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.

A director sought extraordinary ability classification in art. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner stated a brief would follow but filed nothing and identified no erroneous conclusion. The appeal was summarily dismissed for that failure, so no criteria were analyzed.

A geomorphologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner promised a brief or further evidence but submitted nothing and identified no specific legal or factual error, so the appeal was summarily dismissed without any criterion being analyzed.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner filed no brief or evidence despite saying one would follow. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact. No criteria were analyzed.