dismissed L-1A Case: Educational Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services · 
MATTER OF S-W-H-T- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a 3-D educational development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as the chief operating officer of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of approval of the new office petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Petitioner claims to be a corporation doing business under the laws of the State of Washington. 
On August 16, 2016, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), we provided the Petitioner with notice 
of adverse information and afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence. 
Specifically, we notified the Petitioner that, according to the records at the Washington state website, 
the Petitioner's corporate status is "inactive." 
We also notified the Petitioner that if it is currently dissolved, this fact is material to its eligibility for 
the requested visa. Specifically, the Petitioner's dissolved corporate· status raises questions about 
whether it continues to exist as an importing employer, whether the Petitioner maintains a qualifying 
relationship, and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. 
See section 214(c)(l) ofthe Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). 
We allowed the Petitioner 33 days in which to provide evidency to rebut the finding that the 
Petitioner is no longer doing business and is currently inactive. More than 33 days have passed and 
the Petitioner has not responded to our request for a certificate of good standing or other proof that 
the Petitioner remains in operation as a viable business. Thus, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. 1 
1 Even if the appeal could be sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
Matter ofS-W-H-T- Corp. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-W-H-T- Corp., ID# 105366 (AAO Sept. 28, 2016) 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii) upon dissolution of the corporate entity. Accordingly, we find that the company's inactive status 
deprives this appeal of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the di~missal of the appeal as 
moot. See Matter of Luis, 22 l&N Dec. 747, 753 (BlA 1999). 
2