dismissed L-1A Case: Machinery Installation And Maintenance

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw- 
invasion of persond piprivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 02 246 50024 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
D7 
Date: HAY 1 2 2m 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (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. 
i obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
I Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 02 246 50024 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is engaged in the installation and maintenance of machinery. The petitioner filed 
this nonirnrnigrant petition seeking to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States as its manager pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the director erred by 
not issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent to Deny. 
A review of the records of the Citizenship and Immigration Services indicates that this beneficiary is also the 
beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident as of July 
13, 2005. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the 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 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.