A photography consultant sought O-1A extraordinary ability in the arts. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the service center director's denial, and no further documentation was submitted despite notice of opportunity to do so.

A petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary in the sciences but failed to file a detailed appeal brief within thirty days as promised. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specific identification of errors and failure to submit additional supporting documentation.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.

A beneficiary in the arts was the subject of an EB-1A extraordinary ability petition denied by the service center for lack of sustained acclaim. Counsel claimed misapplied standards and improper weighing of evidence but never supplemented the appeal. The AAO summarily dismissed because no specific legal or factual error was identified. No criteria were analyzed.