A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

The petitioner sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. On appeal, the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not submit the promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of substantive appellate argument.

Employer petitioned for pattern maker and fashion designer under O-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the service center's denial decision.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no statement identifying any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact, so no evidentiary criteria were analyzed or decided.