The petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. The director denied the petition, then dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not identify any specific error in the motion decision, and no extraordinary ability criteria were analyzed.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

A petitioner in the arts sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal, counsel only announced a future brief and never submitted anything or identified any error. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal without analyzing any criteria.

Performing artist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in the arts. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or additional evidence within seven months despite AAO request and warning.