A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner submitted no brief, arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement was specifically identified.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal offered no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A denial without submitting briefs, arguments, or evidence addressing the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulation requiring specific identification of erroneous conclusions or facts.

Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, or addressing regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify erroneous conclusions of law or fact and lack of substantive response.