dismissed L-1A Case: Telecommunications Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 ! ?m5 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
- 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant 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 extend the employment of its manager, finance and 
planning as an L-IA nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Virginia 
corporation engaged in telecommunications consulting, and claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's 
former foreign employer located in India. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of' stay to 
work in a new office and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition on August 18, 2003, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently 
filed a timely appeal. However, on April 27,2004, the director re-opened and approved the petition on service 
motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(i). 
Further, a review of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicates that this beneficiary in this 
case is also the beneficiary of an approved immigrant petition, filed by the same employer, and has adjusted 
status to that of a permanent resident as of December 2, 2004. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the 
appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the instant petition was approved subsequent to the filing of the 
appeal, and the beneficiary is presently a permanent resident. Accordingly the issues in this proceeding are 
moot and the appeal will be dismissed. 
. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.