Petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO summarily dismissed appeal because counsel failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or facts, providing only general recitations without addressing director's specific determinations.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary in the sciences but failed to file a detailed appeal brief within thirty days as promised. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific identification of errors and failure to submit additional supporting documentation.

Artist in the arts seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact on appeal and submitted no arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria.

A business professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The director denied for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel offered only general assertions of extraordinary ability and abuse of discretion, promised a brief that never arrived, and the AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error was identified. No criteria were analyzed.