A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied it for lack of sustained acclaim. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner filed no brief or evidence and did not identify any specific error. No individual criteria were analyzed.

A culinary arts professional sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the service center for lacking sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner filed only a short statement and no brief or evidence. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific error of law or fact.

A petitioner of unstated occupation, represented by counsel, sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. Counsel asserted misapplied standards but never filed the promised brief or evidence, even after an AAO inquiry. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.