A clinical fellow in pulmonary and critical care medicine sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. The service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the appeal statement identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial, so no criteria were examined.

An arts professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel said only that the evidence was undervalued and promised a brief that never came. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

An arts petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied for failure to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or meet three regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact, despite counsel's promise to submit a brief.