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.

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 self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the sciences, and the director found sustained acclaim was not shown. The appeal form's basis section was blank and the promised brief and evidence never arrived. The AAO dismissed it summarily for failing to identify any error. No criteria were analyzed.