Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied for failure to establish sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel promised but failed to submit brief or evidence within 10 months. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for lack of specific argumentation.