dismissed O-1B Case: Pop Art

ide;;tic,4cg dsra ddc-!cd to 
prevent c: ?a:. iy ~t::*hi.i:rsn:~d 
invasicr! of pe:._c;:;~l prkvaq 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 06 116 53293 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NO\I 0 g 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
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 oEce. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
dministrative Appeals Ofice 
SRC 06 1 16 53293 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner is self-described as a provider of innovative design products and services. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as a multimedia marketing artist specializing in pop art. The petitioner filed the instant petition 
seeking to classify the beneficiary as an O-lnonimmigrant pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
The director denied the petition on March 16, 2007, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has achieved the requisite level of national or international acclaim as an artist. On appeal, counsel 
for the petitioner asserts that the director incorrectly applied the legal standard for 0- 1 aliens of extraordinary 
ability in the arts. 
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary in this 
matter is also the beneficiary of an approved first preference employment-based immigrant petition and has 
adjusted status to that of a U.S. permanent resident as of February 1, 2008. 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withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently a permanent resident 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.