dismissed L-1A Case: Plastering Contractor

"deamfm data deletea to 
pmveat dearly unwa 
4 of wrsonal 
PmEIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., NW, Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: 
 SRC 01 153 50277 
 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 2 7 Zm 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Robert P . Wiemann, Chief 
'Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 01 153 50277 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequently filed appeal. The matter is now before 
the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is described as a plastering contractor business. It seeks to extend its authorization to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had been or would be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity, and that the United States company and the foreign company are doing 
business. On appeal, the AAO found sufficient evidence that the U.S. and foreign entities were doing 
business, but dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On motion, counsel for the petitioner argues that the beneficiary qualifies as an executive under the 
definition contained in section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(44)(B). Counsel submits a 
brief and new documentary evidence in support of the motion. 
A review of CIS records indicates that this beneficiary is also the beneficiary of an approved immigrant 
petition, filed by the same employer, and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident status as of 
June 2005. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the motion in tlvs proceeding, it would appear that the 
beneficiary is presently a permanent resident and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, this 
motion is dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The motion is dismissed as moot.