A beneficiary in the arts was the subject of an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. Counsel claimed misapplied standards and improper weighing of evidence but never supplemented the appeal. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific legal or factual error was identified. No criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in the sciences, and the director found sustained acclaim was not shown. The appeal form's basis section was blank and the promised brief and evidence never arrived. The AAO dismissed it summarily for failing to identify any error. No criteria were analyzed.

Self-petitioner in business sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact, as required by regulation, after more than ten months without submitting promised documentation.

A computer programmer, representing herself, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal she stated generally that her background was not fully considered and promised a brief that never came. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific legal or factual error was identified.