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.

Self-petitioner in athletics (equestrian performer) claimed two criteria only. Director found failure on both original contributions and critical role criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

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.

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.