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.

Self-petitioner for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification appealed denial. Petitioner failed to submit promised brief or evidence within 23 months and did not identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to support appeal.

Self-represented scientist filed appeal of extraordinary ability denial. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory standard because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no substantive argument or documentation.

A scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Appealing a denial, counsel asserted the petitioner met at least three regulatory criteria but offered only general assertions without specific evidence or addressing director's findings. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific errors or provide substantive appeal arguments.