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.

An arts petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied for failure to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or meet three regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact, despite counsel's promise to submit a brief.

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.

A self-petitioning sports management professional sought extraordinary ability classification after an earlier multinational manager petition was denied. The director found no major award and fewer than three criteria met. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no brief or evidence and identified no error of law or fact.