An arts petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied for failure to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or meet three regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact, despite counsel's promise to submit a brief.

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.

Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not established. On appeal she only promised a later brief and evidence, which never arrived, and she did not identify any specific error. The appeals office therefore summarily dismissed the appeal under the regulation, without analyzing any criteria.