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.

Artist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact and made only vague assertions about proof standards without elaboration.

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.