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-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal she only promised a later brief and evidence, which never arrived, and she did not identify any specific error. The appeals office therefore summarily dismissed the appeal under the regulation, without analyzing any criteria.

A writer sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director denied the petition. On appeal, counsel offered only a general assertion of extraordinary ability, with no challenge to specific findings and no promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

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.