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.

Self-represented scientist filed appeal of extraordinary ability denial. AAO summarily dismissed appeal under regulatory standard because petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no substantive argument or documentation.

A writer claimed extraordinary ability in the arts under EB-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal summarily because counsel failed to specifically challenge the director's findings or provide arguments addressing the regulatory criteria, and submitted no brief or evidence within the required timeframe.

A self-petitioner in sports management appealed a denial without identifying specific errors of law or fact. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal under procedural rules requiring identification of erroneous conclusions in the record, which petitioner failed to provide.