The petitioner sought O-1A classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. On appeal, the petitioner failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center's denial and did not submit the promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of substantive appellate argument.

A thoroughbred training and racing proprietor filed a petition for an internationally recognized athlete under the P-1A classification. The director denied it. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the petitioner never identified a specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact and submitted no promised brief or evidence.

An equestrian farm petitioned for O-1 classification of an athlete beneficiary in athletics. The service center denied the petition. On appeal the filer submitted only a general statement and no promised brief or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify a specific legal or factual error.

A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement of reputation and no brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific error of law or fact was identified.