Self-represented petitioner appealed EB-1A extraordinary ability denial without submitting arguments, evidence, separate brief, or addressing regulatory criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal per regulation requiring specific identification of errors.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. The appeal came with no arguments, brief or additional evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

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

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.