Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

A Chinese language teacher at a private high school sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner claimed the beneficiary met two of eight evidentiary criteria through awards and professional memberships. The AAO found neither criterion satisfied because the awards lacked national or international recognition and the associations did not require outstanding achievement for membership.