A restaurant filed an extraordinary ability petition on behalf of a beneficiary, and the service center denied it. The petitioner indicated on the appeal form that a brief would follow but sent nothing and named no specific error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without examining any criterion.

A self-represented scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. The director found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal, the petitioner only asserted generally that more than three criteria were met, without elaboration or new evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific erroneous conclusion. No criteria were analyzed.

An arts professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel said only that the evidence was undervalued and promised a brief that never came. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

The petitioner is a research scientist in functional genomics who sought extraordinary ability classification after the service center found neither a major international award nor three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because she had since become a permanent resident through another petition.