Self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification but submitted evidence meeting only one of ten regulatory criteria. Counsel failed to brief how evidence related to requirements or address director's specific findings. Appeal dismissed for lack of substantive legal or factual argument.

A marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

A fashion model agency petitioned for a model under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. The approved petition was revoked after a support letter proved falsified. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the agency did not resolve the misrepresentation finding, and noted an itinerary concern. This is the arts category, not O-1A.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not described in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained acclaim. On appeal she only asserted a good reputation and requested reconsideration. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific legal or factual error and offered no new evidence.