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.

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-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the director's determination that the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate achievements setting her significantly above others in her field at national or international level, thus failing to qualify.

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.