dismissed L-1A

dismissed L-1A Case: Technology Solutions

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Technology Solutions

Decision Summary

The appeal was dismissed as moot. A review of USCIS records revealed that the beneficiary had already adjusted their status to a U.S. permanent resident in 2004, making the issues in the nonimmigrant L-1A petition no longer relevant.

Criteria Discussed

Managerial Or Executive Capacity

View Full Decision Text

lIentifyiagd~t.~ dot.- to'
preveotcl~y _
iaYaIioftofpmooal privacy
p\J8LICCOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
b7
File: WAC 02 086 50268 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DateFEB J 6 2008
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON 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.
LRObert P. Wiemann,C ef
UAdministrative Appeals Office
'\\ww.uscis.gov
WAC 02 182 50402
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 appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its vice president
technology as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner is a business
technology solutions provider that operates in California as a branch office oW••••••••••
located in India. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status for a one-year period commencing on
January 11, 2001, and the petitioner now seeks to continue her employment for three additional years.
The director denied the petition on April 3, 2002, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
applicant would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
The petitioner, through counsel, filed a timely appeal on April 30, 2002, which included a detailed brief from
counsel and additional evidence to support the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would be employed in a
primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition.
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary in this
matter has adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident as of November 8, 2004. 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.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.