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.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and asked for reconsideration, offering no evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not described in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained acclaim. On appeal she only asserted a good reputation and requested reconsideration. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific legal or factual error and offered no new evidence.