
business" in the United States.
The petitioner filed an appeal. The director declined to treat this appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal
to the AAO for review.
A review of Citizenship and Immigration Services records indicates that this beneficiary is also the beneficiary of
an approved immigrant petition and that his adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident was approved on
November 9,2005. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the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.