dismissed L-1A Case: Ice Cream Establishment

~dafadeletedto
~cJearlyunwllTInted
JftVasJonofJJehonaJprivacy
PUBLIC COpy
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 06 205 53582 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 7 2001
IN RE: 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. § I I Ol(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
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.
<:«:~ert P. WIemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 06205 53582
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 visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of
managing director to open a new office as an L-l A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section
101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I 1 o1(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner is
a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Florida and will allegedly operate an ice
cream establishment. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that
the United States operation, within one year of petition approval, will support an executive or managerial
position; or (2) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office.
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 L-IA nonimmigrant petition filed by the same petitioning organization, valid from
August 1, 2007 until July 31, 2008 (EAC 07 211 52529). While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal
in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is either presentlyin L-IA status or is able to apply for
the appropriate visa abroad, and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. I
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.
'u is noted that, in the appeal, the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or
statement of fact for the appeal. To the contrary, the petitioner argues that it corrected those deficiencies
identified by the director in the decision after the petition was filed. However, the petitioner must establish
eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). Since 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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.