dismissed L-1A Case: Household Textiles

iclemifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
iDvuioa ofJ)II"QJaI privacy
PUBLICCOpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm.3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 06 228 52537 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 06 2,."
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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.
c----~-~~
Robert P~nn, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscls.gev
EAC 06 228 52537
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 petition seeking to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary
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)(15)(L). The petitioner, a New York corporation, states that it is
engaged in the import and wholesale of household textiles. It claims to be a subsidiary of Rach Exports Pvt.
Ltd., located in Mumbai, India. The beneficiary has been employed as the petitioner's general manager in L­
IA status since 2002, and the petition now seeks to extend his stay for three additional years.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition.
The petitioner filed an appeal on October 17, 2006. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disputes the director's
decision and asserts that the beneficiary qualifies as a manager or executive pursuant to section 101(a)(44) of
the Act.
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicate that the beneficiary in this
matter is also the beneficiary of an approved employment-based immigrant visa petition filed on his behalfby
the instant petitioner. The beneficiary adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident on April 27, 2007.
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, the appeal is dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.