An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

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.

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.

Self-represented petitioner seeking EB-1A classification with no field identified. Petitioner submitted conclusory statement of confidence without arguments or evidence. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to address regulatory criteria or identify erroneous conclusions.