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.

Employer-sponsored petition for beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary failed to meet three regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed because petitioner failed to provide specific arguments challenging findings or promised evidence within nine months.

An artist in the arts appealed a denial of extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because counsel provided no specific arguments addressing the director's findings, no evidence supporting the claimed criteria, and failed to submit promised additional documentation over ten months after filing.

A food manufacturing company petitioned for its beneficiary as an EB-1A extraordinary ability individual in business. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the employer failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions in the service center denial and provided no additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's qualification.