A petitioner claiming extraordinary ability in the sciences, represented by counsel, was denied for lack of sustained acclaim. Counsel alleged arbitrary denial and promised further evidence but never submitted it, nor responded to a follow-up request. The appeal was summarily dismissed for failing to identify any specific error and providing no evidence.

A scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. Counsel claimed the denial was arbitrary and promised more evidence but submitted nothing, even after an AAO fax request. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified.

A kickboxing trainer and coach sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging. AAO found no awards nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in coaching, no evidence memberships based on outstanding achievement, articles not primarily about petitioner, and no reliable evidence of judging participation.

A medical technology company petitioned for a senior scientist in nanotechnology and biomaterials. The beneficiary failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or sustained acclaim. The AAO found achievements not significantly above almost all others in the field at national or international level and dismissed the appeal.