A director sought extraordinary ability classification in art. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner stated a brief would follow but filed nothing and identified no erroneous conclusion. The appeal was summarily dismissed for that failure, so no criteria were analyzed.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner filed no brief or evidence despite saying one would follow. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because it identified no specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact. No criteria were analyzed.

An athlete sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner submitted no statement identifying any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact, so no evidentiary criteria were analyzed or decided.

A petitioner in the sciences sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the petitioner said a brief would follow but submitted nothing and identified no error. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to specify any erroneous conclusion, so no criteria were analyzed.