dismissed L-1A Case: Gemstone And Jewelry Trading

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 09 038 51290 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 6 2010 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that orignally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 9 
\ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 03 8 5 1290 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its company 
president as an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a New York 
corporation, is engaged in gemstone and jewelry trading. It has employed the beneficiary in L-1A 
status since December 2007 and now seeks to extend his status for two additional years. 
The director denied the petition on January 22, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director 
erred in denying the petition and placed undue emphasis upon the size of the petitioning 
organization. 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services records indicates that this beneficiary is also the 
beneficiary of an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition filed by the petitioner. The 
beneficiary adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident as of November 13, 2009. While the 
petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is 
presently a lawful permanent resident and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, this 
appeal is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.