dismissed L-1B Case: Manufacturing

rdenwIlg data delw &, 
p~vat dearly unwm 
"vaston of wrsooal- 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 04 250 5 1868 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JV[ 1 8 zrn 
- - 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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. 
+--*--* -;J' 
obert P. Wiemann, C ef 
LAdministrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 250 5 1868 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic welding machineries and jigs. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its chief engneer. The director determined that 
the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary possessed specialized knowledge or that the proposed 
position required specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the petitioner satisfied the burden of proof in this matter and that the 
beneficiary does in fact possess specialized knowledge as defined by 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). 
A review of Bureau records indicates that this 
 o the beneficiary of an approved 
nonirnrnigrant petition, filed by a different employer, 
 and has been granted L-1B status for 
the period from May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in 
this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently authorized to work in the United States as an 
intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge and the issues in this proceeding are moot. Therefore, 
this appeal is dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.