dismissed L-1B Case: Furniture Business

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunW8l1lD1lll
invasionofpeIIODI1pdvIICJ
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
pU8LICCOPY
File: SRC 04 172 50217 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HOV 06 2001
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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.
RO~~f
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
-.
SRC 04172 50217
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary in
the position of president and chief executive officer as an L-IB nonimmigrant intracompany transferee having
specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8
U.S.C. § l101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and
is allegedly in the furniture business.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be
employed in a position involving specialized knowledge.
The petitioner filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal
to the AAO for review.
A review of Citizenship and Immigration Services records indicates that this beneficiary is also the beneficiary of
an approved immigrant petition and has adjusted status to that of a permanent resident on May 16, 2006. 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the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently a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, this appeal is dismissed.'
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.
'Moreover, according to Florida state corporate records, the petitioner was administratively dissolved by the
State of Florida on September 15, 2006 and is not in good standing. Therefore, as the State of Florida has
forfeited the petitioner's corporate privileges, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in the
United States. This would call into question the petitioner's continued eligibility for the benefit sought if the
instant appeal were not being dismissed as moot.