Petitioner claimed extraordinary ability and appealed the service center denial of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal was summarily dismissed because counsel failed to submit promised brief or evidence, provided no substantive argument or additional evidence, and failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact.

A writer sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. The director denied the petition. On appeal, counsel offered only a general assertion of extraordinary ability, with no challenge to specific findings and no promised brief or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any error.

A petitioner described only as working in the sciences sought EB-1A classification, and the director denied the petition. Counsel's appeal promised a later brief that never arrived and did not challenge any findings. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error, without deciding any criteria.

An arts professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director denied the petition for lack of sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel said only that the evidence was undervalued and promised a brief that never came. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.