dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 04 029 50625 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 g 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF- REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. A11 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,a 
/<&&-. * - " "" - " -2- " 
I-- 
- -~-" 
+- =Ly 
~obea. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 029 50625 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimrnigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a new corporation organized in the State of California that intends 
to operate a restaurant. The petitioner claims that it a subsidiary of Broad Vision Consultants, located in 
Makati City, Philippines. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president and general manager 
for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign entity; (2) that the beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity with the foreign entity; or (3) the financial ability to commence doing business in the 
United States. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal in response to the denial on September 30, 2004. The director 
declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the 
petitioner states it will submit a brief andlor evidence to the AAO within 30 days. To date, no additional 
evidence has been received. 
A review of CIS records indicates that the beneficiary in this case is also the beneficiary of an approved 
family-based immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident as of June 18, 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, the appeal is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.