dismissed L-1A Case: Healthcare

idtfltifylng data hleted to 
pireveat aleady unwarranted 
inwsiar of -1 privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 02 183 53536 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN u 4 ZWI 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(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. 
&be d--* . iernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 183 53536 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 employ the beneficiary in the position of 
executive manager 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. 
 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of Nevada and allegedly operates a convalescent home. The director 
denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that the beneficiary had been employed 
abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; (2) that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial capacity in the United States; or (3) that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with 
the foreign employer.' 
The petitioner filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the 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 has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident on January 30, 2006. 
While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is 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 di~missed.~ 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot. 
1 
It must be noted that, according to Nevada state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Nevada 
was revoked on September 1, 2005. Therefore, as the State of Nevada has forfeited the petitioner's corporate 
privileges, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in the United States. If this appeal were 
not being dismissed as moot for the reason set forth above, this would call into question the petitioner's 
continued eligibility for the benefit sought. 
21t must be noted that, in the Form I-290B, the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. Since 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) requires the AAO to 
summarily dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact, the AAO would be obligated to summarily dismiss the current appeal if the appeal were 
not being dismissed as moot.