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.

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.

Scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to submit a substantive brief or additional evidence on appeal within the required timeframe. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous legal conclusions or factual findings.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.