dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Department of tiomeland Securit~ 
20 Mas\achusetts A\c . N W , Krn Ai032 
Wash~ngton. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
bile: WAC 04 029 50625 Office: CALIFORMA 
IN RE: 
Date: WOV 
Pctltlon: Petltlon for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Sectlon 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the Tmmigrat~on 
and Nahonallty Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
SELF- REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Thts rs the dec~slon of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that orig~nally declded your case. Any further lnqu~ry must be made to that office. 
Adminislrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 029 50625 
Page 2 
DISClISSION: The D~rector, California Service Ccnter, denied the petition for a nonimmlgrant visa. The 
matter 1s now before the Adminlstratlve Appeals Office (AAO) oil appeal. The AAO w~ll dlsmiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this non~mmigrant petitlon seeking to employ the beneficiary as an Z2-1A noninlmlgranl 
~ntracompany transferee pursuant to sectlon 101(a)(15)(L) of thc Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitloner is a new corporation organxed in the State of California that intends 
to operate a restaurant. The pet~tioner claims that it a subsidiary of Consultants. located In 
Makati City, Phlhppines. The petlttoner seeks to employ the beneficiary as rts pres~dent and general manager 
for a three-year per~od. 
The dlrector denled the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (1) that the pet~tioncr has a 
qual~fy~ng relationship with the fore~gn ent~ty; (2) that the beneficiary has been employed In a managerla1 or 
executive capac~ty w~th the fore~gn entity; or (3) the financial ab~l~ty to commence doing buslness 111 the 
United States. 
The pet~tioner subsequently filed an appeal in response to the denral on September 30, 2004. The dlrector 
decl~ned to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the 
pet~tioner states it wrll submit a bnef and/or evldence to the AAO withln 30 days. To date, no addit~onal 
evidence has been received. 
A review of CIS records Indicates that the beneficlary In this case is also the beneficiary of an approved 
famlly-based immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent restdent as of June 18, 2005. 
Whlle the petittoner has not w~thdrawn the appeal ~n this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficlary is 
presently a permanent resident and the issues In this proceeding are moot. Therefore, the appeal is dism~ssed. 
ORDER: The appeal 1s dismissed as moot.