dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics And Wholesale

- 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., NW, Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifjting dau deleted to 
pent cleariy unwanand 
Mop of pe3swal pivac) 
PUBLIC copy 
File: WAC 03 094 50471 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 2 2006 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
, WAC 03 094 50471 
Page 2 
\ 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on a motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner claims to be in the electronics and wholesale business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as its marketing manager as a nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee 
(L- 1 A) pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner 
states that it is an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer, located in Mexico. The director determined 
that the petitioner had not established that the petitioner and the foreign entity have a qualifying 
relationship. On motion, counsel for theypetitioner argues that the foreign entity and the U.S. entity are 
affiliates since the same individuals control both companies. Counsel submits a brief and new 
documentary evidence in support of the motion. 
A review of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicates that this beneficiary is also the 
beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition, filed: by tfie same employer, and has adjusted status to that 
of a U.S. permanent resident as of March 15, 2006. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the motion in 
this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiajr is presently a permanent resident and the issues in 
this proceeding are moot. Therefore, this motion is bismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The motion is dismissed as moot.