dismissed L-1A Case: Medical Supplies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 12, 2024 In Re: 30452528 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a medical supplies seller and distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its international sales manager under the L- lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification 
allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying 
foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center initially approved the petition, but later revoked the 
approval on notice, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as moot. 
The Petitioner claims to be a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Florida. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), we notified the Petitioner that, according to 
the records on the website at the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Petitioner's 
status has been "inactive" sincel I2024, based on the Petitioner's voluntary filing of Articles 
of Dissolution. 1 We also notified the Petitioner that its dissolved status is material to its eligibility for 
the requested visa, as the dissolution raises serious questions about whether the Petitioner continues 
to exist as an employer, whether it maintains a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. See 
section 214(c)(1) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). We granted the 
Petitioner 30 days in which to provide proof that the petitioning business had not been dissolved and 
is currently in active status. 
1 See https://search.sunbiz.or /In ui orationSearch/SearchResultDetail?in • it Narne&directionT e= 
Initial&searchN arneOrde 
(originally checked on April 22, 2024, and rechecked on June 12, 2024). 
More than 30 days have passed, and the Petitioner has not responded to our request for a certificate of 
good standing or other proof that it remains in operation as a viable business. Because the Petitioner 
has provided no evidence to overcome the adverse findings listed in our previously issued notice of 
intent to dismiss, this appeal will be dismissed as moot. 2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 Even if the appeal could be sustained, the petition's approval would be subject to revocation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii) upon dissolution of the corporate entity. Accordingly, dissolution of the Petitioner deprives this appeal 
of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Matter of Luis, 
22l&NDec. 747,753 (BIA 1999). 
2